Rheumatoid Arthritis

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).

However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.

Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
 

Choice of Endpoint

“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.

DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Proof of Concept

IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.

The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.

Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.

“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
 

Are ACPA Really Lowered?

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.

Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”

Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”

Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.

“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.

“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.

As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
 

Safety and Other Results

With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).

There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.

Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).

Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
 

Combination and Further Trials

Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.

In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.

The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).

However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.

Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
 

Choice of Endpoint

“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.

DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Proof of Concept

IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.

The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.

Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.

“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
 

Are ACPA Really Lowered?

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.

Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”

Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”

Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.

“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.

“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.

As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
 

Safety and Other Results

With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).

There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.

Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).

Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
 

Combination and Further Trials

Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.

In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.

The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).

However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.

Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
 

Choice of Endpoint

“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.

DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Proof of Concept

IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.

The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.

Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.

“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
 

Are ACPA Really Lowered?

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.

Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”

Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”

Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.

“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.

“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.

As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
 

Safety and Other Results

With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).

There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.

Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).

Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
 

Combination and Further Trials

Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.

In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.

The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.

Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.

“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”

Yale University

The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.

ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.

To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.

For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.

The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.

“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
 

Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities

Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.

“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.

Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.

And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.

Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.

“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”

Yale University

The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.

ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.

To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.

For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.

The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.

“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
 

Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities

Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.

“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.

Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.

And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.

Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.

“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”

Yale University

The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.

ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.

To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.

The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.

For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.

The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.

“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
 

Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities

Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.

“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.

Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.

And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatologists and their staff have been dutifully recording disease activity and patient-reported outcomes for decades, and now, all that drudgery is beginning to pay off with the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing systems that can mine electronic health records (EHRs) for nuggets of research gold and accurately predict short-term rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outcomes.

“I think we have learned from our very early experiments that longitudinal deep learning models can forecast rheumatoid arthritis [RA] outcomes with actually surprising efficiency, with fewer patients than we assumed would be needed,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, and codirector of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Quality and Informatics Lab.

At the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit (RA Summit 2024), presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, Dr. Yazdany discussed why rheumatologists are well positioned to take advantage of predictive analytics and how natural language processing systems can be used to extract previously hard-to-find data from EHRs, which can then be applied to RA prognostics and research.
 

Data Galore

EHR data can be particularly useful for RA research because of the large volume of information, clinical data such as notes and imaging, less selection bias compared with other data sources such as cohorts or randomized controlled trials, real-time access, and the fact that many records contain longitudinal data (follow-ups, etc.).

However, EHR data may have gaps or inaccurate coding, and data such as text and images may require significant data processing and scrubbing before it can be used to advance research. In addition, EHR data are subject to patient privacy and security concerns, can be plagued by incompatibility across different systems, and may not represent patients who have less access to care, Dr. Yazdany said.

She noted that most rheumatologists record some measure of RA disease activity and patient physical function, and that patient-reported outcomes have been routinely incorporated into clinical records, especially since the 1980 introduction of the Health Assessment Questionnaire.

“In rheumatology, by achieving consensus and building a national quality measurement program, we have a cohesive national RA outcome measure selection strategy. RA outcomes are available for a majority of patients seen by rheumatologists, and that’s a critical strength of EHR data,” she said.
 

Spinning Text Into Analytics

The challenge for investigators who want to use this treasure trove of RA data is that more than 80% of the data are in the form of text, which raises questions about how to best extract outcomes data and drug dosing information from the written record.

As described in an article published online in Arthritis Care & Research February 14, 2023, Dr. Yazdany and colleagues at UCSF and Stanford University developed a natural language processing “pipeline” designed to extract RA outcomes from clinical notes on all patients included in the American College of Rheumatology’s Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry.

The model used expert-curated terms and a text processing tool to identify patterns and numerical scores linked to outcome measures in the records.

“This was an enormously difficult and ambitious project because we had many, many sites, the data was very messy, we had very complicated [independent review board] procedures, and we actually had to go through de-identification procedures because we were using this data for research, so we learned a lot,” Dr. Yazdany said.

The model processed 34 million notes on 854,628 patients across 158 practices and 24 different EHR systems.

In internal validation studies, the models had 95% sensitivity, 87% positive predictive value (PPV), and an F1 score (a measure of predictive performance) of 91%. Applying the model to an EHR from a large, non-RISE health system for external validation, the natural language processing pipeline had a 92% sensitivity, 69% PPV, and an F1 score of 79%.

The investigators also looked at the use of OpenAI large language models, including GPT 3.5 and 4 to interpret complex prescription orders and found that after training with 100 examples, GPT 4 was able to correctly interpret 95.6% of orders. But this experiment came at a high computational and financial cost, with one experiment running north of $3000, Dr. Yazdany cautioned.
 

Predicting Outcomes

Experiments to see whether an AI system can forecast RA disease activity at the next clinic visit are in their early stages.

Dr. Yazdany and colleagues used EHR data from UCSF and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital on patients with two RA diagnostic codes at 30 days apart, who had at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescription and two Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores 30 days apart.

One model, designed to predict CDAI at the next visit by “playing the odds” based on clinical experience, showed that about 60% of patients at UCSF achieved treat-to-target goals, while the remaining 40% did not.

This model performed barely better than pure chance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.54.

A second model that included the patient’s last CDAI score also fared little better than a roll of the dice, with an AUC of 0.55.

However, a neural network or “deep learning” model designed to process data akin to the way that the human brain works performed much better at predicting outcomes at the second visit, with an AUC of 0.91.

Applying the UCSF-trained neural network model to the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital population, with different patient characteristics from those of UCSF, the AUC was 0.74. Although this result was not as good as that seen when applied to UCSF patients, it demonstrated that the model retains some predictive capability across different hospital systems, Dr. Yazdany said.

The next steps, she said, are to build more robust models based on vast and varied patient data pools that will allow the predictive models to be generalized across various healthcare settings.
 

The Here and Now

In the Q & A following the presentation, an audience member said that the study was “very cool stuff.”

“Is there a way to sort of get ahead and think of the technology that we’re starting to pilot? Hospitals are already using AI scribes, for example, to collect the data that is going to make it much easier to feed it to the predictive analytics that we’re going to use,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany replied that “over the last couple of years, one of the projects that we’ve worked on is to interview rheumatologists who are participating in the RISE registry about the ways that they are collecting [patient-reported outcomes], and it has been fascinating: A vast majority of people are still using paper forms.”

“The challenge is that our patient populations are very diverse. Technology, and especially filling out forms via online platforms, doesn’t work for everybody, and in some ways, filling out the paper forms when you go to the doctor’s office is a great equalizer. So, I think that we have some real challenges, and the solutions have to be embedded in the real world,” she added.

Dr. Yazdany’s research was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality and the National Institutes of Health. She disclosed consulting fees and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatologists and their staff have been dutifully recording disease activity and patient-reported outcomes for decades, and now, all that drudgery is beginning to pay off with the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing systems that can mine electronic health records (EHRs) for nuggets of research gold and accurately predict short-term rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outcomes.

