Rheumatoid Arthritis

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) as an oral treatment for active ankylosing spondylitis in adults, its manufacturer AbbVie announced April 29.

Upadacitinib, a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, is the second drug in its class to be FDA approved for ankylosing spondylitis, after tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in December.

Upadacitinib is now indicated for patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Upadacitinib is already approved by the FDA for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more TNF inhibitors. It also has been approved for adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

The European Medicines Agency gave marketing approval for upadacitinib in adults with active AS in January 2021.

Two main clinical studies form the basis for the FDA’s approval decision. The phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial involved patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). A total of 44.5% patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of at least 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at 14 weeks, compared against 18.2% with placebo.

The second study, the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 clinical trial, tested upadacitinib in patients who had never taken bDMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least two NSAIDs. In this study, significantly more patients randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib achieved ASAS 40 at 14 weeks, compared with placebo (51% vs. 26%).

Patients randomly assigned to upadacitinib also showed significant improvements in signs and symptoms of AS, as well as improvements in physical function and disease activity, compared with placebo, after 14 weeks. The safety profile for patients with AS treated with upadacitinib was similar to that seen in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Potential severe side effects include increased risk for death in patients aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor; increased risk of serious infections, such as tuberculosis; and increased risk of certain cancers, according to the company statement.

Read the complete prescribing information here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) as an oral treatment for active ankylosing spondylitis in adults, its manufacturer AbbVie announced April 29.

Upadacitinib, a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, is the second drug in its class to be FDA approved for ankylosing spondylitis, after tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in December.

Upadacitinib is now indicated for patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Upadacitinib is already approved by the FDA for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more TNF inhibitors. It also has been approved for adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

The European Medicines Agency gave marketing approval for upadacitinib in adults with active AS in January 2021.

Two main clinical studies form the basis for the FDA’s approval decision. The phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial involved patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). A total of 44.5% patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of at least 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at 14 weeks, compared against 18.2% with placebo.

The second study, the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 clinical trial, tested upadacitinib in patients who had never taken bDMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least two NSAIDs. In this study, significantly more patients randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib achieved ASAS 40 at 14 weeks, compared with placebo (51% vs. 26%).

Patients randomly assigned to upadacitinib also showed significant improvements in signs and symptoms of AS, as well as improvements in physical function and disease activity, compared with placebo, after 14 weeks. The safety profile for patients with AS treated with upadacitinib was similar to that seen in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Potential severe side effects include increased risk for death in patients aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor; increased risk of serious infections, such as tuberculosis; and increased risk of certain cancers, according to the company statement.

Read the complete prescribing information here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) as an oral treatment for active ankylosing spondylitis in adults, its manufacturer AbbVie announced April 29.

Upadacitinib, a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, is the second drug in its class to be FDA approved for ankylosing spondylitis, after tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in December.

Upadacitinib is now indicated for patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Upadacitinib is already approved by the FDA for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more TNF inhibitors. It also has been approved for adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

The European Medicines Agency gave marketing approval for upadacitinib in adults with active AS in January 2021.

Two main clinical studies form the basis for the FDA’s approval decision. The phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial involved patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). A total of 44.5% patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of at least 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at 14 weeks, compared against 18.2% with placebo.

The second study, the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 clinical trial, tested upadacitinib in patients who had never taken bDMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least two NSAIDs. In this study, significantly more patients randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib achieved ASAS 40 at 14 weeks, compared with placebo (51% vs. 26%).

Patients randomly assigned to upadacitinib also showed significant improvements in signs and symptoms of AS, as well as improvements in physical function and disease activity, compared with placebo, after 14 weeks. The safety profile for patients with AS treated with upadacitinib was similar to that seen in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Potential severe side effects include increased risk for death in patients aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor; increased risk of serious infections, such as tuberculosis; and increased risk of certain cancers, according to the company statement.

Read the complete prescribing information here.

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

Results of a meta-analysis carried out by a French team indicate that there is a link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and their children’s risk of developing certain neurodevelopmental disorders (autism spectrum disorder [ASD] and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). This meta-analysis is the first to separately explore the link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children.

