Rheumatoid Arthritis

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

Early intervention with the immunomodulator abatacept (Orencia) may enable people at risk for rheumatoid arthritis but who don’t yet manifest symptomatic inflammation to either avoid or delay the onset of full-blown, symptomatic rheumatoid arthritis, early results of a European clinical trial have shown.

Early results of the ARIAA study, presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that among patients considered at-risk for RA and having arthralgia and subclinical inflammation – considered symptomatic but not having full-blown RA – 61% of those who received a 6-month course of abatacept versus 31% of the placebo group had an improvement in MRI inflammation score (P = .0043), said Juergen Rech, MD, a rheumatologist at Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) and University Clinic Erlangen.

“When we actually talk about early treatment, this may be not early enough or at least could be improved,” Dr. Rech said in an interview when asked what the findings add to the evidence for treating at-risk RA patients before disease onset. “It seems as if we were in the situation of delaying the development of disease or possibly even preventing it in some patients, and in our trial this approach was safe with abatacept.”

ARIAA randomized 100 patients to abatacept or placebo at 14 study sites between November 2014 and December 2019. The goal is to treat at-risk patients for 6 months with abatacept, then follow them for 12 months to determine their progression to RA. Dr. Rech noted that 8% of patients in the treatment group and 35% in the placebo group developed arthritis (P = .0025).

He noted that the safety profile of abatacept in this patient population was similar to previous trials. “No safety issues emerged,” Dr. Rech said.

The investigators used MRI to determine the patients’ status for arthralgia and subclinical inflammation before enrollment. They had no history of clinically obvious inflammation fulfilling the criteria for RA and no previous treatment with glucocorticoids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results showed that abatacept is superior to placebo in improving subclinical inflammation and in inhibiting the progression to RA in at-risk patients at 6 months, Dr. Rech said, but early clinical results of patients in the study who’ve had 18 months of follow-up, which were not part of the dataset he presented, revealed that time-limited treatment with the immunomodulator has a significant sustained effect on progression to RA. That “means 6 months of treatment with abatacept will delay the development of RA after 18 months,” he said.

After the complete 18-month dataset is analyzed, the next step for investigators will be to re-evaluate the ARIAA population, perhaps for genetic markers, Dr. Rech said. What would then follow, he said, could be to conduct a larger phase 3 trial, determine the risk factors that drive RA autoimmunity, see if disease progression varies among ethnic groups and people in different geographic regions, and perhaps start a head-to-head trial with rituximab (Rituxan) or an evaluation of combined time-limited abatacept and rituximab in at-risk patients.

“We should think about new strategies, new life-quality questionnaires, new biomarkers and tools for covering and understanding these RA patients at-risk in a better way,” Dr. Rech said, noting that a European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology task force has already addressed this topic.

John D. Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle (England) University, said in an interview that ARIAA is the first readout from a number of studies evaluating preemptive treatment to prevent or delay RA onset. “You have to ask a question: Is this just suppressing what’s going on?” Dr. Isaacs said. “In other words, now that the treatment has been stopped, there’s great interest in what happens over the next 12 months of this study. Have we delayed the onset of rheumatoid arthritis or have we actually prevented it? I think that’s the $10 billion dollar question of this and similar studies.”

Answering that question may be difficult without a known blood biomarker. “That’s not a criticism of the trial; we just don’t have that scientifically at the moment,” Dr. Isaacs said. “Until then, it will be difficult to say we have delayed or we have prevented rheumatoid arthritis. My feeling is, even if we delay it 6 months or even a year with safe treatment, that would be worth it.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb sponsored the trial. Dr. Rech and Dr. Isaacs disclosed having financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other pharmaceutical companies.

Early intervention with the immunomodulator abatacept (Orencia) may enable people at risk for rheumatoid arthritis but who don’t yet manifest symptomatic inflammation to either avoid or delay the onset of full-blown, symptomatic rheumatoid arthritis, early results of a European clinical trial have shown.

Early results of the ARIAA study, presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that among patients considered at-risk for RA and having arthralgia and subclinical inflammation – considered symptomatic but not having full-blown RA – 61% of those who received a 6-month course of abatacept versus 31% of the placebo group had an improvement in MRI inflammation score (P = .0043), said Juergen Rech, MD, a rheumatologist at Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) and University Clinic Erlangen.

“When we actually talk about early treatment, this may be not early enough or at least could be improved,” Dr. Rech said in an interview when asked what the findings add to the evidence for treating at-risk RA patients before disease onset. “It seems as if we were in the situation of delaying the development of disease or possibly even preventing it in some patients, and in our trial this approach was safe with abatacept.”

ARIAA randomized 100 patients to abatacept or placebo at 14 study sites between November 2014 and December 2019. The goal is to treat at-risk patients for 6 months with abatacept, then follow them for 12 months to determine their progression to RA. Dr. Rech noted that 8% of patients in the treatment group and 35% in the placebo group developed arthritis (P = .0025).

He noted that the safety profile of abatacept in this patient population was similar to previous trials. “No safety issues emerged,” Dr. Rech said.

