Rheumatoid Arthritis

Key clinical point: Baricitinib monotherapy was as effective as baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy with high drug retention rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting baricitinib monotherapy as a viable option in the case of methotrexate intolerance.

Major finding: The 28-joint Disease Activity Scores based on Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate were not significantly different at all time points over 96 weeks (log-rank P = .44) and drug survival rates at 1 year (69% vs 67%) and 2 years (62% vs 56%) were comparable in the baricitinib alone vs baricitinib+methotrexate arm. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 139 patients with RA who switched to baricitinib monotherapy or baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy because of high disease activity or intolerance to previous conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and other sources. Several authors reported receiving speaker honoraria or travel support or serving as consultants for various sources.

Source: Bayat S et al. Efficacy and drug persistence of baricitinib monotherapy is similar to combination therapy in patients with active RA: A prospective observational study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002674 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002674

Key clinical point: Baricitinib monotherapy was as effective as baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy with high drug retention rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting baricitinib monotherapy as a viable option in the case of methotrexate intolerance.

Major finding: The 28-joint Disease Activity Scores based on Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate were not significantly different at all time points over 96 weeks (log-rank P = .44) and drug survival rates at 1 year (69% vs 67%) and 2 years (62% vs 56%) were comparable in the baricitinib alone vs baricitinib+methotrexate arm. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 139 patients with RA who switched to baricitinib monotherapy or baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy because of high disease activity or intolerance to previous conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and other sources. Several authors reported receiving speaker honoraria or travel support or serving as consultants for various sources.

Source: Bayat S et al. Efficacy and drug persistence of baricitinib monotherapy is similar to combination therapy in patients with active RA: A prospective observational study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002674 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002674

Key clinical point: Baricitinib monotherapy was as effective as baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy with high drug retention rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting baricitinib monotherapy as a viable option in the case of methotrexate intolerance.

Major finding: The 28-joint Disease Activity Scores based on Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate were not significantly different at all time points over 96 weeks (log-rank P = .44) and drug survival rates at 1 year (69% vs 67%) and 2 years (62% vs 56%) were comparable in the baricitinib alone vs baricitinib+methotrexate arm. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 139 patients with RA who switched to baricitinib monotherapy or baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy because of high disease activity or intolerance to previous conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and other sources. Several authors reported receiving speaker honoraria or travel support or serving as consultants for various sources.

Source: Bayat S et al. Efficacy and drug persistence of baricitinib monotherapy is similar to combination therapy in patients with active RA: A prospective observational study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002674 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002674

Key clinical point: The use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs did not increase the risk for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) progression, except leflunomide, which increased the risk for ILD-progression in patients with severe ILD.

Major finding: Overall, the use vs no use of methotrexate, tacrolimus, or leflunomide was not associated with an increased risk for ILD progression; however, leflunomide significantly increased the risk for ILD progression in patients with reduced lung function (adjusted hazard ratio 8.42; 95% CI 2.61-27.15).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 143 patients with RA-ILD who received methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Seoul National University Hospital and Korea Health Technology R&D Project funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim J-W et al. Methotrexate, leflunomide, and tacrolimus use and the progression of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac651

Key clinical point: The use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs did not increase the risk for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) progression, except leflunomide, which increased the risk for ILD-progression in patients with severe ILD.

Major finding: Overall, the use vs no use of methotrexate, tacrolimus, or leflunomide was not associated with an increased risk for ILD progression; however, leflunomide significantly increased the risk for ILD progression in patients with reduced lung function (adjusted hazard ratio 8.42; 95% CI 2.61-27.15).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 143 patients with RA-ILD who received methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Seoul National University Hospital and Korea Health Technology R&D Project funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim J-W et al. Methotrexate, leflunomide, and tacrolimus use and the progression of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac651

Key clinical point: The use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs did not increase the risk for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) progression, except leflunomide, which increased the risk for ILD-progression in patients with severe ILD.

Major finding: Overall, the use vs no use of methotrexate, tacrolimus, or leflunomide was not associated with an increased risk for ILD progression; however, leflunomide significantly increased the risk for ILD progression in patients with reduced lung function (adjusted hazard ratio 8.42; 95% CI 2.61-27.15).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 143 patients with RA-ILD who received methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Seoul National University Hospital and Korea Health Technology R&D Project funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim J-W et al. Methotrexate, leflunomide, and tacrolimus use and the progression of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac651

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A biosimilar drug to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, marketed as Idacio (adalimumab-aacf), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States, according to a press release from manufacturer Fresenius Kabi.