According to its authors, these associations may result from exposure to environmental factors that contribute to autoimmune disorders, such as exposure to pollutants or cigarette smoke, and/or genetic predisposition, including genes relating to cytokines or to the HLA system.

Research is needed to determine the pathophysiologic links between these associations. This study suggests that there could be a shared mechanism between both parents, even though the maternal route seems to constitute an additional excess risk.
 

Why is this important?

Neurodevelopmental disorders are said to occur because of a close interrelationship between a person’s genes and environment. Immune-mediated adverse reactions may play an important role in triggering such disorders, as has been shown in associated epidemiologic studies and in animal studies. Autoimmune and autoinflammatory disorders are effectively characterized by the activation of the immune system, the circulation of autoantibodies, and the secretion of cytokines that are harmful to certain tissues.

Some relevant studies suggest a link between autoimmune disorders in the family or in the mother and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children. However, none of the studies have distinguished the influence of each of the parents so as to provide data that can be used to assess whether this association is more likely to be direct, and thus established during pregnancy, or rather genetic or environmental.
 

Main findings

Overall, the meta-analysis involved 14 studies that included 845,411 mothers and 601,148 fathers with an autoimmune disease, 4,984,965 control mothers and 4,992,854 control fathers. There were 182,927 children with neurodevelopmental disorders and 14,168,474 with no such diagnosis.

Globally, autoimmune diseases in mothers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27 [1.03-1.57]; P = .02; I2 = 65%) and in fathers (AOR, 1.18 [1.07-1.30]; P = .01; I2 = 15.5%) are associated with a diagnosis of ASD in children. Similarly, they are associated with an increased risk of ADHD in children (AOR, 1.31 [1.11-1.55]; P = .001; I2 = 93% and AOR, 1.14 [1.10-1.17]; P < .0001; I2 = 0%, respectively, for mothers and fathers).

In mothers, type 1 diabetes (AOR, 1.60 [1.18-2.18]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), psoriasis (AOR, 1.45 [1.14-1.85]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), and rheumatoid arthritis (AOR, 1.38 [1.14-1.68]; P = .001; I2 = 0.8%) were associated with a risk of ASD in children. These three conditions also predisposed children to the risk of ADHD (AOR, 1.36 [1.24-1.52]; 1.41 [1.29-1.54]; and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively, all P < .0001).

In fathers, type 1 diabetes considered in isolation was associated with a risk of ASD and ADHD in children (AOR, 1.42 [1.10-1.83] and 1.19 [1.08-1.31], respectively), while psoriasis (AOR, 1.18 [1.12-1.24]; P < .0001) is associated with a risk of ADHD in children.

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

Results of a meta-analysis carried out by a French team indicate that there is a link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and their children’s risk of developing certain neurodevelopmental disorders (autism spectrum disorder [ASD] and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). This meta-analysis is the first to separately explore the link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children.

According to its authors, these associations may result from exposure to environmental factors that contribute to autoimmune disorders, such as exposure to pollutants or cigarette smoke, and/or genetic predisposition, including genes relating to cytokines or to the HLA system.

Research is needed to determine the pathophysiologic links between these associations. This study suggests that there could be a shared mechanism between both parents, even though the maternal route seems to constitute an additional excess risk.
 

Why is this important?

Neurodevelopmental disorders are said to occur because of a close interrelationship between a person’s genes and environment. Immune-mediated adverse reactions may play an important role in triggering such disorders, as has been shown in associated epidemiologic studies and in animal studies. Autoimmune and autoinflammatory disorders are effectively characterized by the activation of the immune system, the circulation of autoantibodies, and the secretion of cytokines that are harmful to certain tissues.

Some relevant studies suggest a link between autoimmune disorders in the family or in the mother and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children. However, none of the studies have distinguished the influence of each of the parents so as to provide data that can be used to assess whether this association is more likely to be direct, and thus established during pregnancy, or rather genetic or environmental.
 