The investigators used MRI to determine the patients’ status for arthralgia and subclinical inflammation before enrollment. They had no history of clinically obvious inflammation fulfilling the criteria for RA and no previous treatment with glucocorticoids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results showed that abatacept is superior to placebo in improving subclinical inflammation and in inhibiting the progression to RA in at-risk patients at 6 months, Dr. Rech said, but early clinical results of patients in the study who’ve had 18 months of follow-up, which were not part of the dataset he presented, revealed that time-limited treatment with the immunomodulator has a significant sustained effect on progression to RA. That “means 6 months of treatment with abatacept will delay the development of RA after 18 months,” he said.

After the complete 18-month dataset is analyzed, the next step for investigators will be to re-evaluate the ARIAA population, perhaps for genetic markers, Dr. Rech said. What would then follow, he said, could be to conduct a larger phase 3 trial, determine the risk factors that drive RA autoimmunity, see if disease progression varies among ethnic groups and people in different geographic regions, and perhaps start a head-to-head trial with rituximab (Rituxan) or an evaluation of combined time-limited abatacept and rituximab in at-risk patients.

“We should think about new strategies, new life-quality questionnaires, new biomarkers and tools for covering and understanding these RA patients at-risk in a better way,” Dr. Rech said, noting that a European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology task force has already addressed this topic.

John D. Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle (England) University, said in an interview that ARIAA is the first readout from a number of studies evaluating preemptive treatment to prevent or delay RA onset. “You have to ask a question: Is this just suppressing what’s going on?” Dr. Isaacs said. “In other words, now that the treatment has been stopped, there’s great interest in what happens over the next 12 months of this study. Have we delayed the onset of rheumatoid arthritis or have we actually prevented it? I think that’s the $10 billion dollar question of this and similar studies.”

Answering that question may be difficult without a known blood biomarker. “That’s not a criticism of the trial; we just don’t have that scientifically at the moment,” Dr. Isaacs said. “Until then, it will be difficult to say we have delayed or we have prevented rheumatoid arthritis. My feeling is, even if we delay it 6 months or even a year with safe treatment, that would be worth it.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb sponsored the trial. Dr. Rech and Dr. Isaacs disclosed having financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other pharmaceutical companies.

Early intervention with the immunomodulator abatacept (Orencia) may enable people at risk for rheumatoid arthritis but who don’t yet manifest symptomatic inflammation to either avoid or delay the onset of full-blown, symptomatic rheumatoid arthritis, early results of a European clinical trial have shown.

Early results of the ARIAA study, presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that among patients considered at-risk for RA and having arthralgia and subclinical inflammation – considered symptomatic but not having full-blown RA – 61% of those who received a 6-month course of abatacept versus 31% of the placebo group had an improvement in MRI inflammation score (P = .0043), said Juergen Rech, MD, a rheumatologist at Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) and University Clinic Erlangen.

“When we actually talk about early treatment, this may be not early enough or at least could be improved,” Dr. Rech said in an interview when asked what the findings add to the evidence for treating at-risk RA patients before disease onset. “It seems as if we were in the situation of delaying the development of disease or possibly even preventing it in some patients, and in our trial this approach was safe with abatacept.”

ARIAA randomized 100 patients to abatacept or placebo at 14 study sites between November 2014 and December 2019. The goal is to treat at-risk patients for 6 months with abatacept, then follow them for 12 months to determine their progression to RA. Dr. Rech noted that 8% of patients in the treatment group and 35% in the placebo group developed arthritis (P = .0025).

He noted that the safety profile of abatacept in this patient population was similar to previous trials. “No safety issues emerged,” Dr. Rech said.

The investigators used MRI to determine the patients’ status for arthralgia and subclinical inflammation before enrollment. They had no history of clinically obvious inflammation fulfilling the criteria for RA and no previous treatment with glucocorticoids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results showed that abatacept is superior to placebo in improving subclinical inflammation and in inhibiting the progression to RA in at-risk patients at 6 months, Dr. Rech said, but early clinical results of patients in the study who’ve had 18 months of follow-up, which were not part of the dataset he presented, revealed that time-limited treatment with the immunomodulator has a significant sustained effect on progression to RA. That “means 6 months of treatment with abatacept will delay the development of RA after 18 months,” he said.

After the complete 18-month dataset is analyzed, the next step for investigators will be to re-evaluate the ARIAA population, perhaps for genetic markers, Dr. Rech said. What would then follow, he said, could be to conduct a larger phase 3 trial, determine the risk factors that drive RA autoimmunity, see if disease progression varies among ethnic groups and people in different geographic regions, and perhaps start a head-to-head trial with rituximab (Rituxan) or an evaluation of combined time-limited abatacept and rituximab in at-risk patients.

“We should think about new strategies, new life-quality questionnaires, new biomarkers and tools for covering and understanding these RA patients at-risk in a better way,” Dr. Rech said, noting that a European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology task force has already addressed this topic.

