Rheumatoid Arthritis

Key clinical point: Under real-world settings, tofacitinib was not associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, the risk could not be ruled out in patients with prior CV disease.

Major finding: Tofacitinib vs. TNFi was not linked with a higher risk for composite CV outcome (pooled weighted hazard ratio [pwHR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.83-1.23); however, the pwHR for patients with and without prior CV disease was 1.27 (95% CI, 0.95-1.70) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.61-1.07), respectively.

Study details: STAR-RA is a multidatabase, population-based study including 1,02,263 patients with RA who initiated treatment with tofacitinib or TNFi.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. RJ Desai and SC Kim reported receiving research grants from various sources. All the other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Khosrow-Khavar F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221915

Key clinical point: Under real-world settings, tofacitinib was not associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, the risk could not be ruled out in patients with prior CV disease.

Major finding: Tofacitinib vs. TNFi was not linked with a higher risk for composite CV outcome (pooled weighted hazard ratio [pwHR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.83-1.23); however, the pwHR for patients with and without prior CV disease was 1.27 (95% CI, 0.95-1.70) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.61-1.07), respectively.

Study details: STAR-RA is a multidatabase, population-based study including 1,02,263 patients with RA who initiated treatment with tofacitinib or TNFi.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. RJ Desai and SC Kim reported receiving research grants from various sources. All the other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Khosrow-Khavar F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221915

Key clinical point: Under real-world settings, tofacitinib was not associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, the risk could not be ruled out in patients with prior CV disease.

Major finding: Tofacitinib vs. TNFi was not linked with a higher risk for composite CV outcome (pooled weighted hazard ratio [pwHR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.83-1.23); however, the pwHR for patients with and without prior CV disease was 1.27 (95% CI, 0.95-1.70) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.61-1.07), respectively.

Study details: STAR-RA is a multidatabase, population-based study including 1,02,263 patients with RA who initiated treatment with tofacitinib or TNFi.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. RJ Desai and SC Kim reported receiving research grants from various sources. All the other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Khosrow-Khavar F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221915

Key clinical point: Almost one-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) experience acute exacerbation (AE), which significantly affects overall survival.

Major finding: Overall, AE was experienced by 28.1% of patients with RA-ILD, with the 5-year cumulative incidence being 29.4%. The occurrence of AE was significantly associated with a higher risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.423; P < .001).

Study details: The findings come from a retrospective analysis involving 310 patients with RA-ILD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwon BS et al. Chest. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.01.007

Key clinical point: Almost one-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) experience acute exacerbation (AE), which significantly affects overall survival.

Major finding: Overall, AE was experienced by 28.1% of patients with RA-ILD, with the 5-year cumulative incidence being 29.4%. The occurrence of AE was significantly associated with a higher risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.423; P < .001).

Study details: The findings come from a retrospective analysis involving 310 patients with RA-ILD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwon BS et al. Chest. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.01.007

Key clinical point: Almost one-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) experience acute exacerbation (AE), which significantly affects overall survival.

Major finding: Overall, AE was experienced by 28.1% of patients with RA-ILD, with the 5-year cumulative incidence being 29.4%. The occurrence of AE was significantly associated with a higher risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.423; P < .001).

Study details: The findings come from a retrospective analysis involving 310 patients with RA-ILD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology. All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwon BS et al. Chest. 2022 (Jan 11). Doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.01.007

Key clinical point: Retreatment with a lower rituximab dose of 200 mg or 500 mg was as effective as 1000 mg in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded well to standard rituximab dose.

Major finding: Treatment response was not maintained in 11%, 21%, and 13% of patients in the 1000 mg, 500 mg, and 200 mg rituximab groups, respectively. Ultra-low rituximab dosage was not associated with the presence of antidrug antibodies at 6 months, and B-cell counts were not significantly different between the dosing groups.

Study details: The data comes from a preplanned secondary analysis of the REDO trial involving 140 patients with RA who responded well to the standard rituximab dose for at least 6 months and were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg rituximab.

Disclosures: The REDO study was funded by health insurance companies Centraal Ziekenfonds and Menzis, and this secondary analysis did not receive any external funding. The Sint Maartenskliniek (employer of 6 authors) has a patent application filed for rituximab in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica.

Source: Wientjes MHM et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jan 12). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac024

Key clinical point: Retreatment with a lower rituximab dose of 200 mg or 500 mg was as effective as 1000 mg in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded well to standard rituximab dose.

Major finding: Treatment response was not maintained in 11%, 21%, and 13% of patients in the 1000 mg, 500 mg, and 200 mg rituximab groups, respectively. Ultra-low rituximab dosage was not associated with the presence of antidrug antibodies at 6 months, and B-cell counts were not significantly different between the dosing groups.

Study details: The data comes from a preplanned secondary analysis of the REDO trial involving 140 patients with RA who responded well to the standard rituximab dose for at least 6 months and were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg rituximab.

Disclosures: The REDO study was funded by health insurance companies Centraal Ziekenfonds and Menzis, and this secondary analysis did not receive any external funding. The Sint Maartenskliniek (employer of 6 authors) has a patent application filed for rituximab in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica.

Source: Wientjes MHM et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jan 12). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac024

Key clinical point: Retreatment with a lower rituximab dose of 200 mg or 500 mg was as effective as 1000 mg in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded well to standard rituximab dose.

Major finding: Treatment response was not maintained in 11%, 21%, and 13% of patients in the 1000 mg, 500 mg, and 200 mg rituximab groups, respectively. Ultra-low rituximab dosage was not associated with the presence of antidrug antibodies at 6 months, and B-cell counts were not significantly different between the dosing groups.

Study details: The data comes from a preplanned secondary analysis of the REDO trial involving 140 patients with RA who responded well to the standard rituximab dose for at least 6 months and were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg rituximab.

Disclosures: The REDO study was funded by health insurance companies Centraal Ziekenfonds and Menzis, and this secondary analysis did not receive any external funding. The Sint Maartenskliniek (employer of 6 authors) has a patent application filed for rituximab in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica.