Main findings

Overall, the meta-analysis involved 14 studies that included 845,411 mothers and 601,148 fathers with an autoimmune disease, 4,984,965 control mothers and 4,992,854 control fathers. There were 182,927 children with neurodevelopmental disorders and 14,168,474 with no such diagnosis.

Globally, autoimmune diseases in mothers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27 [1.03-1.57]; P = .02; I2 = 65%) and in fathers (AOR, 1.18 [1.07-1.30]; P = .01; I2 = 15.5%) are associated with a diagnosis of ASD in children. Similarly, they are associated with an increased risk of ADHD in children (AOR, 1.31 [1.11-1.55]; P = .001; I2 = 93% and AOR, 1.14 [1.10-1.17]; P < .0001; I2 = 0%, respectively, for mothers and fathers).

In mothers, type 1 diabetes (AOR, 1.60 [1.18-2.18]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), psoriasis (AOR, 1.45 [1.14-1.85]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), and rheumatoid arthritis (AOR, 1.38 [1.14-1.68]; P = .001; I2 = 0.8%) were associated with a risk of ASD in children. These three conditions also predisposed children to the risk of ADHD (AOR, 1.36 [1.24-1.52]; 1.41 [1.29-1.54]; and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively, all P < .0001).

In fathers, type 1 diabetes considered in isolation was associated with a risk of ASD and ADHD in children (AOR, 1.42 [1.10-1.83] and 1.19 [1.08-1.31], respectively), while psoriasis (AOR, 1.18 [1.12-1.24]; P < .0001) is associated with a risk of ADHD in children.

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

Results of a meta-analysis carried out by a French team indicate that there is a link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and their children’s risk of developing certain neurodevelopmental disorders (autism spectrum disorder [ASD] and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). This meta-analysis is the first to separately explore the link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children.

According to its authors, these associations may result from exposure to environmental factors that contribute to autoimmune disorders, such as exposure to pollutants or cigarette smoke, and/or genetic predisposition, including genes relating to cytokines or to the HLA system.

Research is needed to determine the pathophysiologic links between these associations. This study suggests that there could be a shared mechanism between both parents, even though the maternal route seems to constitute an additional excess risk.
 

Why is this important?

Neurodevelopmental disorders are said to occur because of a close interrelationship between a person’s genes and environment. Immune-mediated adverse reactions may play an important role in triggering such disorders, as has been shown in associated epidemiologic studies and in animal studies. Autoimmune and autoinflammatory disorders are effectively characterized by the activation of the immune system, the circulation of autoantibodies, and the secretion of cytokines that are harmful to certain tissues.

Some relevant studies suggest a link between autoimmune disorders in the family or in the mother and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children. However, none of the studies have distinguished the influence of each of the parents so as to provide data that can be used to assess whether this association is more likely to be direct, and thus established during pregnancy, or rather genetic or environmental.
 

Main findings

Overall, the meta-analysis involved 14 studies that included 845,411 mothers and 601,148 fathers with an autoimmune disease, 4,984,965 control mothers and 4,992,854 control fathers. There were 182,927 children with neurodevelopmental disorders and 14,168,474 with no such diagnosis.

Globally, autoimmune diseases in mothers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27 [1.03-1.57]; P = .02; I2 = 65%) and in fathers (AOR, 1.18 [1.07-1.30]; P = .01; I2 = 15.5%) are associated with a diagnosis of ASD in children. Similarly, they are associated with an increased risk of ADHD in children (AOR, 1.31 [1.11-1.55]; P = .001; I2 = 93% and AOR, 1.14 [1.10-1.17]; P < .0001; I2 = 0%, respectively, for mothers and fathers).

In mothers, type 1 diabetes (AOR, 1.60 [1.18-2.18]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), psoriasis (AOR, 1.45 [1.14-1.85]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), and rheumatoid arthritis (AOR, 1.38 [1.14-1.68]; P = .001; I2 = 0.8%) were associated with a risk of ASD in children. These three conditions also predisposed children to the risk of ADHD (AOR, 1.36 [1.24-1.52]; 1.41 [1.29-1.54]; and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively, all P < .0001).