John D. Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle (England) University, said in an interview that ARIAA is the first readout from a number of studies evaluating preemptive treatment to prevent or delay RA onset. “You have to ask a question: Is this just suppressing what’s going on?” Dr. Isaacs said. “In other words, now that the treatment has been stopped, there’s great interest in what happens over the next 12 months of this study. Have we delayed the onset of rheumatoid arthritis or have we actually prevented it? I think that’s the $10 billion dollar question of this and similar studies.”

Answering that question may be difficult without a known blood biomarker. “That’s not a criticism of the trial; we just don’t have that scientifically at the moment,” Dr. Isaacs said. “Until then, it will be difficult to say we have delayed or we have prevented rheumatoid arthritis. My feeling is, even if we delay it 6 months or even a year with safe treatment, that would be worth it.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb sponsored the trial. Dr. Rech and Dr. Isaacs disclosed having financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb and other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are treated with methotrexate (MTX) are more than twice as likely to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) when compared with patients who use hydroxychloroquine, according to data from a propensity score–matched cohort study.

“As the effect of these medications on the risk of VTE is largely unknown, we aimed to compare the rate of incident VTE after initiating MTX versus hydroxychloroquine among older patients with RA,” wrote Mengdong He, MHS, and coauthors from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Ms. At the time of the study, Ms. He was a research specialist but is now a medical student at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results were published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

Using U.S. Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2017, the researchers identified patients with RA aged 65 years and older who initiated MTX or hydroxychloroquine without prior use of any immunomodulators for at least 365 days (that is, index date). Patients who used any conventional (other than methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine), biologic, or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) any time prior to the index date were excluded.

The primary outcome of interest was incident VTE, a composite endpoint of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, and all-cause mortality.

Results

After applying the eligibility criteria, a total of 68,648 RA patients who initiated either MTX (n = 41,197) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 27,451) as their first DMARD were identified and included in the analysis.

After 1:1 propensity score matching, the cohort consisted of 26,534 matched pairs of MTX and hydroxychloroquine initiators. The mean age was 74 years (standard deviation, 7 years), and 79% of the patients were female.

During a total of 56,686 person-years of follow-up, VTE occurred in 208 MTX (incidence, 6.94 per 1,000 person-years) and 83 hydroxychloroquine initiators (incidence, 3.11 per 1,000 person-years).

Patients who initiated MTX without prior use of any DMARDs had a higher risk of PE (hazard ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.28-4.77) and DVT (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07-2.19) than hydroxychloroquine initiators. However, all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00).

“MTX initiators had a relative risk of VTE higher than 2 and an absolute risk increase of about 4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with hydroxychloroquine initiators,” the authors wrote. “Results from the secondary outcome analyses were consistent and subgroup analyses found no meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of claims-based algorithms to define outcomes. As a result, outcome misclassification is possible.

“While the study methodology was sound, patients with RA who receive hydroxychloroquine are very different than those who receive MTX, and it’s difficult to fully account for these differences using an administrative data set,” commented Kaleb Michaud, PhD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Most clinicians are more interested in understanding the differences in VTE risk between MTX and Jakinibs [Janus kinase inhibitors] or MTX and biologics,” Dr. Michaud said.

“More research, particularly with randomized trials including the placebo arm, is needed to determine the causal relationships between the study drugs and VTE and whether MTX elevates or hydroxychloroquine reduces the risk of VTE,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by internal resources in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Several authors reported financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are treated with methotrexate (MTX) are more than twice as likely to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) when compared with patients who use hydroxychloroquine, according to data from a propensity score–matched cohort study.

“As the effect of these medications on the risk of VTE is largely unknown, we aimed to compare the rate of incident VTE after initiating MTX versus hydroxychloroquine among older patients with RA,” wrote Mengdong He, MHS, and coauthors from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Ms. At the time of the study, Ms. He was a research specialist but is now a medical student at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results were published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

Using U.S. Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2017, the researchers identified patients with RA aged 65 years and older who initiated MTX or hydroxychloroquine without prior use of any immunomodulators for at least 365 days (that is, index date). Patients who used any conventional (other than methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine), biologic, or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) any time prior to the index date were excluded.

The primary outcome of interest was incident VTE, a composite endpoint of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, and all-cause mortality.

Results

After applying the eligibility criteria, a total of 68,648 RA patients who initiated either MTX (n = 41,197) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 27,451) as their first DMARD were identified and included in the analysis.

After 1:1 propensity score matching, the cohort consisted of 26,534 matched pairs of MTX and hydroxychloroquine initiators. The mean age was 74 years (standard deviation, 7 years), and 79% of the patients were female.

During a total of 56,686 person-years of follow-up, VTE occurred in 208 MTX (incidence, 6.94 per 1,000 person-years) and 83 hydroxychloroquine initiators (incidence, 3.11 per 1,000 person-years).

Patients who initiated MTX without prior use of any DMARDs had a higher risk of PE (hazard ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.28-4.77) and DVT (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07-2.19) than hydroxychloroquine initiators. However, all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00).

“MTX initiators had a relative risk of VTE higher than 2 and an absolute risk increase of about 4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with hydroxychloroquine initiators,” the authors wrote. “Results from the secondary outcome analyses were consistent and subgroup analyses found no meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of claims-based algorithms to define outcomes. As a result, outcome misclassification is possible.