Source: Wientjes MHM et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jan 12). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac024

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib was associated with a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancer than tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 4 years, the combined tofacitinib doses vs. TNF inhibitors were associated with a higher incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% CI 0.91-1.94) and cancer (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.04-2.09), not meeting the predefined criteria for noninferiority.

Study details: The findings come from the noninferiority, phase 3b-4, safety end-point ORAL Surveillance trial involving 4,362 patients aged 50 years or older with at least 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor who had active RA despite methotrexate treatment. The patients were randomly assigned to 5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily or a TNF inhibitor.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer. Some of the authors declared being employees or holding stocks at Pfizer, whereas some others declared serving as a consultant or receiving grants from various sources.

Source: Ytterberg SR et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:316-326 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109927

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib was associated with a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancer than tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 4 years, the combined tofacitinib doses vs. TNF inhibitors were associated with a higher incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% CI 0.91-1.94) and cancer (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.04-2.09), not meeting the predefined criteria for noninferiority.

Study details: The findings come from the noninferiority, phase 3b-4, safety end-point ORAL Surveillance trial involving 4,362 patients aged 50 years or older with at least 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor who had active RA despite methotrexate treatment. The patients were randomly assigned to 5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily or a TNF inhibitor.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer. Some of the authors declared being employees or holding stocks at Pfizer, whereas some others declared serving as a consultant or receiving grants from various sources.

Source: Ytterberg SR et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:316-326 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109927

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib was associated with a higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancer than tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 4 years, the combined tofacitinib doses vs. TNF inhibitors were associated with a higher incidence of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% CI 0.91-1.94) and cancer (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.04-2.09), not meeting the predefined criteria for noninferiority.

Study details: The findings come from the noninferiority, phase 3b-4, safety end-point ORAL Surveillance trial involving 4,362 patients aged 50 years or older with at least 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor who had active RA despite methotrexate treatment. The patients were randomly assigned to 5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily or a TNF inhibitor.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer. Some of the authors declared being employees or holding stocks at Pfizer, whereas some others declared serving as a consultant or receiving grants from various sources.

Source: Ytterberg SR et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:316-326 (Jan 27). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2109927

The roots of treat-to-target (T2T) in rheumatology extend back over 30 years to the development of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score. Although it has been shown to be effective in clinical trials and has been included in guidelines, it has yet to be widely adopted in practice. The question remains: What is the role of T2T in rheumatology?

That’s what Jack Cush, MD, and Martin Bergman, MD, sought to answer in a point-counterpoint session at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

“I do think that this is a concept we need to keep in mind, and it is a concept whose time is long overdue,” Dr. Bergman said in his presentation arguing in favor of T2T. “As good as you think you are – your ability to see the patient and determine how they’re doing – you’re not.”

But metrics alone are not enough to make clinical decisions, said Dr. Bergman, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, citing a recommendation from 2014 recommendations on T2T published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “You don’t just follow a number. You have to take into consideration structural changes, functional impairment, comorbidities – and that’s going to adjust how you approach your patient and what you do with them.”

However, implementation of T2T to make changes in clinical practice in RA has been inconsistent. Referencing an abstract from the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting on 15-year follow-up for changing therapy in RA, Dr. Bergman argued it is not the patient who is unwilling to switch treatments. Between 2006 and 2021, patient unwillingness to change therapies decreased from 64% to 51%.

“What’s driving it mostly here [is] the doctor’s recommendation,” Dr. Bergman said. “And we know this is true because we’ve seen it in other studies.”

Many rheumatologists are “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to administering T2T, he said. “What we need to do is, after we wake up from this nap, we need to get back on the highway and drive to where we should be, which is treat-to-target.”

Dr. Bergman also shared his paradigm for administering T2T, which he noted does not typically take more than a few minutes to administer regardless of the measure chosen. “Pick a measure. I don’t care which measure you take. I personally use two: I like the RAPID3 and the CDAI,” he said. “But then, after you have the measure, evaluate the entire patient. Don’t just look at the number. Look at the patient, what’s going on, solid history, solid physical. And most importantly: Be a doctor, don’t be a computer screen.”

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

Dr. Cush, who admitted early in his presentation that he is in favor of T2T, delivered his counterpoint somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, he pointed out that there are several concerns about the goals in measuring outcomes in RA with T2T.

The goal in RA is disease remission, but how you define remission can vary, especially since sometimes there is evidence of synovitis or other disease activity visible through an exam or imaging, said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, and executive editor of RheumNow.com. Most of the evidence for T2T is in clinical trials, but adoption is inconsistent in clinical practice, and patients in general appear to be improving without widespread adoption, he argued.

“Are clinical trials the same as clinical practice?” he asked. “I think that this boils down to: Is this a quest for remissions, or the best-you-can-get, low disease activity state? Or is this a quest for physician change, which is actually the path you have to go through to get to remissions?”

“In the end, evidence that the metrics should drive prescribing, especially in private practice is, I think, lacking,” he said.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Roy Fleischmann, MD, agreed with Dr. Cush’s point of how one defines disease remission, as well as Dr. Bergman’s paradigm for T2T. “If you’re a good rheumatologist, you really do examine joints,” but you also “take a look at patient function, patient global [assessment], your global [assessment], joint count,” he said. “You can put a number to it, but you have to take a look at all of that. Really, treat-to-target – it is all of that. It isn’t just looking at a number, it’s looking at everything. And the better that the patient can do, assuming comorbidities and everything else, the better it is.”

“The problem isn’t the patient. The problem isn’t the metric. The problem is the rheumatologist, because the rheumatologist isn’t putting in enough effort in order to reach that goal,” added Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, also in in Dallas.

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that T2T is “great for somebody who’s been doing it for a while, and seeing a lot of patients and has that comfort zone,” but he questioned whether new rheumatologists without a lot of clinical experience could apply the approach. “What information do they use to integrate, and how do they get to that point?” he asked. “I don’t have the answer to that.”

During a rebuttal, Dr. Bergman pushed back on the idea that clinical experience alone was enough. “You need something. You need a benchmark. You need something more than, ‘I say so.’ ”

“The problem is, we still haven’t convinced people to adopt them,” Dr. Bergman said. “And I think it’s failure of training because, in my opinion, I don’t know how you can do a modern current fellowship program and not teach metrics.”