Idacio is a citrate-free, low-concentration formulation of adalimumab and is now approved for use for all but three of the indications that currently apply to the reference adalimumab product (Humira): rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis in adults, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease in adults and children aged 6 years or older, ulcerative colitis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults. It does not apply to Humira’s indications for hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, or ulcerative colitis in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Idacio is the eighth adalimumab biosimilar to be approved in the United States. Its approval was based on evidence of a similar profile of pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity to Humira.

Idacio was first launched in 2019 and has been marketed in more than 37 countries worldwide, according to Fresenius Kabi. The U.S. launch is scheduled for July, and Idacio will be available as a self-administered prefilled syringe or prefilled pen.

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

A biosimilar drug to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, marketed as Idacio (adalimumab-aacf), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States, according to a press release from manufacturer Fresenius Kabi.

Idacio is a citrate-free, low-concentration formulation of adalimumab and is now approved for use for all but three of the indications that currently apply to the reference adalimumab product (Humira): rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis in adults, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease in adults and children aged 6 years or older, ulcerative colitis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults. It does not apply to Humira’s indications for hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, or ulcerative colitis in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Idacio is the eighth adalimumab biosimilar to be approved in the United States. Its approval was based on evidence of a similar profile of pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity to Humira.

Idacio was first launched in 2019 and has been marketed in more than 37 countries worldwide, according to Fresenius Kabi. The U.S. launch is scheduled for July, and Idacio will be available as a self-administered prefilled syringe or prefilled pen.

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

A biosimilar drug to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, marketed as Idacio (adalimumab-aacf), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States, according to a press release from manufacturer Fresenius Kabi.

Idacio is a citrate-free, low-concentration formulation of adalimumab and is now approved for use for all but three of the indications that currently apply to the reference adalimumab product (Humira): rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis in adults, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease in adults and children aged 6 years or older, ulcerative colitis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults. It does not apply to Humira’s indications for hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, or ulcerative colitis in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Idacio is the eighth adalimumab biosimilar to be approved in the United States. Its approval was based on evidence of a similar profile of pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity to Humira.

Idacio was first launched in 2019 and has been marketed in more than 37 countries worldwide, according to Fresenius Kabi. The U.S. launch is scheduled for July, and Idacio will be available as a self-administered prefilled syringe or prefilled pen.

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

Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.

LOOK PHOTO / Fotolia.com

“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.

“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.

Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed

In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.

A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).

“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.

They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.

Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.

A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.

“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.

From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”

The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.

Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.

LOOK PHOTO / Fotolia.com

“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.

“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.

Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed

In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.

A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).

“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.

They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.

Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.

A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.

“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.

From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”

The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.

Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.

LOOK PHOTO / Fotolia.com

“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.

“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.

Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed

In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.

A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).

“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.

They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.

Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.

A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.

“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.

From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”

The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Several studies have addressed the efficacy of COVID vaccines in patients with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases owing to the concern for possible reduced vaccine immunogenicity in patients who are immunocompromised or taking immunosuppressive medications. With the availability of additional booster doses for the COVID vaccines, the effect of immunosuppressive medications on the humoral response to mRNA vaccines has been of increased interest in terms of counseling patients on how to manage their medications and vaccine timing. Prior studies have suggested that holding methotrexate after COVID vaccine administration improves antibody response to the COVID vaccine. Stahl and colleagues performed a retrospective study to look at vaccine response to a third (booster) dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 65 years of age (vs those under 65 years of age) and found that patients over 65 receiving methotrexate had lower levels of neutralizing antibodies than did those receiving other treatments for RA, whereas no differences were seen with different treatments among patients under 65. Although COVID vaccine guidance continues to evolve, this finding raises the possibility of a need to tailor guidance in older patients with RA. However, the finding is far from conclusive given the small number of patients in the study.