“While the study methodology was sound, patients with RA who receive hydroxychloroquine are very different than those who receive MTX, and it’s difficult to fully account for these differences using an administrative data set,” commented Kaleb Michaud, PhD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Most clinicians are more interested in understanding the differences in VTE risk between MTX and Jakinibs [Janus kinase inhibitors] or MTX and biologics,” Dr. Michaud said.

“More research, particularly with randomized trials including the placebo arm, is needed to determine the causal relationships between the study drugs and VTE and whether MTX elevates or hydroxychloroquine reduces the risk of VTE,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by internal resources in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Several authors reported financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are treated with methotrexate (MTX) are more than twice as likely to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) when compared with patients who use hydroxychloroquine, according to data from a propensity score–matched cohort study.

“As the effect of these medications on the risk of VTE is largely unknown, we aimed to compare the rate of incident VTE after initiating MTX versus hydroxychloroquine among older patients with RA,” wrote Mengdong He, MHS, and coauthors from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Ms. At the time of the study, Ms. He was a research specialist but is now a medical student at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results were published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

Using U.S. Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2017, the researchers identified patients with RA aged 65 years and older who initiated MTX or hydroxychloroquine without prior use of any immunomodulators for at least 365 days (that is, index date). Patients who used any conventional (other than methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine), biologic, or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) any time prior to the index date were excluded.

The primary outcome of interest was incident VTE, a composite endpoint of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, and all-cause mortality.

Results

After applying the eligibility criteria, a total of 68,648 RA patients who initiated either MTX (n = 41,197) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 27,451) as their first DMARD were identified and included in the analysis.

After 1:1 propensity score matching, the cohort consisted of 26,534 matched pairs of MTX and hydroxychloroquine initiators. The mean age was 74 years (standard deviation, 7 years), and 79% of the patients were female.

During a total of 56,686 person-years of follow-up, VTE occurred in 208 MTX (incidence, 6.94 per 1,000 person-years) and 83 hydroxychloroquine initiators (incidence, 3.11 per 1,000 person-years).

Patients who initiated MTX without prior use of any DMARDs had a higher risk of PE (hazard ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.28-4.77) and DVT (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.07-2.19) than hydroxychloroquine initiators. However, all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00).

“MTX initiators had a relative risk of VTE higher than 2 and an absolute risk increase of about 4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with hydroxychloroquine initiators,” the authors wrote. “Results from the secondary outcome analyses were consistent and subgroup analyses found no meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the use of claims-based algorithms to define outcomes. As a result, outcome misclassification is possible.

“While the study methodology was sound, patients with RA who receive hydroxychloroquine are very different than those who receive MTX, and it’s difficult to fully account for these differences using an administrative data set,” commented Kaleb Michaud, PhD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Most clinicians are more interested in understanding the differences in VTE risk between MTX and Jakinibs [Janus kinase inhibitors] or MTX and biologics,” Dr. Michaud said.

“More research, particularly with randomized trials including the placebo arm, is needed to determine the causal relationships between the study drugs and VTE and whether MTX elevates or hydroxychloroquine reduces the risk of VTE,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by internal resources in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Several authors reported financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

Biosimilar medications have received significant attention recently in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), though the effects of switching from the reference drug to a biosimilar is not known. The study by Fleischmann et al¹ looks at the safety and efficacy, as well as immunogenicity, of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL-PF) compared to the reference ADL-EU (European Union sourced adalimumab) in a randomized double-blind study. Patients were randomized to start and continue ADL-PF or start ADL-EU and switch to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52. Immunogenicity was measured using anti-drug antibodies (ADA). American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were similar among all groups, while ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were numerically lower in the week 52 switch group. ADA development was comparable between groups. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, but overall, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity were similar between patients maintained on ADL-PF and those switched from ADL-EU at week 26 or 52.

Statins have long been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in patients, but have also been postulated to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Complicating the relationship is the knowledge that inflammation increases cardiovascular risk in RA patients. In a case-control study, Peterson et al² used an administrative database to examine the influence of statin use on development of RA. Cases were identified based on ICD-9 coding as well as a prescription for methotrexate after diagnosis. They were matched 1:1 with controls based on demographics and year of diagnosis. Statin use was evaluated. Statin use was associated with a small increase in risk of RA, which was diminished after adjusting for hyperlipidemia; a trend towards increase in risk with higher dose and duration of statin use was not statistically significant. Beyond this, the reduced risk after adjustment for hyperlipidemia is hard to interpret as an explanation of cause or effect of autoimmunity, and, given the small magnitude of increases and decreases in risk, may not be clinically meaningful.

In addition to patients with RA having a higher burden of cardiovascular disease necessitating use of statins, they also have a high risk of progressive secondary osteoarthritis requiring joint replacement surgery. Chang et al³ used a national claims-based dataset from China to examine risk of total knee or hip replacement (TKR and THR, respectively) in patients with RA. From 2000-2013 (ie, the onset of the biologic era), TKR and THR rates were examined in a cohort of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) users compared to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) users. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were lower for both TKD and THR in bDMARD users. Though RA activity was not examined, combined with the knowledge of the association of disease severity with bDMARD use, this study lends evidence to the benefits of more aggressive treatment.