“I think we have learned from our very early experiments that longitudinal deep learning models can forecast rheumatoid arthritis [RA] outcomes with actually surprising efficiency, with fewer patients than we assumed would be needed,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, and codirector of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Quality and Informatics Lab.

At the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit (RA Summit 2024), presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, Dr. Yazdany discussed why rheumatologists are well positioned to take advantage of predictive analytics and how natural language processing systems can be used to extract previously hard-to-find data from EHRs, which can then be applied to RA prognostics and research.
 

Data Galore

EHR data can be particularly useful for RA research because of the large volume of information, clinical data such as notes and imaging, less selection bias compared with other data sources such as cohorts or randomized controlled trials, real-time access, and the fact that many records contain longitudinal data (follow-ups, etc.).

However, EHR data may have gaps or inaccurate coding, and data such as text and images may require significant data processing and scrubbing before it can be used to advance research. In addition, EHR data are subject to patient privacy and security concerns, can be plagued by incompatibility across different systems, and may not represent patients who have less access to care, Dr. Yazdany said.

She noted that most rheumatologists record some measure of RA disease activity and patient physical function, and that patient-reported outcomes have been routinely incorporated into clinical records, especially since the 1980 introduction of the Health Assessment Questionnaire.

“In rheumatology, by achieving consensus and building a national quality measurement program, we have a cohesive national RA outcome measure selection strategy. RA outcomes are available for a majority of patients seen by rheumatologists, and that’s a critical strength of EHR data,” she said.
 

Spinning Text Into Analytics

The challenge for investigators who want to use this treasure trove of RA data is that more than 80% of the data are in the form of text, which raises questions about how to best extract outcomes data and drug dosing information from the written record.

As described in an article published online in Arthritis Care & Research February 14, 2023, Dr. Yazdany and colleagues at UCSF and Stanford University developed a natural language processing “pipeline” designed to extract RA outcomes from clinical notes on all patients included in the American College of Rheumatology’s Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry.

The model used expert-curated terms and a text processing tool to identify patterns and numerical scores linked to outcome measures in the records.

“This was an enormously difficult and ambitious project because we had many, many sites, the data was very messy, we had very complicated [independent review board] procedures, and we actually had to go through de-identification procedures because we were using this data for research, so we learned a lot,” Dr. Yazdany said.

The model processed 34 million notes on 854,628 patients across 158 practices and 24 different EHR systems.

In internal validation studies, the models had 95% sensitivity, 87% positive predictive value (PPV), and an F1 score (a measure of predictive performance) of 91%. Applying the model to an EHR from a large, non-RISE health system for external validation, the natural language processing pipeline had a 92% sensitivity, 69% PPV, and an F1 score of 79%.

The investigators also looked at the use of OpenAI large language models, including GPT 3.5 and 4 to interpret complex prescription orders and found that after training with 100 examples, GPT 4 was able to correctly interpret 95.6% of orders. But this experiment came at a high computational and financial cost, with one experiment running north of $3000, Dr. Yazdany cautioned.
 

Predicting Outcomes

Experiments to see whether an AI system can forecast RA disease activity at the next clinic visit are in their early stages.

Dr. Yazdany and colleagues used EHR data from UCSF and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital on patients with two RA diagnostic codes at 30 days apart, who had at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescription and two Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores 30 days apart.

One model, designed to predict CDAI at the next visit by “playing the odds” based on clinical experience, showed that about 60% of patients at UCSF achieved treat-to-target goals, while the remaining 40% did not.

This model performed barely better than pure chance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.54.

A second model that included the patient’s last CDAI score also fared little better than a roll of the dice, with an AUC of 0.55.

However, a neural network or “deep learning” model designed to process data akin to the way that the human brain works performed much better at predicting outcomes at the second visit, with an AUC of 0.91.

Applying the UCSF-trained neural network model to the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital population, with different patient characteristics from those of UCSF, the AUC was 0.74. Although this result was not as good as that seen when applied to UCSF patients, it demonstrated that the model retains some predictive capability across different hospital systems, Dr. Yazdany said.

The next steps, she said, are to build more robust models based on vast and varied patient data pools that will allow the predictive models to be generalized across various healthcare settings.
 

The Here and Now

In the Q & A following the presentation, an audience member said that the study was “very cool stuff.”

“Is there a way to sort of get ahead and think of the technology that we’re starting to pilot? Hospitals are already using AI scribes, for example, to collect the data that is going to make it much easier to feed it to the predictive analytics that we’re going to use,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany replied that “over the last couple of years, one of the projects that we’ve worked on is to interview rheumatologists who are participating in the RISE registry about the ways that they are collecting [patient-reported outcomes], and it has been fascinating: A vast majority of people are still using paper forms.”

“The challenge is that our patient populations are very diverse. Technology, and especially filling out forms via online platforms, doesn’t work for everybody, and in some ways, filling out the paper forms when you go to the doctor’s office is a great equalizer. So, I think that we have some real challenges, and the solutions have to be embedded in the real world,” she added.

Dr. Yazdany’s research was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality and the National Institutes of Health. She disclosed consulting fees and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rheumatologists and their staff have been dutifully recording disease activity and patient-reported outcomes for decades, and now, all that drudgery is beginning to pay off with the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing systems that can mine electronic health records (EHRs) for nuggets of research gold and accurately predict short-term rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outcomes.

“I think we have learned from our very early experiments that longitudinal deep learning models can forecast rheumatoid arthritis [RA] outcomes with actually surprising efficiency, with fewer patients than we assumed would be needed,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, and codirector of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Quality and Informatics Lab.

At the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit (RA Summit 2024), presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, Dr. Yazdany discussed why rheumatologists are well positioned to take advantage of predictive analytics and how natural language processing systems can be used to extract previously hard-to-find data from EHRs, which can then be applied to RA prognostics and research.
 

Data Galore

EHR data can be particularly useful for RA research because of the large volume of information, clinical data such as notes and imaging, less selection bias compared with other data sources such as cohorts or randomized controlled trials, real-time access, and the fact that many records contain longitudinal data (follow-ups, etc.).

However, EHR data may have gaps or inaccurate coding, and data such as text and images may require significant data processing and scrubbing before it can be used to advance research. In addition, EHR data are subject to patient privacy and security concerns, can be plagued by incompatibility across different systems, and may not represent patients who have less access to care, Dr. Yazdany said.

She noted that most rheumatologists record some measure of RA disease activity and patient physical function, and that patient-reported outcomes have been routinely incorporated into clinical records, especially since the 1980 introduction of the Health Assessment Questionnaire.

“In rheumatology, by achieving consensus and building a national quality measurement program, we have a cohesive national RA outcome measure selection strategy. RA outcomes are available for a majority of patients seen by rheumatologists, and that’s a critical strength of EHR data,” she said.
 

Spinning Text Into Analytics

The challenge for investigators who want to use this treasure trove of RA data is that more than 80% of the data are in the form of text, which raises questions about how to best extract outcomes data and drug dosing information from the written record.

As described in an article published online in Arthritis Care & Research February 14, 2023, Dr. Yazdany and colleagues at UCSF and Stanford University developed a natural language processing “pipeline” designed to extract RA outcomes from clinical notes on all patients included in the American College of Rheumatology’s Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry.