In fathers, type 1 diabetes considered in isolation was associated with a risk of ASD and ADHD in children (AOR, 1.42 [1.10-1.83] and 1.19 [1.08-1.31], respectively), while psoriasis (AOR, 1.18 [1.12-1.24]; P < .0001) is associated with a risk of ADHD in children.

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

Despite the improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) observed in clinical trials from early use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in a treat-to-target strategy, real-world use may be limited by stopping medications for various reasons. Burkard and colleagues used the Swiss RA registry to examine potential reasons for discontinuation of bDMARD and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARD) among over 2500 adults with RA who stopped these medications from 1999 through 2018. In this cohort study, patients were followed from date of discontinuation of their medication until restarting a bDMARD or tsDMARD. The most common reasons for discontinuation were nonresponse and adverse events; of these patients, over 80% restarted a bDMARD or tsDMARD. Only 8% of patients stopped due to remission; of these, nearly half restarted. The authors found a higher proportion of fibromyalgia among patients who stopped due to nonresponse and adverse events vs due to remission. Oddly, though 40%-50% of patients stopped for "unknown reasons" between 2002 and 2006, this proportion dropped to close to 0 after 2010; during the first time period, the proportions stopping medication due to adverse events and nonresponse were also low, suggesting possible misattribution of the reason for treatment cessation. As such, drawing further conclusions on association of different patient characteristics with reasons for treatment cessation is difficult.

The gap between control of inflammatory joint pain in RA and overall patient outcomes has come up frequently in recent studies. Gwinnutt and colleagues looked at patients participating in three European RA registries, comprising over 2500 patients followed over 8-10 years, and classified them as having high or low inflammation on the basis of Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and analyzed Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score trajectories as low vs high as a measure of disability. Overall, patients in the three registries had different trajectory patterns, though it appears clear, in keeping with other studies, that a subset of patients remain with high HAQ scores despite decreases in DAS28 scores. Older age; being a woman; and more pain, fatigue, and depressive symptoms were associated with higher HAQ trajectory in both the high and low inflammation pairs, suggesting that this phenomenon is not quite "excess disability" solely in patients with low inflammation.

An additional factor that increases morbidity as well as mortality in RA is frailty, which is associated with age as well as with RA (including people < 65 years old). Hanlon and colleagues examined the change in the "frailty phenotype" over time and its association with adverse clinical outcomes in people with early RA in the Scottish Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (SERA) and UK Biobank cohorts. Frailty was defined by different measures in the two cohorts, including elements of the HAQ disability index for SERA and self-reported fatigue, depression, and poor health for UK Biobank. The computed frailty index was higher in people with higher DAS28 scores and increased with age. Of note, frailty index values were higher prior to treatment initiation and improved somewhat with lower disease activity over time, though those with higher baseline frailty index values tended to have poorer physical function and disease activity over time. Understanding frailty in RA may allow us to better predict and prevent functional limitation, disease progression, and mortality in people with RA.

Of current interest is an observational study by van der Togt and colleagues on the response to COVID-19 vaccines in people with RA being treated with rituximab. Of patients who had previously been treated with 200, 500, or 1000 mg of rituximab prior to COVID-19 vaccination, those who received 200 mg  rituximab as well as those who had longer intervals between rituximab dose and vaccination had a better response to vaccination as defined by immunoglobulins (total, IgG, and IgM) against SARS-CoV-2. Although this study lacked a control arm of people being treated with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and did not evaluate COVID-19 infections or outcomes, its findings do suggest that dosage and timing of rituximab in people with RA should be studied further in regard to vaccine response and infection risk.

Despite the improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) observed in clinical trials from early use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in a treat-to-target strategy, real-world use may be limited by stopping medications for various reasons. Burkard and colleagues used the Swiss RA registry to examine potential reasons for discontinuation of bDMARD and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARD) among over 2500 adults with RA who stopped these medications from 1999 through 2018. In this cohort study, patients were followed from date of discontinuation of their medication until restarting a bDMARD or tsDMARD. The most common reasons for discontinuation were nonresponse and adverse events; of these patients, over 80% restarted a bDMARD or tsDMARD. Only 8% of patients stopped due to remission; of these, nearly half restarted. The authors found a higher proportion of fibromyalgia among patients who stopped due to nonresponse and adverse events vs due to remission. Oddly, though 40%-50% of patients stopped for "unknown reasons" between 2002 and 2006, this proportion dropped to close to 0 after 2010; during the first time period, the proportions stopping medication due to adverse events and nonresponse were also low, suggesting possible misattribution of the reason for treatment cessation. As such, drawing further conclusions on association of different patient characteristics with reasons for treatment cessation is difficult.