Dr. Cush and Dr. Bergman used the same trials to argue for their side. “I think that us using the same slides, but maybe having different points, speaks to the problem,” Dr. Cush said. “And I choose not to make it the problem of the rheumatologists.”

“You’re in the field of pattern recognition,” Dr. Cush argued. “It’s a visual art. You can have all the numbers you want. You make the most of your decisions based on pattern recognition, which is not rooted in metrics, and that’s why you’re successful at what you do.

“I am a big believer in T2T, but I think you have to measure something, and you have to use it,” Dr. Cush closed. “And the problem is, we can’t be forced into this.”

Dr. Bergman and Dr. Cush reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The roots of treat-to-target (T2T) in rheumatology extend back over 30 years to the development of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score. Although it has been shown to be effective in clinical trials and has been included in guidelines, it has yet to be widely adopted in practice. The question remains: What is the role of T2T in rheumatology?

That’s what Jack Cush, MD, and Martin Bergman, MD, sought to answer in a point-counterpoint session at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

“I do think that this is a concept we need to keep in mind, and it is a concept whose time is long overdue,” Dr. Bergman said in his presentation arguing in favor of T2T. “As good as you think you are – your ability to see the patient and determine how they’re doing – you’re not.”

But metrics alone are not enough to make clinical decisions, said Dr. Bergman, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, citing a recommendation from 2014 recommendations on T2T published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “You don’t just follow a number. You have to take into consideration structural changes, functional impairment, comorbidities – and that’s going to adjust how you approach your patient and what you do with them.”

However, implementation of T2T to make changes in clinical practice in RA has been inconsistent. Referencing an abstract from the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting on 15-year follow-up for changing therapy in RA, Dr. Bergman argued it is not the patient who is unwilling to switch treatments. Between 2006 and 2021, patient unwillingness to change therapies decreased from 64% to 51%.

“What’s driving it mostly here [is] the doctor’s recommendation,” Dr. Bergman said. “And we know this is true because we’ve seen it in other studies.”

Many rheumatologists are “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to administering T2T, he said. “What we need to do is, after we wake up from this nap, we need to get back on the highway and drive to where we should be, which is treat-to-target.”

Dr. Bergman also shared his paradigm for administering T2T, which he noted does not typically take more than a few minutes to administer regardless of the measure chosen. “Pick a measure. I don’t care which measure you take. I personally use two: I like the RAPID3 and the CDAI,” he said. “But then, after you have the measure, evaluate the entire patient. Don’t just look at the number. Look at the patient, what’s going on, solid history, solid physical. And most importantly: Be a doctor, don’t be a computer screen.”

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

Dr. Cush, who admitted early in his presentation that he is in favor of T2T, delivered his counterpoint somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, he pointed out that there are several concerns about the goals in measuring outcomes in RA with T2T.

The goal in RA is disease remission, but how you define remission can vary, especially since sometimes there is evidence of synovitis or other disease activity visible through an exam or imaging, said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, and executive editor of RheumNow.com. Most of the evidence for T2T is in clinical trials, but adoption is inconsistent in clinical practice, and patients in general appear to be improving without widespread adoption, he argued.

“Are clinical trials the same as clinical practice?” he asked. “I think that this boils down to: Is this a quest for remissions, or the best-you-can-get, low disease activity state? Or is this a quest for physician change, which is actually the path you have to go through to get to remissions?”

“In the end, evidence that the metrics should drive prescribing, especially in private practice is, I think, lacking,” he said.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Roy Fleischmann, MD, agreed with Dr. Cush’s point of how one defines disease remission, as well as Dr. Bergman’s paradigm for T2T. “If you’re a good rheumatologist, you really do examine joints,” but you also “take a look at patient function, patient global [assessment], your global [assessment], joint count,” he said. “You can put a number to it, but you have to take a look at all of that. Really, treat-to-target – it is all of that. It isn’t just looking at a number, it’s looking at everything. And the better that the patient can do, assuming comorbidities and everything else, the better it is.”

“The problem isn’t the patient. The problem isn’t the metric. The problem is the rheumatologist, because the rheumatologist isn’t putting in enough effort in order to reach that goal,” added Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, also in in Dallas.

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that T2T is “great for somebody who’s been doing it for a while, and seeing a lot of patients and has that comfort zone,” but he questioned whether new rheumatologists without a lot of clinical experience could apply the approach. “What information do they use to integrate, and how do they get to that point?” he asked. “I don’t have the answer to that.”

During a rebuttal, Dr. Bergman pushed back on the idea that clinical experience alone was enough. “You need something. You need a benchmark. You need something more than, ‘I say so.’ ”

“The problem is, we still haven’t convinced people to adopt them,” Dr. Bergman said. “And I think it’s failure of training because, in my opinion, I don’t know how you can do a modern current fellowship program and not teach metrics.”

Dr. Cush and Dr. Bergman used the same trials to argue for their side. “I think that us using the same slides, but maybe having different points, speaks to the problem,” Dr. Cush said. “And I choose not to make it the problem of the rheumatologists.”

“You’re in the field of pattern recognition,” Dr. Cush argued. “It’s a visual art. You can have all the numbers you want. You make the most of your decisions based on pattern recognition, which is not rooted in metrics, and that’s why you’re successful at what you do.

“I am a big believer in T2T, but I think you have to measure something, and you have to use it,” Dr. Cush closed. “And the problem is, we can’t be forced into this.”

Dr. Bergman and Dr. Cush reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The roots of treat-to-target (T2T) in rheumatology extend back over 30 years to the development of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score. Although it has been shown to be effective in clinical trials and has been included in guidelines, it has yet to be widely adopted in practice. The question remains: What is the role of T2T in rheumatology?

That’s what Jack Cush, MD, and Martin Bergman, MD, sought to answer in a point-counterpoint session at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

“I do think that this is a concept we need to keep in mind, and it is a concept whose time is long overdue,” Dr. Bergman said in his presentation arguing in favor of T2T. “As good as you think you are – your ability to see the patient and determine how they’re doing – you’re not.”

But metrics alone are not enough to make clinical decisions, said Dr. Bergman, clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia, citing a recommendation from 2014 recommendations on T2T published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “You don’t just follow a number. You have to take into consideration structural changes, functional impairment, comorbidities – and that’s going to adjust how you approach your patient and what you do with them.”