The model used expert-curated terms and a text processing tool to identify patterns and numerical scores linked to outcome measures in the records.

“This was an enormously difficult and ambitious project because we had many, many sites, the data was very messy, we had very complicated [independent review board] procedures, and we actually had to go through de-identification procedures because we were using this data for research, so we learned a lot,” Dr. Yazdany said.

The model processed 34 million notes on 854,628 patients across 158 practices and 24 different EHR systems.

In internal validation studies, the models had 95% sensitivity, 87% positive predictive value (PPV), and an F1 score (a measure of predictive performance) of 91%. Applying the model to an EHR from a large, non-RISE health system for external validation, the natural language processing pipeline had a 92% sensitivity, 69% PPV, and an F1 score of 79%.

The investigators also looked at the use of OpenAI large language models, including GPT 3.5 and 4 to interpret complex prescription orders and found that after training with 100 examples, GPT 4 was able to correctly interpret 95.6% of orders. But this experiment came at a high computational and financial cost, with one experiment running north of $3000, Dr. Yazdany cautioned.
 

Predicting Outcomes

Experiments to see whether an AI system can forecast RA disease activity at the next clinic visit are in their early stages.

Dr. Yazdany and colleagues used EHR data from UCSF and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital on patients with two RA diagnostic codes at 30 days apart, who had at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescription and two Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores 30 days apart.

One model, designed to predict CDAI at the next visit by “playing the odds” based on clinical experience, showed that about 60% of patients at UCSF achieved treat-to-target goals, while the remaining 40% did not.

This model performed barely better than pure chance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.54.

A second model that included the patient’s last CDAI score also fared little better than a roll of the dice, with an AUC of 0.55.

However, a neural network or “deep learning” model designed to process data akin to the way that the human brain works performed much better at predicting outcomes at the second visit, with an AUC of 0.91.

Applying the UCSF-trained neural network model to the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital population, with different patient characteristics from those of UCSF, the AUC was 0.74. Although this result was not as good as that seen when applied to UCSF patients, it demonstrated that the model retains some predictive capability across different hospital systems, Dr. Yazdany said.

The next steps, she said, are to build more robust models based on vast and varied patient data pools that will allow the predictive models to be generalized across various healthcare settings.
 

The Here and Now

In the Q & A following the presentation, an audience member said that the study was “very cool stuff.”

“Is there a way to sort of get ahead and think of the technology that we’re starting to pilot? Hospitals are already using AI scribes, for example, to collect the data that is going to make it much easier to feed it to the predictive analytics that we’re going to use,” she said.

Dr. Yazdany replied that “over the last couple of years, one of the projects that we’ve worked on is to interview rheumatologists who are participating in the RISE registry about the ways that they are collecting [patient-reported outcomes], and it has been fascinating: A vast majority of people are still using paper forms.”

“The challenge is that our patient populations are very diverse. Technology, and especially filling out forms via online platforms, doesn’t work for everybody, and in some ways, filling out the paper forms when you go to the doctor’s office is a great equalizer. So, I think that we have some real challenges, and the solutions have to be embedded in the real world,” she added.

Dr. Yazdany’s research was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality and the National Institutes of Health. She disclosed consulting fees and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.

The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.

The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

UNC School of Medicine

“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. 
 

Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists

Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.

There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care. 

Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed. 

Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue. 
 

Pilot Project

To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.

The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.

Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.

Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually. 

The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations. 

The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications. 

“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 
 

Thumbs Up

Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.

Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.

Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session. 
 

How to Improve?

In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.

The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.

“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.

In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.

“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.

“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”

Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.

The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.

The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.

The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

UNC School of Medicine

“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. 
 

Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists

Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.

There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care. 

Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed. 

Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue. 
 

Pilot Project

To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.

The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.

Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.

Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually. 

The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations. 

The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications. 

“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 
 

Thumbs Up

Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.

Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.

Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session. 
 

How to Improve?

In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.

The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.

“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.

In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.

“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.

“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”

Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.

The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even in large urban areas there aren’t enough rheumatologists to go around, and as a 2015 American College of Rheumatology workforce study projected, the number of rheumatology providers is expected to drop by 25% by the year 2030, while the demand for patient care in rheumatology is expected to increase by more than 100%.

The shortage of rheumatology care is even more acute in rural areas, but as a pilot project supported by the Arthritis Foundation shows, linking rheumatologists to health centers in remote and underserved locations via telehealth can help community providers improve care for patients with rheumatic diseases.

The novel collaborative model was described by Alfredo Rivadeneira, MD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

UNC School of Medicine

“We found that this pilot, a unique partnership in North Carolina, improves access to rheumatology care to a rural population with high satisfaction scores. It underlines the importance of seeking collaboration with community providers when implementing these programs. It also allows timely specialty care and alleviates the barriers relating to transportation, insurance coverage, and telecommunication challenges,” he said at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. 
 

Too Many Patients, Too Few Rheumatologists

Access to health is challenging for people from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic backgrounds, especially in states such as North Carolina, where 40% of the population lives in rural counties, which have higher age-adjusted mortality than more densely populated areas of the state, Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

In addition, 42% of the North Carolina residents seen at the state’s 42 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) don’t have health insurance, which is higher than the average of 23% uninsured seen at FQHCs in other states.

There are currently approximately 250 rheumatology providers in North Carolina, the majority of whom work in the states’ three academic medical centers. Currently, North Carolina has an estimated population of 10 million people, which is projected to increase to 11.7 million by 2030. And by 2030, 20% of North Carolinians will be aged ≥ 65 years, Dr. Rivadeneira said, highlighting the need for expanded rheumatology care. 

Although telehealth services could be an option for expanding services to underserved communities, only 14 of the 42 FQHCs in the state use telehealth and only on a limited basis because it is not sufficiently reimbursed. 

Rivadeneira pointed to a 2022 study that showed how patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease patients in North Carolina were less likely to use online patient portals if they lived in rural areas; came from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds; were older, men, had lower economic status (Medicaid enrollment or uninsured); or spoke a language other than English as their primary tongue. 
 

Pilot Project

To help smooth out some of the above-mentioned disparities, Dr. Rivadeneira and colleagues, in collaboration with the Arthritis Foundation, started a pilot project in 2022 designed to enhance access to rheumatology specialty care for rural residents through a shared telehealth model between the UNC rheumatology clinic and two separate Piedmont Health Services clinics in rural areas.

The project includes tailored educational sessions designed to empower Piedmont Health Services providers for evaluating and managing patients with rheumatic diseases.

Patients with prior diagnoses of rheumatologic diseases who were lost to rheumatology specialty care follow-up and those with new rheumatic symptoms who had transportation and/or financial barriers to receiving specialty care are triaged to the shared telemedicine visits.

Providers conduct monthly clinic sessions via shared visits between the on-site Piedmont Health Services provider and patients, with off-site UNC rheumatology fellows and attending physicians connected virtually. 

The educational component of the project includes monthly didactic sessions offered to all Piedmont Health Services providers across 12 locations. 