The gap between control of inflammatory joint pain in RA and overall patient outcomes has come up frequently in recent studies. Gwinnutt and colleagues looked at patients participating in three European RA registries, comprising over 2500 patients followed over 8-10 years, and classified them as having high or low inflammation on the basis of Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and analyzed Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score trajectories as low vs high as a measure of disability. Overall, patients in the three registries had different trajectory patterns, though it appears clear, in keeping with other studies, that a subset of patients remain with high HAQ scores despite decreases in DAS28 scores. Older age; being a woman; and more pain, fatigue, and depressive symptoms were associated with higher HAQ trajectory in both the high and low inflammation pairs, suggesting that this phenomenon is not quite "excess disability" solely in patients with low inflammation.

An additional factor that increases morbidity as well as mortality in RA is frailty, which is associated with age as well as with RA (including people < 65 years old). Hanlon and colleagues examined the change in the "frailty phenotype" over time and its association with adverse clinical outcomes in people with early RA in the Scottish Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (SERA) and UK Biobank cohorts. Frailty was defined by different measures in the two cohorts, including elements of the HAQ disability index for SERA and self-reported fatigue, depression, and poor health for UK Biobank. The computed frailty index was higher in people with higher DAS28 scores and increased with age. Of note, frailty index values were higher prior to treatment initiation and improved somewhat with lower disease activity over time, though those with higher baseline frailty index values tended to have poorer physical function and disease activity over time. Understanding frailty in RA may allow us to better predict and prevent functional limitation, disease progression, and mortality in people with RA.

Of current interest is an observational study by van der Togt and colleagues on the response to COVID-19 vaccines in people with RA being treated with rituximab. Of patients who had previously been treated with 200, 500, or 1000 mg of rituximab prior to COVID-19 vaccination, those who received 200 mg  rituximab as well as those who had longer intervals between rituximab dose and vaccination had a better response to vaccination as defined by immunoglobulins (total, IgG, and IgM) against SARS-CoV-2. Although this study lacked a control arm of people being treated with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and did not evaluate COVID-19 infections or outcomes, its findings do suggest that dosage and timing of rituximab in people with RA should be studied further in regard to vaccine response and infection risk.

Despite the improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) observed in clinical trials from early use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in a treat-to-target strategy, real-world use may be limited by stopping medications for various reasons. Burkard and colleagues used the Swiss RA registry to examine potential reasons for discontinuation of bDMARD and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARD) among over 2500 adults with RA who stopped these medications from 1999 through 2018. In this cohort study, patients were followed from date of discontinuation of their medication until restarting a bDMARD or tsDMARD. The most common reasons for discontinuation were nonresponse and adverse events; of these patients, over 80% restarted a bDMARD or tsDMARD. Only 8% of patients stopped due to remission; of these, nearly half restarted. The authors found a higher proportion of fibromyalgia among patients who stopped due to nonresponse and adverse events vs due to remission. Oddly, though 40%-50% of patients stopped for "unknown reasons" between 2002 and 2006, this proportion dropped to close to 0 after 2010; during the first time period, the proportions stopping medication due to adverse events and nonresponse were also low, suggesting possible misattribution of the reason for treatment cessation. As such, drawing further conclusions on association of different patient characteristics with reasons for treatment cessation is difficult.

