Rheumatology

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

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.

TOPLINE:

The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.

METHODOLOGY:

• MDA5 antibody-positive DM is a rare DM subtype associated with ILD, which is categorized into rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD) and chronic ILD, with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
• In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
• The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
• ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
• The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
• Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.

METHODOLOGY:

• MDA5 antibody-positive DM is a rare DM subtype associated with ILD, which is categorized into rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD) and chronic ILD, with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
• In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
• The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
• ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
• The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
• Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.

METHODOLOGY:

• MDA5 antibody-positive DM is a rare DM subtype associated with ILD, which is categorized into rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD) and chronic ILD, with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
• In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
• The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
• ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
• The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
• Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient care and patient satisfaction, a survey of dermatologists suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient outcomes and experiences, particularly for pediatric autoimmune conditions presenting with both cutaneous and systemic manifestations.
• The researchers surveyed 208 pediatric dermatologists working in combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics.
• A total of 13 member responses were recorded from three countries: 10 from the United States, two from Mexico, and one from Canada.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perceived benefits of combined clinics were improved patient care through coordinated treatment decisions and timely communication between providers.
• Patient satisfaction was favorable, and patients and families endorsed the combined clinic approach.
• Barriers to clinic establishment included differences in the pace between dermatology and rheumatology clinic flow, the need to generate more relative value units, resistance from colleagues, and limited time.
• Areas that needed improvement included more time for patient visits, dedicated research assistants, new patient referrals, additional patient rooms, resources for research, and patient care infrastructure.

IN PRACTICE:

The insights from this survey “will hopefully inspire further development of these combined clinics,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Olga S. Cherepakhin, BS, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the subjective nature, lack of some information, selection bias, and small number of respondents, and the survey reflected the perspective of the pediatric dermatologists only.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported full-time employment at Janssen R&D, and the other authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient care and patient satisfaction, a survey of dermatologists suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient outcomes and experiences, particularly for pediatric autoimmune conditions presenting with both cutaneous and systemic manifestations.
• The researchers surveyed 208 pediatric dermatologists working in combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics.
• A total of 13 member responses were recorded from three countries: 10 from the United States, two from Mexico, and one from Canada.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perceived benefits of combined clinics were improved patient care through coordinated treatment decisions and timely communication between providers.
• Patient satisfaction was favorable, and patients and families endorsed the combined clinic approach.
• Barriers to clinic establishment included differences in the pace between dermatology and rheumatology clinic flow, the need to generate more relative value units, resistance from colleagues, and limited time.
• Areas that needed improvement included more time for patient visits, dedicated research assistants, new patient referrals, additional patient rooms, resources for research, and patient care infrastructure.

IN PRACTICE:

The insights from this survey “will hopefully inspire further development of these combined clinics,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Olga S. Cherepakhin, BS, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the subjective nature, lack of some information, selection bias, and small number of respondents, and the survey reflected the perspective of the pediatric dermatologists only.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported full-time employment at Janssen R&D, and the other authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient care and patient satisfaction, a survey of dermatologists suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics can improve patient outcomes and experiences, particularly for pediatric autoimmune conditions presenting with both cutaneous and systemic manifestations.
• The researchers surveyed 208 pediatric dermatologists working in combined pediatric dermatology-rheumatology clinics.
• A total of 13 member responses were recorded from three countries: 10 from the United States, two from Mexico, and one from Canada.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perceived benefits of combined clinics were improved patient care through coordinated treatment decisions and timely communication between providers.
• Patient satisfaction was favorable, and patients and families endorsed the combined clinic approach.
• Barriers to clinic establishment included differences in the pace between dermatology and rheumatology clinic flow, the need to generate more relative value units, resistance from colleagues, and limited time.
• Areas that needed improvement included more time for patient visits, dedicated research assistants, new patient referrals, additional patient rooms, resources for research, and patient care infrastructure.

IN PRACTICE:

The insights from this survey “will hopefully inspire further development of these combined clinics,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Olga S. Cherepakhin, BS, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included the subjective nature, lack of some information, selection bias, and small number of respondents, and the survey reflected the perspective of the pediatric dermatologists only.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported full-time employment at Janssen R&D, and the other authors had no 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.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

This is the second ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and is the second biosimilar approval in the United States for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals. 

Ustekinumab (Stelara) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)–12 and IL-23. The drug, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, totaled nearly $7 billion in sales in 2023 alone, according a press release. 