The topics that were chosen cover the most common rheumatologic conditions seen by community providers, including evaluating pain from a rheumatology perspective; using antinuclear antibodies and other serologies; evaluating and managing rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, gout, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and osteoarthritis; and methotrexate management and complications. 

“One of the aspects of this pilot that I want to emphasize is the importance of having the generalists with the patient, relaying the objective data, especially the physical exam, and that’s one of the great features of this model. It also provides a stable platform for telehealth to the individual patients, as many of these patients don’t have access to health technology,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 
 

Thumbs Up

Both patients and general practitioners in the Piedmont Health system expressed high degrees of satisfaction with the shared telehealth program. Patients especially liked the time they saved not having to travel to see a specialist, and a large majority agreed that the visits were “as good as” in-person visits, felt that their concerns were addressed appropriately during the virtual visit, expressed overall satisfaction, and said they would like to continue virtual visits.

Physicians expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the rheumatology didactic sessions and said that the sessions enhanced their knowledge of evaluating and managing or co-managing rheumatologic diseases, as well as helping them to feel comfortable about applying this knowledge to patient care.

Dr. Rivadeneira noted that the pilot study was limited by low levels of Piedmont Health Services physician participation (two out of 45 total participated in shared visits), and only three or four providers typically took part in each didactic session. 
 

How to Improve?

In a follow-up study, the investigators asked Piedmont Health Services providers about barriers to rheumatology care, the most common and challenging diseases they encountered, how to improve the didactic components, and their perspectives on the pilot and how it may have affected referral patterns to rheumatology care.

The providers identified the cost of diagnostic evaluations and medications, transportation, long wait times, and language as the main barriers to patient access of rheumatology care.

“Additionally, over a third of them encountered patients on a weekly basis that were overdue for a visit with a rheumatologist,” Dr. Rivadeneira said. 

“Direct participation in the physical exam by the primary care provider enhances greatly, in my opinion, these telehealth visits. Focused didactic sessions, electronic handouts and/or quick access guides could empower more rural community providers to manage rheumatic diseases,” he concluded.

In the Q&A following the presentation, Laura Cappelli, MD, MHS, MS, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, asked Dr. Rivadeneira how rheumatologists involved felt about the program and whether his team did any surveying or qualitative work with them.

“Just so you know, the rheumatologist was me,” he replied.

“I’m very picky about telemedicine,” he continued. “I don’t like it, I prefer, as most of us do, to have the patient there. But having the provider there, doing the exam, and you guiding them — I can ask, ‘Did you check their joints? Did you check their strength?’ — makes a huge difference and makes me feel comfortable with the sessions.”

Dr. Rivadeneira added that if a particular case was too complex or too vague to adequately assess via telehealth, he would arrange to see the patient in person.

The project was supported by the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Rivadeneira and Dr. Cappelli reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If your gut is telling you that your disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) aren’t working as well as they should, listen to it.

That’s the advice of Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who studies methods for modulating the gut microbiome to enhance DMARD efficacy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

“The baseline gut microbiome can predict patient responsiveness to methotrexate,” said Dr. Blank at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit, presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Dr. Blank and colleagues are investigating how the intestinal microbiome may influence drug metabolism and the therapeutic potential of short-chain fatty acids for improving the efficacy of methotrexate in patients with RA.
 

Mucosal Barrier Disruption

There are myriad factors contributing to the development and progression of RA, including dysbiosis, or disruption, of the mucosal barrier, Dr. Blank explained.

“Dysbiosis can be detected in at-risk individuals before clinical signs of rheumatoid arthritis even occur,” she said.

Dr. Blank cited a 2021 study of the gut-joint axis in RA,which indicated that subclinical inflammation in the oral, gut, and/or lung mucosa may lead to inflammatory arthritis.

“When there’s a break in the mucosal barrier, either bacteria or their bacterial products can translocate into the lamina propria and then lead to an inflammatory T-cell response, and in addition, bacteria or their products can induce auto-antibody formation, which can then lead to joint inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Blank and colleagues, as well as other research groups, showed that gut bacterial colonization by Prevotella copri can induce an inflammatory response in gut lamina propria, and that people with RA have increased abundance of P copri relative to people without RA.
 

DMARD Resistance

To see whether microbial dysbiosis might play a role in DMARD-resistant RA, Dr. Blank and her team looked at patients with new-onset RA who were scheduled for treatment with methotrexate as their first-line medication. They classified responders as those patients with a change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) of at least 1.8 points.

They then conducted 16S rRNA sequencing and shotgun sequencing on patient fecal samples taken at baseline to determine whether baseline microbiome differences might contribute to responses to methotrexate.

“And so indeed, we were able to find a human gut microbial signature that predicted methotrexate responsiveness in these baseline microbiome samples,” Dr. Blank said.

They identified 462 differences in gene orthologs (ie, genes preserved during evolution and speciation) that differed between responders and nonresponders, narrowed the list down to the top 38, and then developed a predictive model for response to methotrexate with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84.

The investigators then cultured fecal baseline samples with methotrexate to see how levels of the drug would be affected over time and found that samples from nonresponders metabolized methotrexate at a faster rate than samples from patients who had clinical responses to the drug.

Their work was further supported by colleagues at the University of California San Francisco, who found evidence in mouse models to suggest that microbial metabolism plays a role in methotrexate levels in plasma.
 

Modulating the Gut

“Our next question was: Can we modulate the gut microbiome to improve methotrexate efficacy?” Dr. Blank said.

They considered probiotics and prebiotics as possible means for modulating gut microbiota, but evidence of efficacy for these agents has been decidedly mixed, she noted.

Instead, the investigators focused on short-chain fatty acids, gut microbial fermentation byproducts of indigestible carbohydrates, which have been demonstrated to help improve gut mucosal barrier integrity and promote a more tolerant immune response.

One such short-chain fatty acid, butyrate, is produced through microbial fermentation of dietary fiber in the colon; it is available in various foods and in supplement form.

Butyrate has been shown to ameliorate inflammatory arthritis in a collagen-induced arthritis model, and in this model, methotrexate efficacy was increased with the addition of butyrate or butyrate-producing bacterial species.

Dr. Blank and colleagues compared patients with new-onset RA treated with methotrexate alone or methotrexate plus butyrate for 4 months and looked at up to 2 months of methotrexate plus butyrate treatment in patients who had suboptimal response to methotrexate alone.

In preliminary analyses, they found that at baseline, fecal butyrate was significantly elevated in methotrexate responders compared with in nonresponders. In addition, in the new-onset RA cohort, they saw that the 4-month responsiveness rate was 52.6% for those treated with methotrexate compared with 64.7% for those treated with methotrexate plus butyrate.

“Although this difference was not statistically significant, it’s exciting to think we may have an impact. What’s more, we were really excited to find that oral butyrate can lead to increased microbial diversity,” she said.
 

What Are You Measuring?

In the Q & A following the presentation, Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, commented that “the definitions of response and nonresponse are quite variable, depending on the studies that you use, and I think this is potentially a real problem for this entire line of investigation.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

He noted that the DAS28, as used by Dr. Blank and colleagues, was developed in 1993, and that American College of Rheumatology response criteria, employed by other investigators who also presented during the session, were developed in 1990.