Finally, much is made of the link between bDMARD and targeted synthetic DMARD use and malignancy due to reduced immunosurveillance, but concrete evidence is conflicting. Wetzman et al⁴ performed a systematic review of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and Ankylosing spondylitis) looking at cancer relapse or occurrence of new cancer. An increase in skin cancers (HR 1.32) was noted, but reassuringly no other increase in risk of recurrent or new cancer was seen.

References

1. Fleischmann R et al. Long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar, PF-06410293, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from reference adalimumab (Humira®) or continuing biosimilar therapy: week 52–92 data from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trialArthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248.
2. Peterson MN et al. Risk of rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis in statin users in a large nationwide US study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 18):23:244.
3. Chang YS et al. Effects of biologics on reducing the risks of total knee replacement and total hip replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 17):keab671.
4. Wetzman A et al. Risk of cancer after initiation of targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a prior cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 21): acr.24784.

Biosimilar medications have received significant attention recently in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), though the effects of switching from the reference drug to a biosimilar is not known. The study by Fleischmann et al¹ looks at the safety and efficacy, as well as immunogenicity, of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL-PF) compared to the reference ADL-EU (European Union sourced adalimumab) in a randomized double-blind study. Patients were randomized to start and continue ADL-PF or start ADL-EU and switch to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52. Immunogenicity was measured using anti-drug antibodies (ADA). American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were similar among all groups, while ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were numerically lower in the week 52 switch group. ADA development was comparable between groups. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, but overall, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity were similar between patients maintained on ADL-PF and those switched from ADL-EU at week 26 or 52.

Statins have long been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in patients, but have also been postulated to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Complicating the relationship is the knowledge that inflammation increases cardiovascular risk in RA patients. In a case-control study, Peterson et al² used an administrative database to examine the influence of statin use on development of RA. Cases were identified based on ICD-9 coding as well as a prescription for methotrexate after diagnosis. They were matched 1:1 with controls based on demographics and year of diagnosis. Statin use was evaluated. Statin use was associated with a small increase in risk of RA, which was diminished after adjusting for hyperlipidemia; a trend towards increase in risk with higher dose and duration of statin use was not statistically significant. Beyond this, the reduced risk after adjustment for hyperlipidemia is hard to interpret as an explanation of cause or effect of autoimmunity, and, given the small magnitude of increases and decreases in risk, may not be clinically meaningful.

In addition to patients with RA having a higher burden of cardiovascular disease necessitating use of statins, they also have a high risk of progressive secondary osteoarthritis requiring joint replacement surgery. Chang et al³ used a national claims-based dataset from China to examine risk of total knee or hip replacement (TKR and THR, respectively) in patients with RA. From 2000-2013 (ie, the onset of the biologic era), TKR and THR rates were examined in a cohort of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) users compared to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) users. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were lower for both TKD and THR in bDMARD users. Though RA activity was not examined, combined with the knowledge of the association of disease severity with bDMARD use, this study lends evidence to the benefits of more aggressive treatment.

Finally, much is made of the link between bDMARD and targeted synthetic DMARD use and malignancy due to reduced immunosurveillance, but concrete evidence is conflicting. Wetzman et al⁴ performed a systematic review of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and Ankylosing spondylitis) looking at cancer relapse or occurrence of new cancer. An increase in skin cancers (HR 1.32) was noted, but reassuringly no other increase in risk of recurrent or new cancer was seen.

References

1. Fleischmann R et al. Long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar, PF-06410293, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from reference adalimumab (Humira®) or continuing biosimilar therapy: week 52–92 data from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trialArthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248.
2. Peterson MN et al. Risk of rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis in statin users in a large nationwide US study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 18):23:244.
3. Chang YS et al. Effects of biologics on reducing the risks of total knee replacement and total hip replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 17):keab671.
4. Wetzman A et al. Risk of cancer after initiation of targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a prior cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 21): acr.24784.

Biosimilar medications have received significant attention recently in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), though the effects of switching from the reference drug to a biosimilar is not known. The study by Fleischmann et al¹ looks at the safety and efficacy, as well as immunogenicity, of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL-PF) compared to the reference ADL-EU (European Union sourced adalimumab) in a randomized double-blind study. Patients were randomized to start and continue ADL-PF or start ADL-EU and switch to ADL-PF at week 26 or 52. Immunogenicity was measured using anti-drug antibodies (ADA). American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rates were similar among all groups, while ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were numerically lower in the week 52 switch group. ADA development was comparable between groups. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, but overall, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity were similar between patients maintained on ADL-PF and those switched from ADL-EU at week 26 or 52.