“Bringing Selarsdi to market in the US early next year presents a significant opportunity to improve patient access to a vital biologic in inflammatory disease and contribute to the reduction of inflationary pressure in healthcare costs,” the chairman and CEO of Alvotech said in the release. 

The first ustekinumab biosimilar, ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana), was approved by the FDA in on October 31, 2023 and is interchangeable with the reference product. This allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Besides psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, ustekinumab-auub was also approved for treating moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Ustekinumab-aekn does not have an interchangeability designation and was not approved for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. 

The approval of ustekinumab-aekn was based on two clinical studies. A randomized, double blind, multicenter, 52-week study of 581 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that the biosimilar was as effective as the reference product, with equivalent safety and immunogenicity profiles. A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group, three-arm study also compared the pharmacokinetic profile of the biosimilar to ustekinumab in 294 healthy adults.

Ustekinumab-aekn is expected to be marketed in the United States on or after February 21, 2025 per a settlement and license agreement with Johnson & Johnson. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

This is the second ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and is the second biosimilar approval in the United States for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals. 

Ustekinumab (Stelara) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)–12 and IL-23. The drug, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, totaled nearly $7 billion in sales in 2023 alone, according a press release. 

“Bringing Selarsdi to market in the US early next year presents a significant opportunity to improve patient access to a vital biologic in inflammatory disease and contribute to the reduction of inflationary pressure in healthcare costs,” the chairman and CEO of Alvotech said in the release. 

The first ustekinumab biosimilar, ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana), was approved by the FDA in on October 31, 2023 and is interchangeable with the reference product. This allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Besides psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, ustekinumab-auub was also approved for treating moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Ustekinumab-aekn does not have an interchangeability designation and was not approved for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. 

The approval of ustekinumab-aekn was based on two clinical studies. A randomized, double blind, multicenter, 52-week study of 581 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that the biosimilar was as effective as the reference product, with equivalent safety and immunogenicity profiles. A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group, three-arm study also compared the pharmacokinetic profile of the biosimilar to ustekinumab in 294 healthy adults.

Ustekinumab-aekn is expected to be marketed in the United States on or after February 21, 2025 per a settlement and license agreement with Johnson & Johnson. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

This is the second ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and is the second biosimilar approval in the United States for the Icelandic pharmaceutical company Alvotech in partnership with Teva Pharmaceuticals. 

Ustekinumab (Stelara) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)–12 and IL-23. The drug, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, totaled nearly $7 billion in sales in 2023 alone, according a press release. 

“Bringing Selarsdi to market in the US early next year presents a significant opportunity to improve patient access to a vital biologic in inflammatory disease and contribute to the reduction of inflationary pressure in healthcare costs,” the chairman and CEO of Alvotech said in the release. 

The first ustekinumab biosimilar, ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana), was approved by the FDA in on October 31, 2023 and is interchangeable with the reference product. This allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Besides psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, ustekinumab-auub was also approved for treating moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Ustekinumab-aekn does not have an interchangeability designation and was not approved for Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. 

The approval of ustekinumab-aekn was based on two clinical studies. A randomized, double blind, multicenter, 52-week study of 581 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that the biosimilar was as effective as the reference product, with equivalent safety and immunogenicity profiles. A phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group, three-arm study also compared the pharmacokinetic profile of the biosimilar to ustekinumab in 294 healthy adults.

Ustekinumab-aekn is expected to be marketed in the United States on or after February 21, 2025 per a settlement and license agreement with Johnson & Johnson. 

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.

Some of the best clinical trials of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV) that were presented at the 21st International Vasculitis Workshop in Barcelona, Spain, included studies addressing relapse after stopping steroids, preventing relapse with abatacept, improving kidney function with plasma exchange, and vaccinating rituximab-treated patients.
 

Stopping Steroids After Remission in GPA

In the randomized, open-label TAPIR (The Assessment of Prednisone In Remission Trial) study of 159 adults with GPA in remission who had tapered to a prednisone dose of 5 mg/day, those who remained at that dosage had a significantly lower rate of relapse after 6 months than those who tapered to 0 mg/day (4.2% vs 15.5%; P = .227), according to results reported at the meeting.

However, use of a higher dose of prednisone for disease relapse by 6 months was similar for patients who used rituximab at baseline (8.8% with 0 mg/day vs 6.1% with 5 mg/day; P = .667), and the difference in this primary outcome was more pronounced among patients who did not take rituximab at baseline (20.0% with 0 mg/day vs 2.6% with 5 mg/day; P = .023).