“It was a very different world when those criteria and those response indices were developed for patients with a very different disease from what we know as RA today,” he said.

He added that “I see a tremendous need for the rheumatology community to reevaluate what we define as responders and nonresponders, so that in all of these studies that are being done around the world, there is one definition that we understand [for] someone who is doing better, responding, or not responding.”

Dr. Blank’s work is supported by NYU, the Arthritis Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. She reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Bingham had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If your gut is telling you that your disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) aren’t working as well as they should, listen to it.

That’s the advice of Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who studies methods for modulating the gut microbiome to enhance DMARD efficacy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

“The baseline gut microbiome can predict patient responsiveness to methotrexate,” said Dr. Blank at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit, presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Dr. Blank and colleagues are investigating how the intestinal microbiome may influence drug metabolism and the therapeutic potential of short-chain fatty acids for improving the efficacy of methotrexate in patients with RA.
 

Mucosal Barrier Disruption

There are myriad factors contributing to the development and progression of RA, including dysbiosis, or disruption, of the mucosal barrier, Dr. Blank explained.

“Dysbiosis can be detected in at-risk individuals before clinical signs of rheumatoid arthritis even occur,” she said.

Dr. Blank cited a 2021 study of the gut-joint axis in RA,which indicated that subclinical inflammation in the oral, gut, and/or lung mucosa may lead to inflammatory arthritis.

“When there’s a break in the mucosal barrier, either bacteria or their bacterial products can translocate into the lamina propria and then lead to an inflammatory T-cell response, and in addition, bacteria or their products can induce auto-antibody formation, which can then lead to joint inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Blank and colleagues, as well as other research groups, showed that gut bacterial colonization by Prevotella copri can induce an inflammatory response in gut lamina propria, and that people with RA have increased abundance of P copri relative to people without RA.
 

DMARD Resistance

To see whether microbial dysbiosis might play a role in DMARD-resistant RA, Dr. Blank and her team looked at patients with new-onset RA who were scheduled for treatment with methotrexate as their first-line medication. They classified responders as those patients with a change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) of at least 1.8 points.

They then conducted 16S rRNA sequencing and shotgun sequencing on patient fecal samples taken at baseline to determine whether baseline microbiome differences might contribute to responses to methotrexate.

“And so indeed, we were able to find a human gut microbial signature that predicted methotrexate responsiveness in these baseline microbiome samples,” Dr. Blank said.

They identified 462 differences in gene orthologs (ie, genes preserved during evolution and speciation) that differed between responders and nonresponders, narrowed the list down to the top 38, and then developed a predictive model for response to methotrexate with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84.

The investigators then cultured fecal baseline samples with methotrexate to see how levels of the drug would be affected over time and found that samples from nonresponders metabolized methotrexate at a faster rate than samples from patients who had clinical responses to the drug.

Their work was further supported by colleagues at the University of California San Francisco, who found evidence in mouse models to suggest that microbial metabolism plays a role in methotrexate levels in plasma.
 

Modulating the Gut

“Our next question was: Can we modulate the gut microbiome to improve methotrexate efficacy?” Dr. Blank said.

They considered probiotics and prebiotics as possible means for modulating gut microbiota, but evidence of efficacy for these agents has been decidedly mixed, she noted.

Instead, the investigators focused on short-chain fatty acids, gut microbial fermentation byproducts of indigestible carbohydrates, which have been demonstrated to help improve gut mucosal barrier integrity and promote a more tolerant immune response.

One such short-chain fatty acid, butyrate, is produced through microbial fermentation of dietary fiber in the colon; it is available in various foods and in supplement form.

Butyrate has been shown to ameliorate inflammatory arthritis in a collagen-induced arthritis model, and in this model, methotrexate efficacy was increased with the addition of butyrate or butyrate-producing bacterial species.

Dr. Blank and colleagues compared patients with new-onset RA treated with methotrexate alone or methotrexate plus butyrate for 4 months and looked at up to 2 months of methotrexate plus butyrate treatment in patients who had suboptimal response to methotrexate alone.

In preliminary analyses, they found that at baseline, fecal butyrate was significantly elevated in methotrexate responders compared with in nonresponders. In addition, in the new-onset RA cohort, they saw that the 4-month responsiveness rate was 52.6% for those treated with methotrexate compared with 64.7% for those treated with methotrexate plus butyrate.

“Although this difference was not statistically significant, it’s exciting to think we may have an impact. What’s more, we were really excited to find that oral butyrate can lead to increased microbial diversity,” she said.
 

What Are You Measuring?

In the Q & A following the presentation, Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, commented that “the definitions of response and nonresponse are quite variable, depending on the studies that you use, and I think this is potentially a real problem for this entire line of investigation.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

He noted that the DAS28, as used by Dr. Blank and colleagues, was developed in 1993, and that American College of Rheumatology response criteria, employed by other investigators who also presented during the session, were developed in 1990.

“It was a very different world when those criteria and those response indices were developed for patients with a very different disease from what we know as RA today,” he said.

He added that “I see a tremendous need for the rheumatology community to reevaluate what we define as responders and nonresponders, so that in all of these studies that are being done around the world, there is one definition that we understand [for] someone who is doing better, responding, or not responding.”

Dr. Blank’s work is supported by NYU, the Arthritis Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. She reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Bingham had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If your gut is telling you that your disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) aren’t working as well as they should, listen to it.

That’s the advice of Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who studies methods for modulating the gut microbiome to enhance DMARD efficacy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

“The baseline gut microbiome can predict patient responsiveness to methotrexate,” said Dr. Blank at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit, presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Dr. Blank and colleagues are investigating how the intestinal microbiome may influence drug metabolism and the therapeutic potential of short-chain fatty acids for improving the efficacy of methotrexate in patients with RA.
 

Mucosal Barrier Disruption

There are myriad factors contributing to the development and progression of RA, including dysbiosis, or disruption, of the mucosal barrier, Dr. Blank explained.

“Dysbiosis can be detected in at-risk individuals before clinical signs of rheumatoid arthritis even occur,” she said.

Dr. Blank cited a 2021 study of the gut-joint axis in RA,which indicated that subclinical inflammation in the oral, gut, and/or lung mucosa may lead to inflammatory arthritis.

“When there’s a break in the mucosal barrier, either bacteria or their bacterial products can translocate into the lamina propria and then lead to an inflammatory T-cell response, and in addition, bacteria or their products can induce auto-antibody formation, which can then lead to joint inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Blank and colleagues, as well as other research groups, showed that gut bacterial colonization by Prevotella copri can induce an inflammatory response in gut lamina propria, and that people with RA have increased abundance of P copri relative to people without RA.
 

DMARD Resistance

To see whether microbial dysbiosis might play a role in DMARD-resistant RA, Dr. Blank and her team looked at patients with new-onset RA who were scheduled for treatment with methotrexate as their first-line medication. They classified responders as those patients with a change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) of at least 1.8 points.