Statins have long been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms in patients, but have also been postulated to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Complicating the relationship is the knowledge that inflammation increases cardiovascular risk in RA patients. In a case-control study, Peterson et al² used an administrative database to examine the influence of statin use on development of RA. Cases were identified based on ICD-9 coding as well as a prescription for methotrexate after diagnosis. They were matched 1:1 with controls based on demographics and year of diagnosis. Statin use was evaluated. Statin use was associated with a small increase in risk of RA, which was diminished after adjusting for hyperlipidemia; a trend towards increase in risk with higher dose and duration of statin use was not statistically significant. Beyond this, the reduced risk after adjustment for hyperlipidemia is hard to interpret as an explanation of cause or effect of autoimmunity, and, given the small magnitude of increases and decreases in risk, may not be clinically meaningful.

In addition to patients with RA having a higher burden of cardiovascular disease necessitating use of statins, they also have a high risk of progressive secondary osteoarthritis requiring joint replacement surgery. Chang et al³ used a national claims-based dataset from China to examine risk of total knee or hip replacement (TKR and THR, respectively) in patients with RA. From 2000-2013 (ie, the onset of the biologic era), TKR and THR rates were examined in a cohort of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) users compared to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) users. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were lower for both TKD and THR in bDMARD users. Though RA activity was not examined, combined with the knowledge of the association of disease severity with bDMARD use, this study lends evidence to the benefits of more aggressive treatment.

Finally, much is made of the link between bDMARD and targeted synthetic DMARD use and malignancy due to reduced immunosurveillance, but concrete evidence is conflicting. Wetzman et al⁴ performed a systematic review of studies of patients with inflammatory arthritis (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and Ankylosing spondylitis) looking at cancer relapse or occurrence of new cancer. An increase in skin cancers (HR 1.32) was noted, but reassuringly no other increase in risk of recurrent or new cancer was seen.

References

1. Fleischmann R et al. Long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the adalimumab biosimilar, PF-06410293, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after switching from reference adalimumab (Humira®) or continuing biosimilar therapy: week 52–92 data from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trialArthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 25);23:248.
2. Peterson MN et al. Risk of rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis in statin users in a large nationwide US study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021(Sep 18):23:244.
3. Chang YS et al. Effects of biologics on reducing the risks of total knee replacement and total hip replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Sep 17):keab671.
4. Wetzman A et al. Risk of cancer after initiation of targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a prior cancer: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021(Sep 21): acr.24784.

Key clinical point: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) effectively improved sleep quality and reduced fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The total Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and total Fatigue Severity Scale mean score decreased significantly from 11.37 to 4.97 and 6.48 to 2.15 (both P = .001), respectively, in the PMR intervention group. However, no significant difference was observed among patients in the control group.

Study details: This was a randomized controlled study of 72 patients with RA who were categorized into the PMR intervention group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 37).

Disclosures: The Fırat University Rectorate Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided funding to this research. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Kılıç N et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 Sep 26. doi: 10.1111/ijn.13015.

Key clinical point: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) effectively improved sleep quality and reduced fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The total Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and total Fatigue Severity Scale mean score decreased significantly from 11.37 to 4.97 and 6.48 to 2.15 (both P = .001), respectively, in the PMR intervention group. However, no significant difference was observed among patients in the control group.

Study details: This was a randomized controlled study of 72 patients with RA who were categorized into the PMR intervention group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 37).

Disclosures: The Fırat University Rectorate Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided funding to this research. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Kılıç N et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 Sep 26. doi: 10.1111/ijn.13015.

Key clinical point: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) effectively improved sleep quality and reduced fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The total Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and total Fatigue Severity Scale mean score decreased significantly from 11.37 to 4.97 and 6.48 to 2.15 (both P = .001), respectively, in the PMR intervention group. However, no significant difference was observed among patients in the control group.

Study details: This was a randomized controlled study of 72 patients with RA who were categorized into the PMR intervention group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 37).

Disclosures: The Fırat University Rectorate Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit provided funding to this research. None of the authors declared any conflict of interest.

Source: Kılıç N et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2021 Sep 26. doi: 10.1111/ijn.13015.

Key clinical point: A greater proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initially treated with oral baricitinib maintained lower levels of radiographic progression over 5 years than those initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or placebo.

Major finding: At 5 years, no radiographic progression was achieved by a greater proportion of DMARD-naive patients with initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib (59.0%) and initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib + methotrexate (66.2%) vs. those with initial methotrexate treatment (40.7%). Similarly, a greater proportion of patients with inadequate response to methotrexate with initial baricitinib treatment (54.8%) or adalimumab treatment (55.0%) achieved no progression vs. those with initial placebo treatment (50.3%).

Study details: Findings are from a long-term extension RA-BEYOND trial, which included 2,125 patients with active adult-onset RA who completed any 1 of RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, or RA-BUILD phase 3 trials.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company supported this study. The authors declared receiving grant/research support and consulting/speaker’s fees from various sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors reported being current or former employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: van der Heijde D et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210346.

Key clinical point: A greater proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initially treated with oral baricitinib maintained lower levels of radiographic progression over 5 years than those initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or placebo.

Major finding: At 5 years, no radiographic progression was achieved by a greater proportion of DMARD-naive patients with initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib (59.0%) and initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib + methotrexate (66.2%) vs. those with initial methotrexate treatment (40.7%). Similarly, a greater proportion of patients with inadequate response to methotrexate with initial baricitinib treatment (54.8%) or adalimumab treatment (55.0%) achieved no progression vs. those with initial placebo treatment (50.3%).