A higher percentage of patients taking prednisone 0 mg/day had disease relapses that were considered minor (14.1% and 4.2%; P = .0391). Major relapses occurred in none of the patients taking 5 mg/day and in 1.4% receiving 0 mg/day. About 90% of patients in either treatment arm completed the trial.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskelatal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, was unique in that half of patients randomized in the study were enrolled at community clinics and half were enrolled at Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium clinical centers.
 

Abatacept Falls Short for Preventing Relapse in GPA

Adding abatacept to glucocorticoids failed to reduce risk of relapse, worsening disease, or failure to reach remission in adults with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, based on data from a randomized trial of 65 individuals.

In the 20-site, randomized, double-blind ABROGATE (Abatacept for the Treatment of Relapsing, Non-Severe, Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis) study, 34 patients received 125 mg subcutaneous abatacept once a week or a placebo in addition to 30 mg/day of prednisone that was tapered and discontinued after 12 weeks. Patients who were receiving methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide at baseline continued the medication at a stable dose.

The primary outcome of disease worsening or relapse occurred in 62% of the abatacept group and 68% of the placebo group, and no significant difference in treatment failure rate appeared between the groups. In addition, key secondary endpoints of time to full remission, duration of glucocorticoid-free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient-reported quality of life outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

A total of 112 adverse events occurred, with similar type and severity between the groups, including incidence of infections.

The findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, but the results suggest a need for further research to determine mechanisms of disease and explore additional novel treatments for this rare patient population, the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Plasma Exchange Improves Kidney Function in AAV

Use of therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) as an adjunct treatment improved early kidney function in adults with AAV and glomerulonephritis but did not extend beyond 8 weeks, and recovery of kidney function was no different between patients receiving a regular glucocorticoid regimen versus a reduced course, based on a post-hoc analysis of 691 individuals in the international randomized controlled trial called PEXIVAS.

The primary outcomes of change in kidney function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline over 1 year and the percentage of patients with improvement in eGFR of at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m² at weeks 12, 26, and 52.

The rate of improved eGFR was significantly greater in the PLEX group, compared with controls, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. At 4 weeks, significantly more patients in the PLEX group had an increase in eGFR by at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m², compared with the control group (relative risk [RR], 1.41; P = .008). In addition, improved kidney function within 4 weeks was significantly associated with lower risk of kidney failure within 1 year, regardless of treatment group.

The original PEXIVAS trial was supported by various government institutes and agencies from multiple countries.
 

Reinforced Vaccine Strategy with Rituximab Improved Antibody Response in AAV

A vaccine strategy consisting of a double dose of 13-valent antipneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at day 0 and day 7 followed by a single dose of 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) at 5 months significantly improved antibody responses against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with AAV, compared with standard treatment, based on data from 95 individuals in the multicenter, open-label study called PNEUMOVAS.

Adults with newly diagnosed AAV were randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: a standard regimen of one dose of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 1); a double dose of PCV13 at day 0 and day 7 with a dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 2); or four doses of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 3). These patients received PCV13 within 2 days before or after their first infusion of rituximab.

The primary endpoint was positive antibody response against 12 pneumococcal subtypes common to the PCV13 and PCV23 vaccines at 6 months. At 6 months, the immune response to 0-3, 4-6, 7-9, or 10-12 serotypes was 83.3%, 13.3%, 3.3%, and 0%, respectively, in arm 1; 56.3%, 28.1%, 15.6%, and 0% in arm 2; and 60.6%, 33.3%, 6.1%, and 0% in arm 3.

No severe adverse events related to vaccination were observed in any of the groups; a total of eight AAV flares occurred in six patients (one in arm 1, two in arm 2, and three in arm 3). Local and systemic reactions occurred more frequently with the reinforced dose regimens, but these were mostly grade 1 or 2 local reactions.

The study was supported by the French Ministry of Health.

Some of the best clinical trials of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV) that were presented at the 21st International Vasculitis Workshop in Barcelona, Spain, included studies addressing relapse after stopping steroids, preventing relapse with abatacept, improving kidney function with plasma exchange, and vaccinating rituximab-treated patients.
 

Stopping Steroids After Remission in GPA

In the randomized, open-label TAPIR (The Assessment of Prednisone In Remission Trial) study of 159 adults with GPA in remission who had tapered to a prednisone dose of 5 mg/day, those who remained at that dosage had a significantly lower rate of relapse after 6 months than those who tapered to 0 mg/day (4.2% vs 15.5%; P = .227), according to results reported at the meeting.