They then conducted 16S rRNA sequencing and shotgun sequencing on patient fecal samples taken at baseline to determine whether baseline microbiome differences might contribute to responses to methotrexate.

“And so indeed, we were able to find a human gut microbial signature that predicted methotrexate responsiveness in these baseline microbiome samples,” Dr. Blank said.

They identified 462 differences in gene orthologs (ie, genes preserved during evolution and speciation) that differed between responders and nonresponders, narrowed the list down to the top 38, and then developed a predictive model for response to methotrexate with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84.

The investigators then cultured fecal baseline samples with methotrexate to see how levels of the drug would be affected over time and found that samples from nonresponders metabolized methotrexate at a faster rate than samples from patients who had clinical responses to the drug.

Their work was further supported by colleagues at the University of California San Francisco, who found evidence in mouse models to suggest that microbial metabolism plays a role in methotrexate levels in plasma.
 

Modulating the Gut

“Our next question was: Can we modulate the gut microbiome to improve methotrexate efficacy?” Dr. Blank said.

They considered probiotics and prebiotics as possible means for modulating gut microbiota, but evidence of efficacy for these agents has been decidedly mixed, she noted.

Instead, the investigators focused on short-chain fatty acids, gut microbial fermentation byproducts of indigestible carbohydrates, which have been demonstrated to help improve gut mucosal barrier integrity and promote a more tolerant immune response.

One such short-chain fatty acid, butyrate, is produced through microbial fermentation of dietary fiber in the colon; it is available in various foods and in supplement form.

Butyrate has been shown to ameliorate inflammatory arthritis in a collagen-induced arthritis model, and in this model, methotrexate efficacy was increased with the addition of butyrate or butyrate-producing bacterial species.

Dr. Blank and colleagues compared patients with new-onset RA treated with methotrexate alone or methotrexate plus butyrate for 4 months and looked at up to 2 months of methotrexate plus butyrate treatment in patients who had suboptimal response to methotrexate alone.

In preliminary analyses, they found that at baseline, fecal butyrate was significantly elevated in methotrexate responders compared with in nonresponders. In addition, in the new-onset RA cohort, they saw that the 4-month responsiveness rate was 52.6% for those treated with methotrexate compared with 64.7% for those treated with methotrexate plus butyrate.

“Although this difference was not statistically significant, it’s exciting to think we may have an impact. What’s more, we were really excited to find that oral butyrate can lead to increased microbial diversity,” she said.
 

What Are You Measuring?

In the Q & A following the presentation, Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, commented that “the definitions of response and nonresponse are quite variable, depending on the studies that you use, and I think this is potentially a real problem for this entire line of investigation.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

He noted that the DAS28, as used by Dr. Blank and colleagues, was developed in 1993, and that American College of Rheumatology response criteria, employed by other investigators who also presented during the session, were developed in 1990.

“It was a very different world when those criteria and those response indices were developed for patients with a very different disease from what we know as RA today,” he said.

He added that “I see a tremendous need for the rheumatology community to reevaluate what we define as responders and nonresponders, so that in all of these studies that are being done around the world, there is one definition that we understand [for] someone who is doing better, responding, or not responding.”

Dr. Blank’s work is supported by NYU, the Arthritis Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. She reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Bingham had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in remission who tapered and then fully stopped either conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–inhibitor therapy experienced more disease flares than those who received stable dose treatment in an open-label, randomized trial.

In the 3-year trial, called ARCTIC REWIND, 80% of patients taking stable doses of only csMARDs remained flare-free compared with 38% in another treatment arm taking only csDMARDs who tapered to a half dose and then discontinued all after 1 year. In patients who continued to receive half-dose csDMARDs for the entire study period, 57% remained flare-free.

University of Nebraska Medical Center

A separate two treatment arms of the study that assessed the effect of tapering TNF-inhibitor treatment to withdrawal showed that only 25% of patients who tapered TNF inhibitor to withdrawal remained flare-free over 3 years compared with 85% who remained on a stable TNF-inhibitor dose.

Though the risk for flare was higher in both the half-dose csDMARD and drug-free groups, the results also suggested that tapering medication “could be a realistic option for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission on csDMARDs,” wrote Kaja Kjørholt, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

The 3-year results for the csDMARD-only arms of the trial were published in The Lancet Rheumatology. The 3-year results of the TNF-inhibitor arms of the study were presented as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
 

Don’t Avoid Tapering But Take an Individualized Approach

Many rheumatologists will taper patients with RA in remission to lower doses of medication, but the protocols for this study do not reflect clinical practice, noted James R. O’Dell, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska. He was not involved with the research.

“I don’t know of any rheumatologist who would ever think that it was a good idea to taper somebody completely off of all DMARDs,” he told this news organization. “The only surprise is that more of them didn’t flare,” he continued, though he suspected that more patients would flare if they were followed for more time. Rheumatologists also would take a much more individualized approach when tapering to lower doses, he added, and do so at a much slower rate than what was observed in this study.

Both the ACR and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of RA stated that tapering DMARDs can be considered for patients who have sustained remission, but they do not mention discontinuing medication entirely.

In the TNF-inhibitor arms of the trial, the tapering group received a half dose of a TNF inhibitor for 4 months before stopping therapy entirely, which Dr. O’Dell noted was a large dip in too short a period.

“Nobody should be surprised that these people flared a lot,” he said. However, tapering to lower doses of a TNF inhibitor can be successful, he noted, adding that more than half of his patients taking a TNF inhibitor are on less than their original dose. Completely tapering off a TNF inhibitor is less common and depends on what other DMARDs a patient is taking, he said, and complete drug-free remission in this population is highly unlikely.

Dr. O’Dell emphasized that the takeaway from these results should not be to avoid tapering medication because of flare risk but instead a tailored approach — something that is not possible with a study protocol — is needed.

“We want our patients to have all the medicine they need and no more,” he said. “That sweet spot is different for each individual patient for how much TNF inhibition or how much conventional therapy they need. If we’re thoughtful about that in the clinic, we can find that sweet spot,” he said.
 

Details of ARCTIC REWIND

The open-label ARCTIC REWIND trial enrolled patients with RA in sustained remission, determined via Disease Activity Score (DAS), from 10 different hospitals in Norway. Researchers enrolled 160 patients in the csDMARD-only arms and randomized them to receive stable dose csDMARDs for 3 years or half-dose csDMARDs for 1 year, followed by complete withdrawal for the next 2 years; withdrawal of csDMARDs was only done in patients who had not had a flare during the first year. Participants had scheduled clinic visits every 4 months, and full-dose csDMARD therapy was resumed in patients who experienced disease flares.

There was a total of 99 patients randomized in the TNF-inhibitor arms to continue stable TNF-inhibitor therapy or to taper to a half dose for 4 months before discontinuing therapy. Like the csDMARD study, clinic visits occurred every 4 months, and full-dose therapy was resumed if a flare occurred. Patients taking a TNF inhibitor could also take a csDMARD as needed.