Study details: Findings are from a long-term extension RA-BEYOND trial, which included 2,125 patients with active adult-onset RA who completed any 1 of RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, or RA-BUILD phase 3 trials.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company supported this study. The authors declared receiving grant/research support and consulting/speaker’s fees from various sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors reported being current or former employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: van der Heijde D et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210346.

Key clinical point: A greater proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initially treated with oral baricitinib maintained lower levels of radiographic progression over 5 years than those initially treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or placebo.

Major finding: At 5 years, no radiographic progression was achieved by a greater proportion of DMARD-naive patients with initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib (59.0%) and initial treatment with 4 mg baricitinib + methotrexate (66.2%) vs. those with initial methotrexate treatment (40.7%). Similarly, a greater proportion of patients with inadequate response to methotrexate with initial baricitinib treatment (54.8%) or adalimumab treatment (55.0%) achieved no progression vs. those with initial placebo treatment (50.3%).

Study details: Findings are from a long-term extension RA-BEYOND trial, which included 2,125 patients with active adult-onset RA who completed any 1 of RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, or RA-BUILD phase 3 trials.

Disclosures: Eli Lilly and Company supported this study. The authors declared receiving grant/research support and consulting/speaker’s fees from various sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Three authors reported being current or former employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: van der Heijde D et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210346.

Key clinical point: Premenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a significantly higher risk for diastolic dysfunction, and early screening may help prevent future cardiovascular events.

Major finding: Patients with RA had a significantly higher incidence of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; P = .020), with the risk being higher in women aged between 30 and 49 years vs. control participants of the same age (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85).

Study details: This study involved 61 premenopausal women with RA without any history of hypertension matched with 107 control participants.

Disclosures: No funding or financial conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kim GH et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 24);23:247. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02629-1.

Key clinical point: Premenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a significantly higher risk for diastolic dysfunction, and early screening may help prevent future cardiovascular events.

Major finding: Patients with RA had a significantly higher incidence of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; P = .020), with the risk being higher in women aged between 30 and 49 years vs. control participants of the same age (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85).

Study details: This study involved 61 premenopausal women with RA without any history of hypertension matched with 107 control participants.

Disclosures: No funding or financial conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kim GH et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 24);23:247. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02629-1.

Key clinical point: Premenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a significantly higher risk for diastolic dysfunction, and early screening may help prevent future cardiovascular events.

Major finding: Patients with RA had a significantly higher incidence of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; P = .020), with the risk being higher in women aged between 30 and 49 years vs. control participants of the same age (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85).

Study details: This study involved 61 premenopausal women with RA without any history of hypertension matched with 107 control participants.

Disclosures: No funding or financial conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kim GH et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 (Sep 24);23:247. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02629-1.

Key clinical point: Sarilumab monotherapy was as effective as its combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Hence, it could be a suitable alternative in patients with contraindications or intolerance to methotrexate.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, sarilumab vs. sarilumab + methotrexate groups had comparable least square mean change from baseline with overlapping confidence intervals for Clinical Disease Activity Index (−28.79 vs. −26.21), 28-joint Disease Activity using C-reactive protein (−2.95 vs. −2.81), and pain visual analog scale (−33.62 vs. −31.66).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of 184 patients with RA who received sarilumab in the MONARCH trial and 399 patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate, who received a combination of sarilumab and methotrexate in the MOBILITY trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi provided funding for this study. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants/research support, consultancy, speaker’s fees, and consultancy fees or honoraria from various sources. A Praestgaard and HV Hoogstraten reported being employees of Sanofi and may hold stock or stock options in the company.

Source: Burmester GR et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab676.

Key clinical point: Sarilumab monotherapy was as effective as its combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Hence, it could be a suitable alternative in patients with contraindications or intolerance to methotrexate.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, sarilumab vs. sarilumab + methotrexate groups had comparable least square mean change from baseline with overlapping confidence intervals for Clinical Disease Activity Index (−28.79 vs. −26.21), 28-joint Disease Activity using C-reactive protein (−2.95 vs. −2.81), and pain visual analog scale (−33.62 vs. −31.66).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of 184 patients with RA who received sarilumab in the MONARCH trial and 399 patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate, who received a combination of sarilumab and methotrexate in the MOBILITY trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi provided funding for this study. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants/research support, consultancy, speaker’s fees, and consultancy fees or honoraria from various sources. A Praestgaard and HV Hoogstraten reported being employees of Sanofi and may hold stock or stock options in the company.

Source: Burmester GR et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab676.

Key clinical point: Sarilumab monotherapy was as effective as its combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Hence, it could be a suitable alternative in patients with contraindications or intolerance to methotrexate.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, sarilumab vs. sarilumab + methotrexate groups had comparable least square mean change from baseline with overlapping confidence intervals for Clinical Disease Activity Index (−28.79 vs. −26.21), 28-joint Disease Activity using C-reactive protein (−2.95 vs. −2.81), and pain visual analog scale (−33.62 vs. −31.66).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of 184 patients with RA who received sarilumab in the MONARCH trial and 399 patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate, who received a combination of sarilumab and methotrexate in the MOBILITY trial.

