Rheumatology

While remission is typically recommended as the main goal of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), achieving low disease activity is a “valid alternative” that may also prevent accrual of damage, investigators in a small retrospective study have concluded.

Both complete remission (CR) and achievement of a lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) were independently associated with lower accrual of early damage after 6 months of treatment, according to results of the study, reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

Patients maintaining LLDAS over the next 12 months developed considerably less damage than did those who never achieved LLDAS or who did not maintain LLDAS over time, according to the investigators, led by Alberto Floris, MD, and Matteo Piga, MD, of the AOU University Clinic of Cagliari (Italy).

Based on these findings, maintenance of both CR and LLDAS should be targeted for damage prevention, according to the authors. “Significant differences did not emerge between persistent LLDAS and CR over 12 months in preventing early damage,” they said in their report.

Their retrospective, single-center analysis included 116 adult patients with newly diagnosed SLE who had an SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of at least 6 at baseline and started treatment at enrollment. The mean age of this patient cohort was approximately 35 years, and about 90% were female.

After 6 months of follow-up, 42% of the cohort achieved LLDAS, defined in part as a SLEDAI-2K of 4 or less with no major organ activity or new disease activity, while 21.6% met CR criteria, which included a SLEDAI-2K of 0.

Achieving LLDAS at that 6-month time point was independently associated with lower damage accrual at 18 months (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.99; P = .049); likewise, a 6-month CR translated into less damage at 18 months, according to multivariate analysis (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59; P = .015).

Those patients in LLDAS at 6 months who maintained that target for another 12 months had significantly less damage when compared with those who lost response or never achieved it, the investigators added.

“Losing the early attained LLDAS and CR may frustrate prevention of damage, and therefore, LLDAS and CR maintenance should be targeted since the first stage of SLE management,” the investigators said in their report.

About 54% of the patients in LLDAS at 6 months achieved CR at an 18-month follow-up time point, while about 21% remained in LLDAS and 25% went on to develop active disease, the investigators said. Among those in CR at 6 months, 60% maintained it at 18 months, while 40% worsened to either LLDAS or active disease.

Dr. Floris, Dr. Piga, and coauthors reported no funding or competing interests related to their research.
 

SOURCE: Floris A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.24086.

While remission is typically recommended as the main goal of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), achieving low disease activity is a “valid alternative” that may also prevent accrual of damage, investigators in a small retrospective study have concluded.

Both complete remission (CR) and achievement of a lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) were independently associated with lower accrual of early damage after 6 months of treatment, according to results of the study, reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

Patients maintaining LLDAS over the next 12 months developed considerably less damage than did those who never achieved LLDAS or who did not maintain LLDAS over time, according to the investigators, led by Alberto Floris, MD, and Matteo Piga, MD, of the AOU University Clinic of Cagliari (Italy).

Based on these findings, maintenance of both CR and LLDAS should be targeted for damage prevention, according to the authors. “Significant differences did not emerge between persistent LLDAS and CR over 12 months in preventing early damage,” they said in their report.

Their retrospective, single-center analysis included 116 adult patients with newly diagnosed SLE who had an SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of at least 6 at baseline and started treatment at enrollment. The mean age of this patient cohort was approximately 35 years, and about 90% were female.

After 6 months of follow-up, 42% of the cohort achieved LLDAS, defined in part as a SLEDAI-2K of 4 or less with no major organ activity or new disease activity, while 21.6% met CR criteria, which included a SLEDAI-2K of 0.

Achieving LLDAS at that 6-month time point was independently associated with lower damage accrual at 18 months (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.99; P = .049); likewise, a 6-month CR translated into less damage at 18 months, according to multivariate analysis (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59; P = .015).

Those patients in LLDAS at 6 months who maintained that target for another 12 months had significantly less damage when compared with those who lost response or never achieved it, the investigators added.

“Losing the early attained LLDAS and CR may frustrate prevention of damage, and therefore, LLDAS and CR maintenance should be targeted since the first stage of SLE management,” the investigators said in their report.

About 54% of the patients in LLDAS at 6 months achieved CR at an 18-month follow-up time point, while about 21% remained in LLDAS and 25% went on to develop active disease, the investigators said. Among those in CR at 6 months, 60% maintained it at 18 months, while 40% worsened to either LLDAS or active disease.

Dr. Floris, Dr. Piga, and coauthors reported no funding or competing interests related to their research.
 

SOURCE: Floris A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.24086.

While remission is typically recommended as the main goal of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), achieving low disease activity is a “valid alternative” that may also prevent accrual of damage, investigators in a small retrospective study have concluded.