However, use of a higher dose of prednisone for disease relapse by 6 months was similar for patients who used rituximab at baseline (8.8% with 0 mg/day vs 6.1% with 5 mg/day; P = .667), and the difference in this primary outcome was more pronounced among patients who did not take rituximab at baseline (20.0% with 0 mg/day vs 2.6% with 5 mg/day; P = .023).

A higher percentage of patients taking prednisone 0 mg/day had disease relapses that were considered minor (14.1% and 4.2%; P = .0391). Major relapses occurred in none of the patients taking 5 mg/day and in 1.4% receiving 0 mg/day. About 90% of patients in either treatment arm completed the trial.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskelatal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, was unique in that half of patients randomized in the study were enrolled at community clinics and half were enrolled at Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium clinical centers.
 

Abatacept Falls Short for Preventing Relapse in GPA

Adding abatacept to glucocorticoids failed to reduce risk of relapse, worsening disease, or failure to reach remission in adults with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, based on data from a randomized trial of 65 individuals.

In the 20-site, randomized, double-blind ABROGATE (Abatacept for the Treatment of Relapsing, Non-Severe, Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis) study, 34 patients received 125 mg subcutaneous abatacept once a week or a placebo in addition to 30 mg/day of prednisone that was tapered and discontinued after 12 weeks. Patients who were receiving methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide at baseline continued the medication at a stable dose.

The primary outcome of disease worsening or relapse occurred in 62% of the abatacept group and 68% of the placebo group, and no significant difference in treatment failure rate appeared between the groups. In addition, key secondary endpoints of time to full remission, duration of glucocorticoid-free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient-reported quality of life outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

A total of 112 adverse events occurred, with similar type and severity between the groups, including incidence of infections.

The findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, but the results suggest a need for further research to determine mechanisms of disease and explore additional novel treatments for this rare patient population, the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Plasma Exchange Improves Kidney Function in AAV

Use of therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) as an adjunct treatment improved early kidney function in adults with AAV and glomerulonephritis but did not extend beyond 8 weeks, and recovery of kidney function was no different between patients receiving a regular glucocorticoid regimen versus a reduced course, based on a post-hoc analysis of 691 individuals in the international randomized controlled trial called PEXIVAS.

The primary outcomes of change in kidney function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline over 1 year and the percentage of patients with improvement in eGFR of at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m² at weeks 12, 26, and 52.

The rate of improved eGFR was significantly greater in the PLEX group, compared with controls, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. At 4 weeks, significantly more patients in the PLEX group had an increase in eGFR by at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m², compared with the control group (relative risk [RR], 1.41; P = .008). In addition, improved kidney function within 4 weeks was significantly associated with lower risk of kidney failure within 1 year, regardless of treatment group.

The original PEXIVAS trial was supported by various government institutes and agencies from multiple countries.
 

Reinforced Vaccine Strategy with Rituximab Improved Antibody Response in AAV

A vaccine strategy consisting of a double dose of 13-valent antipneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at day 0 and day 7 followed by a single dose of 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) at 5 months significantly improved antibody responses against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with AAV, compared with standard treatment, based on data from 95 individuals in the multicenter, open-label study called PNEUMOVAS.

Adults with newly diagnosed AAV were randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: a standard regimen of one dose of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 1); a double dose of PCV13 at day 0 and day 7 with a dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 2); or four doses of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 3). These patients received PCV13 within 2 days before or after their first infusion of rituximab.

The primary endpoint was positive antibody response against 12 pneumococcal subtypes common to the PCV13 and PCV23 vaccines at 6 months. At 6 months, the immune response to 0-3, 4-6, 7-9, or 10-12 serotypes was 83.3%, 13.3%, 3.3%, and 0%, respectively, in arm 1; 56.3%, 28.1%, 15.6%, and 0% in arm 2; and 60.6%, 33.3%, 6.1%, and 0% in arm 3.

No severe adverse events related to vaccination were observed in any of the groups; a total of eight AAV flares occurred in six patients (one in arm 1, two in arm 2, and three in arm 3). Local and systemic reactions occurred more frequently with the reinforced dose regimens, but these were mostly grade 1 or 2 local reactions.

The study was supported by the French Ministry of Health.

Some of the best clinical trials of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV) that were presented at the 21st International Vasculitis Workshop in Barcelona, Spain, included studies addressing relapse after stopping steroids, preventing relapse with abatacept, improving kidney function with plasma exchange, and vaccinating rituximab-treated patients.
 