The gap between control of inflammatory joint pain in RA and overall patient outcomes has come up frequently in recent studies. Gwinnutt and colleagues looked at patients participating in three European RA registries, comprising over 2500 patients followed over 8-10 years, and classified them as having high or low inflammation on the basis of Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and analyzed Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score trajectories as low vs high as a measure of disability. Overall, patients in the three registries had different trajectory patterns, though it appears clear, in keeping with other studies, that a subset of patients remain with high HAQ scores despite decreases in DAS28 scores. Older age; being a woman; and more pain, fatigue, and depressive symptoms were associated with higher HAQ trajectory in both the high and low inflammation pairs, suggesting that this phenomenon is not quite "excess disability" solely in patients with low inflammation.

An additional factor that increases morbidity as well as mortality in RA is frailty, which is associated with age as well as with RA (including people < 65 years old). Hanlon and colleagues examined the change in the "frailty phenotype" over time and its association with adverse clinical outcomes in people with early RA in the Scottish Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (SERA) and UK Biobank cohorts. Frailty was defined by different measures in the two cohorts, including elements of the HAQ disability index for SERA and self-reported fatigue, depression, and poor health for UK Biobank. The computed frailty index was higher in people with higher DAS28 scores and increased with age. Of note, frailty index values were higher prior to treatment initiation and improved somewhat with lower disease activity over time, though those with higher baseline frailty index values tended to have poorer physical function and disease activity over time. Understanding frailty in RA may allow us to better predict and prevent functional limitation, disease progression, and mortality in people with RA.

Of current interest is an observational study by van der Togt and colleagues on the response to COVID-19 vaccines in people with RA being treated with rituximab. Of patients who had previously been treated with 200, 500, or 1000 mg of rituximab prior to COVID-19 vaccination, those who received 200 mg  rituximab as well as those who had longer intervals between rituximab dose and vaccination had a better response to vaccination as defined by immunoglobulins (total, IgG, and IgM) against SARS-CoV-2. Although this study lacked a control arm of people being treated with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and did not evaluate COVID-19 infections or outcomes, its findings do suggest that dosage and timing of rituximab in people with RA should be studied further in regard to vaccine response and infection risk.

Key clinical point: Peficitinib reduced the progression of joint damage compared with placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded inadequately to prior methotrexate.

Major finding: At week 28/early termination, the mean change in overall erosion score and overall joint space narrowing score in patients receiving 100 mg and 150 mg peficitinib vs. placebo was 0.63 ± 2.03 and 0.18 ± 1.10 vs. 1.35 ± 3.01, and 0.99 ± 2.86 and 0.82 ± 2.39 vs. 1.90 ± 3.76, respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of phase 3 trial, RAJ4, which included 481 patients with RA who had an inadequate response to methotrexate who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg or 150 mg peficitinib or placebo, in combination with methotrexate, for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was initiated and supported by Astellas Pharma Inc. Y Tanaka and T Takeuchi reported receiving speaking fees, honoraria, research grants, or consulting fees from various sources. Five authors reported being employees of Astellas Pharma Inc.

Source: Tanaka Y et al. Post hoc analysis of clinical characteristics of patients with radiographic progression in a Japanese phase 3 trial of peficitinib and methotrexate treatment (RAJ4). Mod Rheumatol. 2022 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1093/mr/roac021

Key clinical point: Peficitinib reduced the progression of joint damage compared with placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded inadequately to prior methotrexate.

Major finding: At week 28/early termination, the mean change in overall erosion score and overall joint space narrowing score in patients receiving 100 mg and 150 mg peficitinib vs. placebo was 0.63 ± 2.03 and 0.18 ± 1.10 vs. 1.35 ± 3.01, and 0.99 ± 2.86 and 0.82 ± 2.39 vs. 1.90 ± 3.76, respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of phase 3 trial, RAJ4, which included 481 patients with RA who had an inadequate response to methotrexate who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg or 150 mg peficitinib or placebo, in combination with methotrexate, for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was initiated and supported by Astellas Pharma Inc. Y Tanaka and T Takeuchi reported receiving speaking fees, honoraria, research grants, or consulting fees from various sources. Five authors reported being employees of Astellas Pharma Inc.

Source: Tanaka Y et al. Post hoc analysis of clinical characteristics of patients with radiographic progression in a Japanese phase 3 trial of peficitinib and methotrexate treatment (RAJ4). Mod Rheumatol. 2022 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1093/mr/roac021

Key clinical point: Peficitinib reduced the progression of joint damage compared with placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded inadequately to prior methotrexate.