However, implementation of T2T to make changes in clinical practice in RA has been inconsistent. Referencing an abstract from the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting on 15-year follow-up for changing therapy in RA, Dr. Bergman argued it is not the patient who is unwilling to switch treatments. Between 2006 and 2021, patient unwillingness to change therapies decreased from 64% to 51%.

“What’s driving it mostly here [is] the doctor’s recommendation,” Dr. Bergman said. “And we know this is true because we’ve seen it in other studies.”

Many rheumatologists are “asleep at the wheel” when it comes to administering T2T, he said. “What we need to do is, after we wake up from this nap, we need to get back on the highway and drive to where we should be, which is treat-to-target.”

Dr. Bergman also shared his paradigm for administering T2T, which he noted does not typically take more than a few minutes to administer regardless of the measure chosen. “Pick a measure. I don’t care which measure you take. I personally use two: I like the RAPID3 and the CDAI,” he said. “But then, after you have the measure, evaluate the entire patient. Don’t just look at the number. Look at the patient, what’s going on, solid history, solid physical. And most importantly: Be a doctor, don’t be a computer screen.”

Problems in measurement of RA remission and adoption of T2T

Dr. Cush, who admitted early in his presentation that he is in favor of T2T, delivered his counterpoint somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, he pointed out that there are several concerns about the goals in measuring outcomes in RA with T2T.

The goal in RA is disease remission, but how you define remission can vary, especially since sometimes there is evidence of synovitis or other disease activity visible through an exam or imaging, said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, and executive editor of RheumNow.com. Most of the evidence for T2T is in clinical trials, but adoption is inconsistent in clinical practice, and patients in general appear to be improving without widespread adoption, he argued.

“Are clinical trials the same as clinical practice?” he asked. “I think that this boils down to: Is this a quest for remissions, or the best-you-can-get, low disease activity state? Or is this a quest for physician change, which is actually the path you have to go through to get to remissions?”

“In the end, evidence that the metrics should drive prescribing, especially in private practice is, I think, lacking,” he said.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Roy Fleischmann, MD, agreed with Dr. Cush’s point of how one defines disease remission, as well as Dr. Bergman’s paradigm for T2T. “If you’re a good rheumatologist, you really do examine joints,” but you also “take a look at patient function, patient global [assessment], your global [assessment], joint count,” he said. “You can put a number to it, but you have to take a look at all of that. Really, treat-to-target – it is all of that. It isn’t just looking at a number, it’s looking at everything. And the better that the patient can do, assuming comorbidities and everything else, the better it is.”

“The problem isn’t the patient. The problem isn’t the metric. The problem is the rheumatologist, because the rheumatologist isn’t putting in enough effort in order to reach that goal,” added Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, also in in Dallas.

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented that T2T is “great for somebody who’s been doing it for a while, and seeing a lot of patients and has that comfort zone,” but he questioned whether new rheumatologists without a lot of clinical experience could apply the approach. “What information do they use to integrate, and how do they get to that point?” he asked. “I don’t have the answer to that.”

During a rebuttal, Dr. Bergman pushed back on the idea that clinical experience alone was enough. “You need something. You need a benchmark. You need something more than, ‘I say so.’ ”

“The problem is, we still haven’t convinced people to adopt them,” Dr. Bergman said. “And I think it’s failure of training because, in my opinion, I don’t know how you can do a modern current fellowship program and not teach metrics.”

Dr. Cush and Dr. Bergman used the same trials to argue for their side. “I think that us using the same slides, but maybe having different points, speaks to the problem,” Dr. Cush said. “And I choose not to make it the problem of the rheumatologists.”

“You’re in the field of pattern recognition,” Dr. Cush argued. “It’s a visual art. You can have all the numbers you want. You make the most of your decisions based on pattern recognition, which is not rooted in metrics, and that’s why you’re successful at what you do.

“I am a big believer in T2T, but I think you have to measure something, and you have to use it,” Dr. Cush closed. “And the problem is, we can’t be forced into this.”

Dr. Bergman and Dr. Cush reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

Several relatively large real-world analyses of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis appear to show that the oral small-molecule drugs are discontinued and retained at rates similar to or better than biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to studies presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The findings of these studies, although conducted prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s September 2021 announcement of a boxed warning for JAKi, do not lend support to the warning’s message of higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), blood clots, cancer, and death associated with JAKi.

In one study, discontinuation of JAKi-class drugs was less common than discontinuation of bDMARD-class drugs, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to a multicenter team of investigators led by Janet Pope, MD, a professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London.

The greater durability of the JAKi relative to TNFi “seem to be driven by a greater loss of efficacy in bDMARDs over time,” reported Samir Magdy Iskander, a medical student at the university, who presented the data.
 

JAKi rival bDMARDs for long-term retention

In a separate but larger analysis, the retention rates with the JAKi tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and TNFi in two RA registries in Canada were about the same after a mean follow-up of 23.2 months (36.9% vs. 37.5%), but the tofacitinib group was at a relative disadvantage. Relative to the bDMARD group, patients taking JAKi were more likely to have had prior treatment with a bDMARD (66.9% vs. 33.9%), to have a higher median baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score (22.1 vs. 20.0; P < .05), and to be older (59.5 vs. 57.6 years).

In this study, 1,318 patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) or a Quebec cohort called RHUMADATA were evaluated, reported Mohammad Movahedi, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.

“We have not yet analyzed the reasons for discontinuation, but the data show that retention is about the same, meaning that selection of one agent over the other should be tailored according to patient characteristics,” Dr. Movahedi said.

Reasons for discontinuation were presented in the other observational study, which included 333 adult patients with RA from two centers in Ontario. The discontinuation rate for adverse events was approximately 20% in both groups (HR, 1.0005; P = .98). However, the discontinuation rate for lack of efficacy favored the JAKi, reaching statistical significance.
 

TNFi failure for lack of efficacy is higher

“For lack of efficacy, the discontinuation rate was about 35% lower on the JAKi [HR, 0.6543; P = .029],” Mr. Iskander reported. Relative to those taking a TNFi, those on a JAKi demonstrated “greater durability regardless of gender, age, disease duration, and prior lines of therapy.”