Last year, 1-year results for the csDMARD arms were published in JAMA, and 1-year results for the TNF-inhibitor arms were reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

At baseline, most patients across the three csDMARD groups (81%) had received methotrexate monotherapy. Triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) was used in 13% of the stable-dose group, 7% of the half-dose group, and 8% of the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. Seven individuals in the stable-dose group, three individuals in the half-dose group, and three individuals the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group used other mono/duo therapies.

A total of 139 participants in the csDMARD-only arms completed 3 years of follow-up, with 68 in the stable-dose group, 36 in the half-dose group, and 35 in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group.

Compared with the stable-dose group, the risk for flare was more than four times higher in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group (hazard ratio [HR], 4.2; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2) and about three times higher in the half-dose group (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.9). The flare risk between the half dose and half-dose tapering to withdrawal group was not statistically significant.

Most patients regained DAS remission status in the next clinic visit following a flare, the authors reported. Comparing the last visit to baseline, 10 patients in the taper-to-withdrawal group (27%) had increased treatment — either by adding a biologic or increasing csDMARD dose — compared with one patient (3%) in the half-dose group and 11 patients (14%) in the stable-dose group. Adverse events were common across all three groups, though were highest in the tapering to withdrawal group.

In the TNF-inhibitor arms, a total of 80 patients completed the 3-year follow-up. By the end of 3 years, 75% of the tapering group experienced a disease flare compared with 15% of the stable TNF-inhibitor group. Most patients regained DAS remission status in the next clinic visit following a flare, the authors reported. During the study, 23% of the tapering group and 13% of the stable TNF-inhibitor group used systemic glucocorticoids. Four patients in the tapering group and two patients in the stable TNF-inhibitor group switched to another TNF inhibitor during the study. An additional two patients in the stable TNF-inhibitor group switched to a Janus kinase inhibitor during the 3-year study.

Adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, but serious adverse events were more common in the tapering group (21%) than in the stable-dose group (11%).

The authors concluded that the findings did not support tapering a TNF inhibitor to withdrawal for patients in sustained remission, but they noted that additional research is needed to identify which patients would fare better or worse tapering csDMARDs.

ARCTIC REWIND was funded by grants from The Research Council of Norway and The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. Many of the authors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Dell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in remission who tapered and then fully stopped either conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–inhibitor therapy experienced more disease flares than those who received stable dose treatment in an open-label, randomized trial.

In the 3-year trial, called ARCTIC REWIND, 80% of patients taking stable doses of only csMARDs remained flare-free compared with 38% in another treatment arm taking only csDMARDs who tapered to a half dose and then discontinued all after 1 year. In patients who continued to receive half-dose csDMARDs for the entire study period, 57% remained flare-free.

University of Nebraska Medical Center

A separate two treatment arms of the study that assessed the effect of tapering TNF-inhibitor treatment to withdrawal showed that only 25% of patients who tapered TNF inhibitor to withdrawal remained flare-free over 3 years compared with 85% who remained on a stable TNF-inhibitor dose.

Though the risk for flare was higher in both the half-dose csDMARD and drug-free groups, the results also suggested that tapering medication “could be a realistic option for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission on csDMARDs,” wrote Kaja Kjørholt, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

The 3-year results for the csDMARD-only arms of the trial were published in The Lancet Rheumatology. The 3-year results of the TNF-inhibitor arms of the study were presented as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
 

Don’t Avoid Tapering But Take an Individualized Approach

Many rheumatologists will taper patients with RA in remission to lower doses of medication, but the protocols for this study do not reflect clinical practice, noted James R. O’Dell, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska. He was not involved with the research.

“I don’t know of any rheumatologist who would ever think that it was a good idea to taper somebody completely off of all DMARDs,” he told this news organization. “The only surprise is that more of them didn’t flare,” he continued, though he suspected that more patients would flare if they were followed for more time. Rheumatologists also would take a much more individualized approach when tapering to lower doses, he added, and do so at a much slower rate than what was observed in this study.

Both the ACR and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of RA stated that tapering DMARDs can be considered for patients who have sustained remission, but they do not mention discontinuing medication entirely.

In the TNF-inhibitor arms of the trial, the tapering group received a half dose of a TNF inhibitor for 4 months before stopping therapy entirely, which Dr. O’Dell noted was a large dip in too short a period.

“Nobody should be surprised that these people flared a lot,” he said. However, tapering to lower doses of a TNF inhibitor can be successful, he noted, adding that more than half of his patients taking a TNF inhibitor are on less than their original dose. Completely tapering off a TNF inhibitor is less common and depends on what other DMARDs a patient is taking, he said, and complete drug-free remission in this population is highly unlikely.

Dr. O’Dell emphasized that the takeaway from these results should not be to avoid tapering medication because of flare risk but instead a tailored approach — something that is not possible with a study protocol — is needed.

“We want our patients to have all the medicine they need and no more,” he said. “That sweet spot is different for each individual patient for how much TNF inhibition or how much conventional therapy they need. If we’re thoughtful about that in the clinic, we can find that sweet spot,” he said.
 

Details of ARCTIC REWIND

The open-label ARCTIC REWIND trial enrolled patients with RA in sustained remission, determined via Disease Activity Score (DAS), from 10 different hospitals in Norway. Researchers enrolled 160 patients in the csDMARD-only arms and randomized them to receive stable dose csDMARDs for 3 years or half-dose csDMARDs for 1 year, followed by complete withdrawal for the next 2 years; withdrawal of csDMARDs was only done in patients who had not had a flare during the first year. Participants had scheduled clinic visits every 4 months, and full-dose csDMARD therapy was resumed in patients who experienced disease flares.

There was a total of 99 patients randomized in the TNF-inhibitor arms to continue stable TNF-inhibitor therapy or to taper to a half dose for 4 months before discontinuing therapy. Like the csDMARD study, clinic visits occurred every 4 months, and full-dose therapy was resumed if a flare occurred. Patients taking a TNF inhibitor could also take a csDMARD as needed.

Last year, 1-year results for the csDMARD arms were published in JAMA, and 1-year results for the TNF-inhibitor arms were reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

At baseline, most patients across the three csDMARD groups (81%) had received methotrexate monotherapy. Triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) was used in 13% of the stable-dose group, 7% of the half-dose group, and 8% of the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. Seven individuals in the stable-dose group, three individuals in the half-dose group, and three individuals the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group used other mono/duo therapies.

A total of 139 participants in the csDMARD-only arms completed 3 years of follow-up, with 68 in the stable-dose group, 36 in the half-dose group, and 35 in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group.

Compared with the stable-dose group, the risk for flare was more than four times higher in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group (hazard ratio [HR], 4.2; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2) and about three times higher in the half-dose group (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.9). The flare risk between the half dose and half-dose tapering to withdrawal group was not statistically significant.

Most patients regained DAS remission status in the next clinic visit following a flare, the authors reported. Comparing the last visit to baseline, 10 patients in the taper-to-withdrawal group (27%) had increased treatment — either by adding a biologic or increasing csDMARD dose — compared with one patient (3%) in the half-dose group and 11 patients (14%) in the stable-dose group. Adverse events were common across all three groups, though were highest in the tapering to withdrawal group.