Stopping Steroids After Remission in GPA

In the randomized, open-label TAPIR (The Assessment of Prednisone In Remission Trial) study of 159 adults with GPA in remission who had tapered to a prednisone dose of 5 mg/day, those who remained at that dosage had a significantly lower rate of relapse after 6 months than those who tapered to 0 mg/day (4.2% vs 15.5%; P = .227), according to results reported at the meeting.

However, use of a higher dose of prednisone for disease relapse by 6 months was similar for patients who used rituximab at baseline (8.8% with 0 mg/day vs 6.1% with 5 mg/day; P = .667), and the difference in this primary outcome was more pronounced among patients who did not take rituximab at baseline (20.0% with 0 mg/day vs 2.6% with 5 mg/day; P = .023).

A higher percentage of patients taking prednisone 0 mg/day had disease relapses that were considered minor (14.1% and 4.2%; P = .0391). Major relapses occurred in none of the patients taking 5 mg/day and in 1.4% receiving 0 mg/day. About 90% of patients in either treatment arm completed the trial.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskelatal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, was unique in that half of patients randomized in the study were enrolled at community clinics and half were enrolled at Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium clinical centers.
 

Abatacept Falls Short for Preventing Relapse in GPA

Adding abatacept to glucocorticoids failed to reduce risk of relapse, worsening disease, or failure to reach remission in adults with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, based on data from a randomized trial of 65 individuals.

In the 20-site, randomized, double-blind ABROGATE (Abatacept for the Treatment of Relapsing, Non-Severe, Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis) study, 34 patients received 125 mg subcutaneous abatacept once a week or a placebo in addition to 30 mg/day of prednisone that was tapered and discontinued after 12 weeks. Patients who were receiving methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide at baseline continued the medication at a stable dose.

The primary outcome of disease worsening or relapse occurred in 62% of the abatacept group and 68% of the placebo group, and no significant difference in treatment failure rate appeared between the groups. In addition, key secondary endpoints of time to full remission, duration of glucocorticoid-free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient-reported quality of life outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

A total of 112 adverse events occurred, with similar type and severity between the groups, including incidence of infections.

The findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, but the results suggest a need for further research to determine mechanisms of disease and explore additional novel treatments for this rare patient population, the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Plasma Exchange Improves Kidney Function in AAV

Use of therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) as an adjunct treatment improved early kidney function in adults with AAV and glomerulonephritis but did not extend beyond 8 weeks, and recovery of kidney function was no different between patients receiving a regular glucocorticoid regimen versus a reduced course, based on a post-hoc analysis of 691 individuals in the international randomized controlled trial called PEXIVAS.

The primary outcomes of change in kidney function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline over 1 year and the percentage of patients with improvement in eGFR of at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m² at weeks 12, 26, and 52.

The rate of improved eGFR was significantly greater in the PLEX group, compared with controls, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. At 4 weeks, significantly more patients in the PLEX group had an increase in eGFR by at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m², compared with the control group (relative risk [RR], 1.41; P = .008). In addition, improved kidney function within 4 weeks was significantly associated with lower risk of kidney failure within 1 year, regardless of treatment group.

The original PEXIVAS trial was supported by various government institutes and agencies from multiple countries.
 

Reinforced Vaccine Strategy with Rituximab Improved Antibody Response in AAV

A vaccine strategy consisting of a double dose of 13-valent antipneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at day 0 and day 7 followed by a single dose of 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) at 5 months significantly improved antibody responses against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with AAV, compared with standard treatment, based on data from 95 individuals in the multicenter, open-label study called PNEUMOVAS.

Adults with newly diagnosed AAV were randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: a standard regimen of one dose of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 1); a double dose of PCV13 at day 0 and day 7 with a dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 2); or four doses of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 3). These patients received PCV13 within 2 days before or after their first infusion of rituximab.

The primary endpoint was positive antibody response against 12 pneumococcal subtypes common to the PCV13 and PCV23 vaccines at 6 months. At 6 months, the immune response to 0-3, 4-6, 7-9, or 10-12 serotypes was 83.3%, 13.3%, 3.3%, and 0%, respectively, in arm 1; 56.3%, 28.1%, 15.6%, and 0% in arm 2; and 60.6%, 33.3%, 6.1%, and 0% in arm 3.

No severe adverse events related to vaccination were observed in any of the groups; a total of eight AAV flares occurred in six patients (one in arm 1, two in arm 2, and three in arm 3). Local and systemic reactions occurred more frequently with the reinforced dose regimens, but these were mostly grade 1 or 2 local reactions.

The study was supported by the French Ministry of Health.