In a population of patients who have not achieved an adequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), which describes the study population from the two Ontario centers, JAKi “may be considered as a preferable method of treatment,” Mr. Iskander said.

Pointing out that many clinicians have interpreted the boxed warning as a relative contraindication for use of JAKi as first-line therapy in patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs, Marinka Twilt, MD, PhD, the moderator of the scientific session where these data were presented, questioned the conclusion. In the boxed warning, clinicians and patients are advised to consider an increased risk of serious infections, malignancy, and cardiovascular-related mortality in individuals older than 50 years.

In response, Mr. Iskander said that the data were collected and analyzed prior to the change in labeling. He acknowledged that this study was not designed to capture long-term risks, such as cardiovascular disease or malignancy. In this analysis, the safety and tolerability of JAKi and bDMARDs appeared comparable.
 

NEJM published study leading to boxed warning

Just a week prior to the CRA annual meeting, the New England Journal of Medicine published an FDA-mandated postmarketing trial of tofacitinib that was used by the agency to justify the boxed warning for JAKi with indications for artitis and other inflammatory diseases. In that open-label trial, more than 4,000 patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor were randomized to 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, or a TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept).

The efficacy of the therapies was similar, but tofacitinib failed to meet predefined noninferiority criteria for the co–primary endpoints of MACE or cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer). For tofacitinib relative to TNFi, the hazard ratio was 1.33 for MACE and 1.48 for cancers. The JAKi was also associated with higher incidences of opportunistic infections.

Mr. Iskander noted that Canadian clinical practice guidelines currently identify JAKi as a reasonable first-line alternative to bDMARDs after inadequate response to csDMARDs. While his data support that position, Dr. Twilt indicated that the benefit-to-risk ratio of JAKi might need recalculation based on the data that led the FDA to issue its boxed warning. She questioned whether the language regarding the relative role of JAKi and bDMARDs will change in coming RA guideline revisions.

Dr. Iskander reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Movahedi did not list any personal conflicts of interest but acknowledged that OBRI received unrestricted grants from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including those that manufacture bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. Twilt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Several relatively large real-world analyses of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis appear to show that the oral small-molecule drugs are discontinued and retained at rates similar to or better than biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to studies presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The findings of these studies, although conducted prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s September 2021 announcement of a boxed warning for JAKi, do not lend support to the warning’s message of higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), blood clots, cancer, and death associated with JAKi.

In one study, discontinuation of JAKi-class drugs was less common than discontinuation of bDMARD-class drugs, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to a multicenter team of investigators led by Janet Pope, MD, a professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London.

The greater durability of the JAKi relative to TNFi “seem to be driven by a greater loss of efficacy in bDMARDs over time,” reported Samir Magdy Iskander, a medical student at the university, who presented the data.
 

JAKi rival bDMARDs for long-term retention

In a separate but larger analysis, the retention rates with the JAKi tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and TNFi in two RA registries in Canada were about the same after a mean follow-up of 23.2 months (36.9% vs. 37.5%), but the tofacitinib group was at a relative disadvantage. Relative to the bDMARD group, patients taking JAKi were more likely to have had prior treatment with a bDMARD (66.9% vs. 33.9%), to have a higher median baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score (22.1 vs. 20.0; P < .05), and to be older (59.5 vs. 57.6 years).

In this study, 1,318 patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) or a Quebec cohort called RHUMADATA were evaluated, reported Mohammad Movahedi, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.

“We have not yet analyzed the reasons for discontinuation, but the data show that retention is about the same, meaning that selection of one agent over the other should be tailored according to patient characteristics,” Dr. Movahedi said.

Reasons for discontinuation were presented in the other observational study, which included 333 adult patients with RA from two centers in Ontario. The discontinuation rate for adverse events was approximately 20% in both groups (HR, 1.0005; P = .98). However, the discontinuation rate for lack of efficacy favored the JAKi, reaching statistical significance.
 

TNFi failure for lack of efficacy is higher

“For lack of efficacy, the discontinuation rate was about 35% lower on the JAKi [HR, 0.6543; P = .029],” Mr. Iskander reported. Relative to those taking a TNFi, those on a JAKi demonstrated “greater durability regardless of gender, age, disease duration, and prior lines of therapy.”

In a population of patients who have not achieved an adequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), which describes the study population from the two Ontario centers, JAKi “may be considered as a preferable method of treatment,” Mr. Iskander said.

Pointing out that many clinicians have interpreted the boxed warning as a relative contraindication for use of JAKi as first-line therapy in patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs, Marinka Twilt, MD, PhD, the moderator of the scientific session where these data were presented, questioned the conclusion. In the boxed warning, clinicians and patients are advised to consider an increased risk of serious infections, malignancy, and cardiovascular-related mortality in individuals older than 50 years.

In response, Mr. Iskander said that the data were collected and analyzed prior to the change in labeling. He acknowledged that this study was not designed to capture long-term risks, such as cardiovascular disease or malignancy. In this analysis, the safety and tolerability of JAKi and bDMARDs appeared comparable.
 

NEJM published study leading to boxed warning

Just a week prior to the CRA annual meeting, the New England Journal of Medicine published an FDA-mandated postmarketing trial of tofacitinib that was used by the agency to justify the boxed warning for JAKi with indications for artitis and other inflammatory diseases. In that open-label trial, more than 4,000 patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor were randomized to 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, or a TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept).

The efficacy of the therapies was similar, but tofacitinib failed to meet predefined noninferiority criteria for the co–primary endpoints of MACE or cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer). For tofacitinib relative to TNFi, the hazard ratio was 1.33 for MACE and 1.48 for cancers. The JAKi was also associated with higher incidences of opportunistic infections.

Mr. Iskander noted that Canadian clinical practice guidelines currently identify JAKi as a reasonable first-line alternative to bDMARDs after inadequate response to csDMARDs. While his data support that position, Dr. Twilt indicated that the benefit-to-risk ratio of JAKi might need recalculation based on the data that led the FDA to issue its boxed warning. She questioned whether the language regarding the relative role of JAKi and bDMARDs will change in coming RA guideline revisions.