Disclosures: Sanofi provided funding for this study. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants/research support, consultancy, speaker’s fees, and consultancy fees or honoraria from various sources. A Praestgaard and HV Hoogstraten reported being employees of Sanofi and may hold stock or stock options in the company.

Source: Burmester GR et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Sep 11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab676.

Key clinical point: Exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) did not seem to be associated with an elevated risk for recurrent or new cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a history of cancer.

Major finding: The risk for recurrent or new cancer was not significantly higher in patients with RA receiving bDMARDs (relative risk [RR], 1.09; P = .31), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (RR 1.11; P = .45), or rituximab (RR 0.79; P = .49) vs. those not receiving bDMARDs.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 observational studies involving patients with RA who had a history of cancer and received bDMARDs.

Disclosures: No specific funding was received for this study. The authors declared receiving honoraria or grants from various sources.

Source: Wetzman A et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Sep 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24784.

Key clinical point: Exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) did not seem to be associated with an elevated risk for recurrent or new cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a history of cancer.

Major finding: The risk for recurrent or new cancer was not significantly higher in patients with RA receiving bDMARDs (relative risk [RR], 1.09; P = .31), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (RR 1.11; P = .45), or rituximab (RR 0.79; P = .49) vs. those not receiving bDMARDs.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 observational studies involving patients with RA who had a history of cancer and received bDMARDs.

Disclosures: No specific funding was received for this study. The authors declared receiving honoraria or grants from various sources.

Source: Wetzman A et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Sep 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24784.

Key clinical point: Exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) did not seem to be associated with an elevated risk for recurrent or new cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a history of cancer.

Major finding: The risk for recurrent or new cancer was not significantly higher in patients with RA receiving bDMARDs (relative risk [RR], 1.09; P = .31), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (RR 1.11; P = .45), or rituximab (RR 0.79; P = .49) vs. those not receiving bDMARDs.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 observational studies involving patients with RA who had a history of cancer and received bDMARDs.

Disclosures: No specific funding was received for this study. The authors declared receiving honoraria or grants from various sources.

Source: Wetzman A et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Sep 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24784.

Key clinical point: Discontinuation of denosumab after 1 year of treatment showed a return to baseline lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving glucocorticoids.

Major finding: By 12 months after discontinuation, TH BMD reduced to levels similar to or slightly above placebo in patients receiving 60 mg (P = .210) and 180 mg denosumab (P = .706). Similar reversal of gains was observed for LS BMD with the least-square percent mean change from baseline in placebo, 60 mg, and 180 mg denosumab, being 2.30% (95% CI −0.35%-4.94%), 1.31% (95% CI −1.17%-3.79%), and 0.12% (95% CI −2.45%-2.68%), respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study including 82 patients with RA receiving glucocorticoids, randomly assigned to placebo, 60 mg, or 180 mg denosumab every 6 months for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Some of the authors declared ties with various sources including Amgen. MT McDermott, RK Stad, L Chen, and S Huang declared being employees of Amgen.

Source: Saag KG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/art.41981.

Key clinical point: Discontinuation of denosumab after 1 year of treatment showed a return to baseline lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving glucocorticoids.

Major finding: By 12 months after discontinuation, TH BMD reduced to levels similar to or slightly above placebo in patients receiving 60 mg (P = .210) and 180 mg denosumab (P = .706). Similar reversal of gains was observed for LS BMD with the least-square percent mean change from baseline in placebo, 60 mg, and 180 mg denosumab, being 2.30% (95% CI −0.35%-4.94%), 1.31% (95% CI −1.17%-3.79%), and 0.12% (95% CI −2.45%-2.68%), respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study including 82 patients with RA receiving glucocorticoids, randomly assigned to placebo, 60 mg, or 180 mg denosumab every 6 months for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Some of the authors declared ties with various sources including Amgen. MT McDermott, RK Stad, L Chen, and S Huang declared being employees of Amgen.

Source: Saag KG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/art.41981.

Key clinical point: Discontinuation of denosumab after 1 year of treatment showed a return to baseline lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving glucocorticoids.

Major finding: By 12 months after discontinuation, TH BMD reduced to levels similar to or slightly above placebo in patients receiving 60 mg (P = .210) and 180 mg denosumab (P = .706). Similar reversal of gains was observed for LS BMD with the least-square percent mean change from baseline in placebo, 60 mg, and 180 mg denosumab, being 2.30% (95% CI −0.35%-4.94%), 1.31% (95% CI −1.17%-3.79%), and 0.12% (95% CI −2.45%-2.68%), respectively.

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of a phase 2 study including 82 patients with RA receiving glucocorticoids, randomly assigned to placebo, 60 mg, or 180 mg denosumab every 6 months for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen Inc. Some of the authors declared ties with various sources including Amgen. MT McDermott, RK Stad, L Chen, and S Huang declared being employees of Amgen.

Source: Saag KG et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1002/art.41981.