Major finding: At week 28/early termination, the mean change in overall erosion score and overall joint space narrowing score in patients receiving 100 mg and 150 mg peficitinib vs. placebo was 0.63 ± 2.03 and 0.18 ± 1.10 vs. 1.35 ± 3.01, and 0.99 ± 2.86 and 0.82 ± 2.39 vs. 1.90 ± 3.76, respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of phase 3 trial, RAJ4, which included 481 patients with RA who had an inadequate response to methotrexate who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg or 150 mg peficitinib or placebo, in combination with methotrexate, for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was initiated and supported by Astellas Pharma Inc. Y Tanaka and T Takeuchi reported receiving speaking fees, honoraria, research grants, or consulting fees from various sources. Five authors reported being employees of Astellas Pharma Inc.

Source: Tanaka Y et al. Post hoc analysis of clinical characteristics of patients with radiographic progression in a Japanese phase 3 trial of peficitinib and methotrexate treatment (RAJ4). Mod Rheumatol. 2022 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1093/mr/roac021

Key clinical point: Patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were at higher risk of developing nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) infection in mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) endemic areas.

Major finding: Patients with seropositive RA from an MTB endemic area, who were treated with vs. without TNFi were at a significantly higher risk for NTM infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.751; 95% CI 1.105-2.774), with females (aHR 2.108), patients aged 50-65 years (aHR 2.018), and patients without comorbidities (aHR 1.742; all P < .001) at higher risk of developing NTM infection after TNFi treatment.

Study details: This was a retrospective, population-based longitudinal cohort study including patients with seropositive RA. Of these, 1089 patients treated with TNFI were propensity-matched with 4356 untreated patients.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Park DW et al. The impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from Phase 3 trials. Sci Rep. 2022;12:4003 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07968-w

Key clinical point: Patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were at higher risk of developing nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) infection in mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) endemic areas.

Major finding: Patients with seropositive RA from an MTB endemic area, who were treated with vs. without TNFi were at a significantly higher risk for NTM infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.751; 95% CI 1.105-2.774), with females (aHR 2.108), patients aged 50-65 years (aHR 2.018), and patients without comorbidities (aHR 1.742; all P < .001) at higher risk of developing NTM infection after TNFi treatment.

Study details: This was a retrospective, population-based longitudinal cohort study including patients with seropositive RA. Of these, 1089 patients treated with TNFI were propensity-matched with 4356 untreated patients.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Park DW et al. The impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from Phase 3 trials. Sci Rep. 2022;12:4003 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07968-w

Key clinical point: Patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were at higher risk of developing nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) infection in mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) endemic areas.

Major finding: Patients with seropositive RA from an MTB endemic area, who were treated with vs. without TNFi were at a significantly higher risk for NTM infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.751; 95% CI 1.105-2.774), with females (aHR 2.108), patients aged 50-65 years (aHR 2.018), and patients without comorbidities (aHR 1.742; all P < .001) at higher risk of developing NTM infection after TNFi treatment.

Study details: This was a retrospective, population-based longitudinal cohort study including patients with seropositive RA. Of these, 1089 patients treated with TNFI were propensity-matched with 4356 untreated patients.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Park DW et al. The impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from Phase 3 trials. Sci Rep. 2022;12:4003 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07968-w

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed greater clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with tofacitinib vs. placebo over 6 months, with improvements sustained up to 12 months.

Major finding: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) total score, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep scale (MOS-SS) Sleep Problems Index I and II scores, and Short Form-36 Health Survey (Physical/Mental Component Summary) score improved significantly with both  5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib doses vs. placebo at months 1, 3, and 6 (all P < .05). Improvement in FACIT-F and MOS-SS scores were significantly better with 10 mg tofacitinib vs. adalimumab at 6 and 12 months (all P < .05).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of three phase 3 trials including 2265 patients with RA who received tofacitinib, placebo, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. C Murray, D Gruben, and DA Gold declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. Some authors declared being on steering committees, boards of directors, or speakers’ bureaus or receiving consulting fees or research grants from various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Bartlett SJ et al. The impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:83 (Apr 5). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02724-x

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed greater clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with tofacitinib vs. placebo over 6 months, with improvements sustained up to 12 months.