In addition to COVID vaccine efficacy, the possibility of vaccine-related adverse effects has been a topic of concern in the rheumatology community, especially regarding the potential for a flare of autoimmune diseases. Anxiety regarding adverse effects may also exacerbate COVID vaccine hesitancy among some people. Naveen and colleagues performed an online international cross-sectional survey study regarding rheumatic diseases and 7-day adverse events. Over 9000 people completed the survey, about half of whom had autoimmune diseases (including nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases). Roughly three quarters of patients with RA reported adverse effects, with differences seen in frequencies of events between the different vaccine manufacturers. However, the majority of these adverse effects were minor (such as fatigue, headache, and body ache), without substantial differences between those with inactive and those with active RA.

The treat-to-target strategy is well-accepted in treatment of RA and pursuit of improved long-term disease outcomes. Hartman and colleagues evaluated the effect of using a treat-to-target strategy starting with the combination therapy with RA-light (COBRA-light) protocol (with initial methotrexate and tapering prednisolone) in early RA. Patients who were deemed at high risk for worsening RA (n = 150) received COBRA-light, whereas those in the low-risk category (n = 40) received methotrexate monotherapy. At 13 weeks, nonresponders were randomized to intensification or continuation of their regimens, with a primary endpoint of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) response and secondary endpoint of Disease Activity Score (DAS44). After 13 weeks, 73% of patients in the high-risk category achieved the targets of EULAR good response and DAS44 < 1.6, whereas after 26 weeks, 80% of patients who received intensified therapy and 44% of those who continued their regimens reached the target, though these numbers were small. Overall, the strategy appears to be successful in treatment of early RA in patients at high risk for disease progression, but it does lead to increased use of higher chronic glucocorticoid doses. In addition, the small numbers of patients in the low-risk category, as well as their less aggressive treatment, does not allow for a nuanced analysis of the best initial treatment in this group of patients.

Finally, a cohort study by Takanashi and colleagues evaluated the rates of seropositivity for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) in patients diagnosed with RA and its association with demographic categories. Seropositivity was associated with smoking and family history of RA, as expected. Among the 1685 patients, 83% of whom were women, older age at RA diagnosis was associated with seronegativity for RF and CCP in women but not in men. The decline in seropositivity with age among women cannot be further evaluated with the limited information in this small study and may have to do with other factors, including erosive or inflammatory osteoarthritis.

Several studies have addressed the efficacy of COVID vaccines in patients with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases owing to the concern for possible reduced vaccine immunogenicity in patients who are immunocompromised or taking immunosuppressive medications. With the availability of additional booster doses for the COVID vaccines, the effect of immunosuppressive medications on the humoral response to mRNA vaccines has been of increased interest in terms of counseling patients on how to manage their medications and vaccine timing. Prior studies have suggested that holding methotrexate after COVID vaccine administration improves antibody response to the COVID vaccine. Stahl and colleagues performed a retrospective study to look at vaccine response to a third (booster) dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 65 years of age (vs those under 65 years of age) and found that patients over 65 receiving methotrexate had lower levels of neutralizing antibodies than did those receiving other treatments for RA, whereas no differences were seen with different treatments among patients under 65. Although COVID vaccine guidance continues to evolve, this finding raises the possibility of a need to tailor guidance in older patients with RA. However, the finding is far from conclusive given the small number of patients in the study.

In addition to COVID vaccine efficacy, the possibility of vaccine-related adverse effects has been a topic of concern in the rheumatology community, especially regarding the potential for a flare of autoimmune diseases. Anxiety regarding adverse effects may also exacerbate COVID vaccine hesitancy among some people. Naveen and colleagues performed an online international cross-sectional survey study regarding rheumatic diseases and 7-day adverse events. Over 9000 people completed the survey, about half of whom had autoimmune diseases (including nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases). Roughly three quarters of patients with RA reported adverse effects, with differences seen in frequencies of events between the different vaccine manufacturers. However, the majority of these adverse effects were minor (such as fatigue, headache, and body ache), without substantial differences between those with inactive and those with active RA.

The treat-to-target strategy is well-accepted in treatment of RA and pursuit of improved long-term disease outcomes. Hartman and colleagues evaluated the effect of using a treat-to-target strategy starting with the combination therapy with RA-light (COBRA-light) protocol (with initial methotrexate and tapering prednisolone) in early RA. Patients who were deemed at high risk for worsening RA (n = 150) received COBRA-light, whereas those in the low-risk category (n = 40) received methotrexate monotherapy. At 13 weeks, nonresponders were randomized to intensification or continuation of their regimens, with a primary endpoint of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) response and secondary endpoint of Disease Activity Score (DAS44). After 13 weeks, 73% of patients in the high-risk category achieved the targets of EULAR good response and DAS44 < 1.6, whereas after 26 weeks, 80% of patients who received intensified therapy and 44% of those who continued their regimens reached the target, though these numbers were small. Overall, the strategy appears to be successful in treatment of early RA in patients at high risk for disease progression, but it does lead to increased use of higher chronic glucocorticoid doses. In addition, the small numbers of patients in the low-risk category, as well as their less aggressive treatment, does not allow for a nuanced analysis of the best initial treatment in this group of patients.