Dr. Iskander reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Movahedi did not list any personal conflicts of interest but acknowledged that OBRI received unrestricted grants from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including those that manufacture bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. Twilt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Several relatively large real-world analyses of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis appear to show that the oral small-molecule drugs are discontinued and retained at rates similar to or better than biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to studies presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

The findings of these studies, although conducted prior to the Food and Drug Administration’s September 2021 announcement of a boxed warning for JAKi, do not lend support to the warning’s message of higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), blood clots, cancer, and death associated with JAKi.

In one study, discontinuation of JAKi-class drugs was less common than discontinuation of bDMARD-class drugs, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to a multicenter team of investigators led by Janet Pope, MD, a professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London.

The greater durability of the JAKi relative to TNFi “seem to be driven by a greater loss of efficacy in bDMARDs over time,” reported Samir Magdy Iskander, a medical student at the university, who presented the data.
 

JAKi rival bDMARDs for long-term retention

In a separate but larger analysis, the retention rates with the JAKi tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and TNFi in two RA registries in Canada were about the same after a mean follow-up of 23.2 months (36.9% vs. 37.5%), but the tofacitinib group was at a relative disadvantage. Relative to the bDMARD group, patients taking JAKi were more likely to have had prior treatment with a bDMARD (66.9% vs. 33.9%), to have a higher median baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score (22.1 vs. 20.0; P < .05), and to be older (59.5 vs. 57.6 years).

In this study, 1,318 patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) or a Quebec cohort called RHUMADATA were evaluated, reported Mohammad Movahedi, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.

“We have not yet analyzed the reasons for discontinuation, but the data show that retention is about the same, meaning that selection of one agent over the other should be tailored according to patient characteristics,” Dr. Movahedi said.

Reasons for discontinuation were presented in the other observational study, which included 333 adult patients with RA from two centers in Ontario. The discontinuation rate for adverse events was approximately 20% in both groups (HR, 1.0005; P = .98). However, the discontinuation rate for lack of efficacy favored the JAKi, reaching statistical significance.
 

TNFi failure for lack of efficacy is higher

“For lack of efficacy, the discontinuation rate was about 35% lower on the JAKi [HR, 0.6543; P = .029],” Mr. Iskander reported. Relative to those taking a TNFi, those on a JAKi demonstrated “greater durability regardless of gender, age, disease duration, and prior lines of therapy.”

In a population of patients who have not achieved an adequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), which describes the study population from the two Ontario centers, JAKi “may be considered as a preferable method of treatment,” Mr. Iskander said.

Pointing out that many clinicians have interpreted the boxed warning as a relative contraindication for use of JAKi as first-line therapy in patients with an inadequate response to csDMARDs, Marinka Twilt, MD, PhD, the moderator of the scientific session where these data were presented, questioned the conclusion. In the boxed warning, clinicians and patients are advised to consider an increased risk of serious infections, malignancy, and cardiovascular-related mortality in individuals older than 50 years.

In response, Mr. Iskander said that the data were collected and analyzed prior to the change in labeling. He acknowledged that this study was not designed to capture long-term risks, such as cardiovascular disease or malignancy. In this analysis, the safety and tolerability of JAKi and bDMARDs appeared comparable.
 

NEJM published study leading to boxed warning

Just a week prior to the CRA annual meeting, the New England Journal of Medicine published an FDA-mandated postmarketing trial of tofacitinib that was used by the agency to justify the boxed warning for JAKi with indications for artitis and other inflammatory diseases. In that open-label trial, more than 4,000 patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor were randomized to 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, or a TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept).

The efficacy of the therapies was similar, but tofacitinib failed to meet predefined noninferiority criteria for the co–primary endpoints of MACE or cancer (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer). For tofacitinib relative to TNFi, the hazard ratio was 1.33 for MACE and 1.48 for cancers. The JAKi was also associated with higher incidences of opportunistic infections.

Mr. Iskander noted that Canadian clinical practice guidelines currently identify JAKi as a reasonable first-line alternative to bDMARDs after inadequate response to csDMARDs. While his data support that position, Dr. Twilt indicated that the benefit-to-risk ratio of JAKi might need recalculation based on the data that led the FDA to issue its boxed warning. She questioned whether the language regarding the relative role of JAKi and bDMARDs will change in coming RA guideline revisions.

Dr. Iskander reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Movahedi did not list any personal conflicts of interest but acknowledged that OBRI received unrestricted grants from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including those that manufacture bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. Twilt reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Eli Lilly has decided to stop development of baricitinib (Olumiant) for adults with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) because of efficacy results from two pivotal phase 3 trials, SLE-BRAVE-I and II, the company announced Jan. 28.

Lilly said that the primary endpoint of the SLE-BRAVE-I trial, the proportion of adults with active SLE who met criteria for response on the SLE Responder Index-4 at week 52, was significantly greater among patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib daily than with placebo. However, this endpoint was not met in SLE-BRAVE-II, and no key secondary endpoints were met in either trial. In the announcement, Lilly noted that safety was not a reason for discontinuation because data from these trials were consistent with those previously seen with baricitinib.

The company statement said that it will work with investigators on concluding the combined long-term extension study of the trials.

Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, had previously shown promising results in a phase 2 trial in patients with SLE. It is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor blockers at a dose of 2 mg once daily and has an emergency use authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The decision to stop baricitinib’s development for SLE will not affect other research efforts with the drug, the company said.

Development for atopic dermatitis

Lilly also noted that it is in discussion with the FDA about the status of a supplemental new drug application of baricitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). In its press release, Lilly said, “At this point, the company does not have alignment with the FDA on the indicated population. Given the agency’s position, there is a possibility that this could lead to a Complete Response Letter (CRL). The efficacy and safety profile of Olumiant was evaluated in eight atopic dermatitis clinical trials (six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and two long-term extension studies) inclusive of patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The safety profile in these trials was consistent with previously published Olumiant data.”

Baricitinib was the first JAK inhibitor approved to treat patients with moderate to severe AD who have an inadequate response to topical treatments in the European Union and Japan.