Major finding: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) total score, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep scale (MOS-SS) Sleep Problems Index I and II scores, and Short Form-36 Health Survey (Physical/Mental Component Summary) score improved significantly with both  5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib doses vs. placebo at months 1, 3, and 6 (all P < .05). Improvement in FACIT-F and MOS-SS scores were significantly better with 10 mg tofacitinib vs. adalimumab at 6 and 12 months (all P < .05).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of three phase 3 trials including 2265 patients with RA who received tofacitinib, placebo, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. C Murray, D Gruben, and DA Gold declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. Some authors declared being on steering committees, boards of directors, or speakers’ bureaus or receiving consulting fees or research grants from various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Bartlett SJ et al. The impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:83 (Apr 5). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02724-x

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed greater clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with tofacitinib vs. placebo over 6 months, with improvements sustained up to 12 months.

Major finding: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) total score, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep scale (MOS-SS) Sleep Problems Index I and II scores, and Short Form-36 Health Survey (Physical/Mental Component Summary) score improved significantly with both  5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib doses vs. placebo at months 1, 3, and 6 (all P < .05). Improvement in FACIT-F and MOS-SS scores were significantly better with 10 mg tofacitinib vs. adalimumab at 6 and 12 months (all P < .05).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of three phase 3 trials including 2265 patients with RA who received tofacitinib, placebo, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. C Murray, D Gruben, and DA Gold declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. Some authors declared being on steering committees, boards of directors, or speakers’ bureaus or receiving consulting fees or research grants from various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Bartlett SJ et al. The impact of tofacitinib on fatigue, sleep, and health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:83 (Apr 5). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02724-x

Key clinical point: Children of mothers, but not fathers, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were predisposed to the risk of developing multiple mental disorders.

Major finding: Children of mothers with RA had a significantly higher risk for autism spectrum disorders (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% CI 1.01-2.20), bipolar disorder (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.20-1.81), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.17-1.60), and major depressive disorder (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.05-1.37), with no risk for these disorders observed in children of fathers with RA.

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 23,981 RA-parent-child pairs and age-/sex-matched 239,810 non-RA-parent-child pairs.

Disclosures: This study received research grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen

Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chiu HJ et al. A nationwide study of the risks of major mental disorders among the offspring of parents with rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Rep. 2022;12:4962 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08834-5

Key clinical point: Children of mothers, but not fathers, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were predisposed to the risk of developing multiple mental disorders.

Major finding: Children of mothers with RA had a significantly higher risk for autism spectrum disorders (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% CI 1.01-2.20), bipolar disorder (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.20-1.81), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.17-1.60), and major depressive disorder (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.05-1.37), with no risk for these disorders observed in children of fathers with RA.

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 23,981 RA-parent-child pairs and age-/sex-matched 239,810 non-RA-parent-child pairs.

Disclosures: This study received research grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen

Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chiu HJ et al. A nationwide study of the risks of major mental disorders among the offspring of parents with rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Rep. 2022;12:4962 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08834-5

Key clinical point: Children of mothers, but not fathers, with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were predisposed to the risk of developing multiple mental disorders.

Major finding: Children of mothers with RA had a significantly higher risk for autism spectrum disorders (odds ratio [OR] 1.49; 95% CI 1.01-2.20), bipolar disorder (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.20-1.81), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.17-1.60), and major depressive disorder (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.05-1.37), with no risk for these disorders observed in children of fathers with RA.

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 23,981 RA-parent-child pairs and age-/sex-matched 239,810 non-RA-parent-child pairs.

Disclosures: This study received research grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen

Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chiu HJ et al. A nationwide study of the risks of major mental disorders among the offspring of parents with rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Rep. 2022;12:4962 (Mar 23). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08834-5