Finally, a cohort study by Takanashi and colleagues evaluated the rates of seropositivity for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) in patients diagnosed with RA and its association with demographic categories. Seropositivity was associated with smoking and family history of RA, as expected. Among the 1685 patients, 83% of whom were women, older age at RA diagnosis was associated with seronegativity for RF and CCP in women but not in men. The decline in seropositivity with age among women cannot be further evaluated with the limited information in this small study and may have to do with other factors, including erosive or inflammatory osteoarthritis.

Several studies have addressed the efficacy of COVID vaccines in patients with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases owing to the concern for possible reduced vaccine immunogenicity in patients who are immunocompromised or taking immunosuppressive medications. With the availability of additional booster doses for the COVID vaccines, the effect of immunosuppressive medications on the humoral response to mRNA vaccines has been of increased interest in terms of counseling patients on how to manage their medications and vaccine timing. Prior studies have suggested that holding methotrexate after COVID vaccine administration improves antibody response to the COVID vaccine. Stahl and colleagues performed a retrospective study to look at vaccine response to a third (booster) dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 65 years of age (vs those under 65 years of age) and found that patients over 65 receiving methotrexate had lower levels of neutralizing antibodies than did those receiving other treatments for RA, whereas no differences were seen with different treatments among patients under 65. Although COVID vaccine guidance continues to evolve, this finding raises the possibility of a need to tailor guidance in older patients with RA. However, the finding is far from conclusive given the small number of patients in the study.

In addition to COVID vaccine efficacy, the possibility of vaccine-related adverse effects has been a topic of concern in the rheumatology community, especially regarding the potential for a flare of autoimmune diseases. Anxiety regarding adverse effects may also exacerbate COVID vaccine hesitancy among some people. Naveen and colleagues performed an online international cross-sectional survey study regarding rheumatic diseases and 7-day adverse events. Over 9000 people completed the survey, about half of whom had autoimmune diseases (including nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases). Roughly three quarters of patients with RA reported adverse effects, with differences seen in frequencies of events between the different vaccine manufacturers. However, the majority of these adverse effects were minor (such as fatigue, headache, and body ache), without substantial differences between those with inactive and those with active RA.

The treat-to-target strategy is well-accepted in treatment of RA and pursuit of improved long-term disease outcomes. Hartman and colleagues evaluated the effect of using a treat-to-target strategy starting with the combination therapy with RA-light (COBRA-light) protocol (with initial methotrexate and tapering prednisolone) in early RA. Patients who were deemed at high risk for worsening RA (n = 150) received COBRA-light, whereas those in the low-risk category (n = 40) received methotrexate monotherapy. At 13 weeks, nonresponders were randomized to intensification or continuation of their regimens, with a primary endpoint of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) response and secondary endpoint of Disease Activity Score (DAS44). After 13 weeks, 73% of patients in the high-risk category achieved the targets of EULAR good response and DAS44 < 1.6, whereas after 26 weeks, 80% of patients who received intensified therapy and 44% of those who continued their regimens reached the target, though these numbers were small. Overall, the strategy appears to be successful in treatment of early RA in patients at high risk for disease progression, but it does lead to increased use of higher chronic glucocorticoid doses. In addition, the small numbers of patients in the low-risk category, as well as their less aggressive treatment, does not allow for a nuanced analysis of the best initial treatment in this group of patients.

Finally, a cohort study by Takanashi and colleagues evaluated the rates of seropositivity for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) in patients diagnosed with RA and its association with demographic categories. Seropositivity was associated with smoking and family history of RA, as expected. Among the 1685 patients, 83% of whom were women, older age at RA diagnosis was associated with seronegativity for RF and CCP in women but not in men. The decline in seropositivity with age among women cannot be further evaluated with the limited information in this small study and may have to do with other factors, including erosive or inflammatory osteoarthritis.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.