The Lilly announcement was made with Incyte, the company that discovered baricitinib.

Eli Lilly has decided to stop development of baricitinib (Olumiant) for adults with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) because of efficacy results from two pivotal phase 3 trials, SLE-BRAVE-I and II, the company announced Jan. 28.

Lilly said that the primary endpoint of the SLE-BRAVE-I trial, the proportion of adults with active SLE who met criteria for response on the SLE Responder Index-4 at week 52, was significantly greater among patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib daily than with placebo. However, this endpoint was not met in SLE-BRAVE-II, and no key secondary endpoints were met in either trial. In the announcement, Lilly noted that safety was not a reason for discontinuation because data from these trials were consistent with those previously seen with baricitinib.

The company statement said that it will work with investigators on concluding the combined long-term extension study of the trials.

Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, had previously shown promising results in a phase 2 trial in patients with SLE. It is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor blockers at a dose of 2 mg once daily and has an emergency use authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The decision to stop baricitinib’s development for SLE will not affect other research efforts with the drug, the company said.

Development for atopic dermatitis

Lilly also noted that it is in discussion with the FDA about the status of a supplemental new drug application of baricitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). In its press release, Lilly said, “At this point, the company does not have alignment with the FDA on the indicated population. Given the agency’s position, there is a possibility that this could lead to a Complete Response Letter (CRL). The efficacy and safety profile of Olumiant was evaluated in eight atopic dermatitis clinical trials (six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and two long-term extension studies) inclusive of patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The safety profile in these trials was consistent with previously published Olumiant data.”

Baricitinib was the first JAK inhibitor approved to treat patients with moderate to severe AD who have an inadequate response to topical treatments in the European Union and Japan.

The Lilly announcement was made with Incyte, the company that discovered baricitinib.

Eli Lilly has decided to stop development of baricitinib (Olumiant) for adults with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) because of efficacy results from two pivotal phase 3 trials, SLE-BRAVE-I and II, the company announced Jan. 28.

Lilly said that the primary endpoint of the SLE-BRAVE-I trial, the proportion of adults with active SLE who met criteria for response on the SLE Responder Index-4 at week 52, was significantly greater among patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib daily than with placebo. However, this endpoint was not met in SLE-BRAVE-II, and no key secondary endpoints were met in either trial. In the announcement, Lilly noted that safety was not a reason for discontinuation because data from these trials were consistent with those previously seen with baricitinib.

The company statement said that it will work with investigators on concluding the combined long-term extension study of the trials.

Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, had previously shown promising results in a phase 2 trial in patients with SLE. It is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor blockers at a dose of 2 mg once daily and has an emergency use authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The decision to stop baricitinib’s development for SLE will not affect other research efforts with the drug, the company said.

Development for atopic dermatitis

Lilly also noted that it is in discussion with the FDA about the status of a supplemental new drug application of baricitinib for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). In its press release, Lilly said, “At this point, the company does not have alignment with the FDA on the indicated population. Given the agency’s position, there is a possibility that this could lead to a Complete Response Letter (CRL). The efficacy and safety profile of Olumiant was evaluated in eight atopic dermatitis clinical trials (six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies and two long-term extension studies) inclusive of patients whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable. The safety profile in these trials was consistent with previously published Olumiant data.”

Baricitinib was the first JAK inhibitor approved to treat patients with moderate to severe AD who have an inadequate response to topical treatments in the European Union and Japan.

The Lilly announcement was made with Incyte, the company that discovered baricitinib.

Several recent RA studies have addressed aspects of systemic illness other than joint pain and inflammation, including sleep, fatigue, psychosocial burden, and well-being. A cohort study by Lyne et al¹ evaluated sleep duration and quality in 3,265 patients in the Swedish EIRA registry from 1-12 years after RA diagnosis. About 40% had problems in at least one sleep domain and the frequency of sleep problems increased somewhat with disease duration, but the strongest correlations with poor sleep were pain and functional impairment, suggesting that the overall activity of the RA was most important. Further research on improving sleep quality with improved control of disease activity would be helpful in supporting this hypothesis.

A systematic review by Shamail et al² examined mental health outcomes in patients with RA taking Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, limiting the review to studies reporting SF-36 mental health outcomes. The resulting 19 studies encompassed over 14,000 patients and did demonstrate clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores compared to baseline in patients treated with JAK inhibitors. When compared to changes with placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment, JAK inhibitors appeared to have a benefit, though few studies showed a clinically meaningful difference. Given that other studies have shown improvement in mental health outcomes with other classes of RA treatments, it is not clear that this is an effect of the JAK inhibitor class rather than related to overall improvement in quality of life.

Fatigue is a prevalent concern among patients with RA and may significantly impact quality of life; its origins in RA are not well-understood but thought to be related to inflammation. A UK study of an inception cohort by Ifeseman et al³ examines fatigue in early RA; about 75% of participants reported a decreased vitality score compared to the mean in the UK general population. Of the approximately 729 study participants in the longitudinal analysis, trajectory modeling was used to identify two groups of people: one with an “average” vitality score and another with a score that was significantly reduced compared to average. This group had worse disease activity scores, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, and pain, though as with the other studies mentioned above, it is not clear if fatigue is a feature of worse control of RA or related to ongoing central sensitization or “non-inflammatory” mechanisms.

Doumen et al⁴ analyzed interaction between psychosocial variables and disease activity in an early RA cohort and found that better baseline short form-36 (SF-36) scores as well as other measures of psychosocial burden and coping were associated with sustained Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-Reactive Protein (DAS-28-CRP) remission, while negative illness perception was associated with lower probability of sustained remission. Of the 287 patients who achieved DAS-28-CRP remission at week 16, the 231 patients who had a low psychosocial burden were more likely to remain in remission. Causality and direction are not established in this small study, so while evaluating psychosocial needs is relevant, as with the other studies mentioned above, caution must be used in attributing lack of improvement in disease activity to psychosocial burden or mood disorders.

References

1. Lyne L et al. Sleep problems in rheumatoid arthritis over 12 years from diagnosis: results from the Swedish EIRA study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001800 (Jan 5).
2. Shamail GMH et al. Association between janus kinase inhibitors therapy and mental health outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 13).
3. Ifesemen OS et al. Fatigue in early rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab861 (Dec 27).
4. Doumen M et al. Psychosocial burden predicts sustained remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: unraveling the complex interplay of wellbeing and disease activity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 (Dec 20).