In the TNF-inhibitor arms, a total of 80 patients completed the 3-year follow-up. By the end of 3 years, 75% of the tapering group experienced a disease flare compared with 15% of the stable TNF-inhibitor group. Most patients regained DAS remission status in the next clinic visit following a flare, the authors reported. During the study, 23% of the tapering group and 13% of the stable TNF-inhibitor group used systemic glucocorticoids. Four patients in the tapering group and two patients in the stable TNF-inhibitor group switched to another TNF inhibitor during the study. An additional two patients in the stable TNF-inhibitor group switched to a Janus kinase inhibitor during the 3-year study.

Adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, but serious adverse events were more common in the tapering group (21%) than in the stable-dose group (11%).

The authors concluded that the findings did not support tapering a TNF inhibitor to withdrawal for patients in sustained remission, but they noted that additional research is needed to identify which patients would fare better or worse tapering csDMARDs.

ARCTIC REWIND was funded by grants from The Research Council of Norway and The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. Many of the authors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Dell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in remission who tapered and then fully stopped either conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–inhibitor therapy experienced more disease flares than those who received stable dose treatment in an open-label, randomized trial.

In the 3-year trial, called ARCTIC REWIND, 80% of patients taking stable doses of only csMARDs remained flare-free compared with 38% in another treatment arm taking only csDMARDs who tapered to a half dose and then discontinued all after 1 year. In patients who continued to receive half-dose csDMARDs for the entire study period, 57% remained flare-free.

University of Nebraska Medical Center

A separate two treatment arms of the study that assessed the effect of tapering TNF-inhibitor treatment to withdrawal showed that only 25% of patients who tapered TNF inhibitor to withdrawal remained flare-free over 3 years compared with 85% who remained on a stable TNF-inhibitor dose.

Though the risk for flare was higher in both the half-dose csDMARD and drug-free groups, the results also suggested that tapering medication “could be a realistic option for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission on csDMARDs,” wrote Kaja Kjørholt, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

The 3-year results for the csDMARD-only arms of the trial were published in The Lancet Rheumatology. The 3-year results of the TNF-inhibitor arms of the study were presented as an abstract at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
 

Don’t Avoid Tapering But Take an Individualized Approach

Many rheumatologists will taper patients with RA in remission to lower doses of medication, but the protocols for this study do not reflect clinical practice, noted James R. O’Dell, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska. He was not involved with the research.

“I don’t know of any rheumatologist who would ever think that it was a good idea to taper somebody completely off of all DMARDs,” he told this news organization. “The only surprise is that more of them didn’t flare,” he continued, though he suspected that more patients would flare if they were followed for more time. Rheumatologists also would take a much more individualized approach when tapering to lower doses, he added, and do so at a much slower rate than what was observed in this study.

Both the ACR and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of RA stated that tapering DMARDs can be considered for patients who have sustained remission, but they do not mention discontinuing medication entirely.

In the TNF-inhibitor arms of the trial, the tapering group received a half dose of a TNF inhibitor for 4 months before stopping therapy entirely, which Dr. O’Dell noted was a large dip in too short a period.

“Nobody should be surprised that these people flared a lot,” he said. However, tapering to lower doses of a TNF inhibitor can be successful, he noted, adding that more than half of his patients taking a TNF inhibitor are on less than their original dose. Completely tapering off a TNF inhibitor is less common and depends on what other DMARDs a patient is taking, he said, and complete drug-free remission in this population is highly unlikely.

Dr. O’Dell emphasized that the takeaway from these results should not be to avoid tapering medication because of flare risk but instead a tailored approach — something that is not possible with a study protocol — is needed.

“We want our patients to have all the medicine they need and no more,” he said. “That sweet spot is different for each individual patient for how much TNF inhibition or how much conventional therapy they need. If we’re thoughtful about that in the clinic, we can find that sweet spot,” he said.
 

Details of ARCTIC REWIND

The open-label ARCTIC REWIND trial enrolled patients with RA in sustained remission, determined via Disease Activity Score (DAS), from 10 different hospitals in Norway. Researchers enrolled 160 patients in the csDMARD-only arms and randomized them to receive stable dose csDMARDs for 3 years or half-dose csDMARDs for 1 year, followed by complete withdrawal for the next 2 years; withdrawal of csDMARDs was only done in patients who had not had a flare during the first year. Participants had scheduled clinic visits every 4 months, and full-dose csDMARD therapy was resumed in patients who experienced disease flares.

There was a total of 99 patients randomized in the TNF-inhibitor arms to continue stable TNF-inhibitor therapy or to taper to a half dose for 4 months before discontinuing therapy. Like the csDMARD study, clinic visits occurred every 4 months, and full-dose therapy was resumed if a flare occurred. Patients taking a TNF inhibitor could also take a csDMARD as needed.

Last year, 1-year results for the csDMARD arms were published in JAMA, and 1-year results for the TNF-inhibitor arms were reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

At baseline, most patients across the three csDMARD groups (81%) had received methotrexate monotherapy. Triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) was used in 13% of the stable-dose group, 7% of the half-dose group, and 8% of the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group. Seven individuals in the stable-dose group, three individuals in the half-dose group, and three individuals the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group used other mono/duo therapies.

A total of 139 participants in the csDMARD-only arms completed 3 years of follow-up, with 68 in the stable-dose group, 36 in the half-dose group, and 35 in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group.

Compared with the stable-dose group, the risk for flare was more than four times higher in the half-dose tapering to withdrawal group (hazard ratio [HR], 4.2; 95% CI, 2.2-8.2) and about three times higher in the half-dose group (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5-5.9). The flare risk between the half dose and half-dose tapering to withdrawal group was not statistically significant.

Most patients regained DAS remission status in the next clinic visit following a flare, the authors reported. Comparing the last visit to baseline, 10 patients in the taper-to-withdrawal group (27%) had increased treatment — either by adding a biologic or increasing csDMARD dose — compared with one patient (3%) in the half-dose group and 11 patients (14%) in the stable-dose group. Adverse events were common across all three groups, though were highest in the tapering to withdrawal group.

In the TNF-inhibitor arms, a total of 80 patients completed the 3-year follow-up. By the end of 3 years, 75% of the tapering group experienced a disease flare compared with 15% of the stable TNF-inhibitor group. Most patients regained DAS remission status in the next clinic visit following a flare, the authors reported. During the study, 23% of the tapering group and 13% of the stable TNF-inhibitor group used systemic glucocorticoids. Four patients in the tapering group and two patients in the stable TNF-inhibitor group switched to another TNF inhibitor during the study. An additional two patients in the stable TNF-inhibitor group switched to a Janus kinase inhibitor during the 3-year study.

Adverse events were similar in both treatment groups, but serious adverse events were more common in the tapering group (21%) than in the stable-dose group (11%).

The authors concluded that the findings did not support tapering a TNF inhibitor to withdrawal for patients in sustained remission, but they noted that additional research is needed to identify which patients would fare better or worse tapering csDMARDs.

ARCTIC REWIND was funded by grants from The Research Council of Norway and The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. Many of the authors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Dell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.