Several recent RA studies have addressed aspects of systemic illness other than joint pain and inflammation, including sleep, fatigue, psychosocial burden, and well-being. A cohort study by Lyne et al¹ evaluated sleep duration and quality in 3,265 patients in the Swedish EIRA registry from 1-12 years after RA diagnosis. About 40% had problems in at least one sleep domain and the frequency of sleep problems increased somewhat with disease duration, but the strongest correlations with poor sleep were pain and functional impairment, suggesting that the overall activity of the RA was most important. Further research on improving sleep quality with improved control of disease activity would be helpful in supporting this hypothesis.

A systematic review by Shamail et al² examined mental health outcomes in patients with RA taking Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, limiting the review to studies reporting SF-36 mental health outcomes. The resulting 19 studies encompassed over 14,000 patients and did demonstrate clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores compared to baseline in patients treated with JAK inhibitors. When compared to changes with placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment, JAK inhibitors appeared to have a benefit, though few studies showed a clinically meaningful difference. Given that other studies have shown improvement in mental health outcomes with other classes of RA treatments, it is not clear that this is an effect of the JAK inhibitor class rather than related to overall improvement in quality of life.

Fatigue is a prevalent concern among patients with RA and may significantly impact quality of life; its origins in RA are not well-understood but thought to be related to inflammation. A UK study of an inception cohort by Ifeseman et al³ examines fatigue in early RA; about 75% of participants reported a decreased vitality score compared to the mean in the UK general population. Of the approximately 729 study participants in the longitudinal analysis, trajectory modeling was used to identify two groups of people: one with an “average” vitality score and another with a score that was significantly reduced compared to average. This group had worse disease activity scores, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, and pain, though as with the other studies mentioned above, it is not clear if fatigue is a feature of worse control of RA or related to ongoing central sensitization or “non-inflammatory” mechanisms.

Doumen et al⁴ analyzed interaction between psychosocial variables and disease activity in an early RA cohort and found that better baseline short form-36 (SF-36) scores as well as other measures of psychosocial burden and coping were associated with sustained Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-Reactive Protein (DAS-28-CRP) remission, while negative illness perception was associated with lower probability of sustained remission. Of the 287 patients who achieved DAS-28-CRP remission at week 16, the 231 patients who had a low psychosocial burden were more likely to remain in remission. Causality and direction are not established in this small study, so while evaluating psychosocial needs is relevant, as with the other studies mentioned above, caution must be used in attributing lack of improvement in disease activity to psychosocial burden or mood disorders.

References

1. Lyne L et al. Sleep problems in rheumatoid arthritis over 12 years from diagnosis: results from the Swedish EIRA study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001800 (Jan 5).
2. Shamail GMH et al. Association between janus kinase inhibitors therapy and mental health outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 13).
3. Ifesemen OS et al. Fatigue in early rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab861 (Dec 27).
4. Doumen M et al. Psychosocial burden predicts sustained remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: unraveling the complex interplay of wellbeing and disease activity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 (Dec 20).

Several recent RA studies have addressed aspects of systemic illness other than joint pain and inflammation, including sleep, fatigue, psychosocial burden, and well-being. A cohort study by Lyne et al¹ evaluated sleep duration and quality in 3,265 patients in the Swedish EIRA registry from 1-12 years after RA diagnosis. About 40% had problems in at least one sleep domain and the frequency of sleep problems increased somewhat with disease duration, but the strongest correlations with poor sleep were pain and functional impairment, suggesting that the overall activity of the RA was most important. Further research on improving sleep quality with improved control of disease activity would be helpful in supporting this hypothesis.

A systematic review by Shamail et al² examined mental health outcomes in patients with RA taking Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, limiting the review to studies reporting SF-36 mental health outcomes. The resulting 19 studies encompassed over 14,000 patients and did demonstrate clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores compared to baseline in patients treated with JAK inhibitors. When compared to changes with placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment, JAK inhibitors appeared to have a benefit, though few studies showed a clinically meaningful difference. Given that other studies have shown improvement in mental health outcomes with other classes of RA treatments, it is not clear that this is an effect of the JAK inhibitor class rather than related to overall improvement in quality of life.

Fatigue is a prevalent concern among patients with RA and may significantly impact quality of life; its origins in RA are not well-understood but thought to be related to inflammation. A UK study of an inception cohort by Ifeseman et al³ examines fatigue in early RA; about 75% of participants reported a decreased vitality score compared to the mean in the UK general population. Of the approximately 729 study participants in the longitudinal analysis, trajectory modeling was used to identify two groups of people: one with an “average” vitality score and another with a score that was significantly reduced compared to average. This group had worse disease activity scores, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, and pain, though as with the other studies mentioned above, it is not clear if fatigue is a feature of worse control of RA or related to ongoing central sensitization or “non-inflammatory” mechanisms.

Doumen et al⁴ analyzed interaction between psychosocial variables and disease activity in an early RA cohort and found that better baseline short form-36 (SF-36) scores as well as other measures of psychosocial burden and coping were associated with sustained Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-Reactive Protein (DAS-28-CRP) remission, while negative illness perception was associated with lower probability of sustained remission. Of the 287 patients who achieved DAS-28-CRP remission at week 16, the 231 patients who had a low psychosocial burden were more likely to remain in remission. Causality and direction are not established in this small study, so while evaluating psychosocial needs is relevant, as with the other studies mentioned above, caution must be used in attributing lack of improvement in disease activity to psychosocial burden or mood disorders.

References

1. Lyne L et al. Sleep problems in rheumatoid arthritis over 12 years from diagnosis: results from the Swedish EIRA study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001800 (Jan 5).
2. Shamail GMH et al. Association between janus kinase inhibitors therapy and mental health outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 13).
3. Ifesemen OS et al. Fatigue in early rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab861 (Dec 27).
4. Doumen M et al. Psychosocial burden predicts sustained remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: unraveling the complex interplay of wellbeing and disease activity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 (Dec 20).