Both complete remission (CR) and achievement of a lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) were independently associated with lower accrual of early damage after 6 months of treatment, according to results of the study, reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

Patients maintaining LLDAS over the next 12 months developed considerably less damage than did those who never achieved LLDAS or who did not maintain LLDAS over time, according to the investigators, led by Alberto Floris, MD, and Matteo Piga, MD, of the AOU University Clinic of Cagliari (Italy).

Based on these findings, maintenance of both CR and LLDAS should be targeted for damage prevention, according to the authors. “Significant differences did not emerge between persistent LLDAS and CR over 12 months in preventing early damage,” they said in their report.

Their retrospective, single-center analysis included 116 adult patients with newly diagnosed SLE who had an SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of at least 6 at baseline and started treatment at enrollment. The mean age of this patient cohort was approximately 35 years, and about 90% were female.

After 6 months of follow-up, 42% of the cohort achieved LLDAS, defined in part as a SLEDAI-2K of 4 or less with no major organ activity or new disease activity, while 21.6% met CR criteria, which included a SLEDAI-2K of 0.

Achieving LLDAS at that 6-month time point was independently associated with lower damage accrual at 18 months (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.99; P = .049); likewise, a 6-month CR translated into less damage at 18 months, according to multivariate analysis (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59; P = .015).

Those patients in LLDAS at 6 months who maintained that target for another 12 months had significantly less damage when compared with those who lost response or never achieved it, the investigators added.

“Losing the early attained LLDAS and CR may frustrate prevention of damage, and therefore, LLDAS and CR maintenance should be targeted since the first stage of SLE management,” the investigators said in their report.

About 54% of the patients in LLDAS at 6 months achieved CR at an 18-month follow-up time point, while about 21% remained in LLDAS and 25% went on to develop active disease, the investigators said. Among those in CR at 6 months, 60% maintained it at 18 months, while 40% worsened to either LLDAS or active disease.

Dr. Floris, Dr. Piga, and coauthors reported no funding or competing interests related to their research.
 

SOURCE: Floris A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.24086.

A new study has found that, although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased health insurance coverage in states that expanded their Medicaid program, the expansion did not translate into improved access to care or decreased preventable hospitalizations of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

juststock/gettyimages

“Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing systemic problems with American healthcare delivery at multiple levels,” wrote Elizabeth A. Brown, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and her coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To examine the effects of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion on lupus patients when it was implemented Jan. 1, 2014, the researchers launched a retrospective, quasi‐experimental study using administrative data from eight states to compare eight quarterly time points in the 2 years prior to implementation against seven quarterly time points in the 2 years after implementation. Four states expanded Medicaid under the ACA – Arizona, Kentucky, New Jersey, and New York – and four of them did not – Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

During the study period, there were 204,150 lupus hospitalizations across all eight states during the 15 quarters, 53% of which occurred in the four states that did not expand Medicaid. Although the investigators’ base model found that the probability of a preventable hospitalization did not increase over time (odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.996-1.013), the four expansion states had significantly higher odds of having preventable hospitalizations in the final adjusted model (OR, 1.302; 95% CI, 1.119-1.515).

Variables that contributed to higher odds of a preventable hospitalization included age: Lupus patients who were 55-64 years old had considerably higher odds for preventable lupus hospitalizations than did patients who were 20-34 years old (OR, 1.488; 95% CI, 1.415-1.564). In addition, those with a median household income under $42,000 had higher odds of hospitalization when compared with those making over $68,000 (OR, 1.138; 95% CI, 1.415-1.564), as did those on Medicaid compared with those on private insurance (OR, 1.298; 95% CI, 1.238-1.361).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including relying on potential coding errors within administrative data. In addition, they were unable to factor in Medicaid marketing, enrollment strategies, or other related actions undertaken in each of the eight states.

The study was partially supported by the South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute via a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brown EA et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sept 28. doi: 10.1002/acr.24080

A new study has found that, although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased health insurance coverage in states that expanded their Medicaid program, the expansion did not translate into improved access to care or decreased preventable hospitalizations of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

juststock/gettyimages

“Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing systemic problems with American healthcare delivery at multiple levels,” wrote Elizabeth A. Brown, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and her coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To examine the effects of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion on lupus patients when it was implemented Jan. 1, 2014, the researchers launched a retrospective, quasi‐experimental study using administrative data from eight states to compare eight quarterly time points in the 2 years prior to implementation against seven quarterly time points in the 2 years after implementation. Four states expanded Medicaid under the ACA – Arizona, Kentucky, New Jersey, and New York – and four of them did not – Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

During the study period, there were 204,150 lupus hospitalizations across all eight states during the 15 quarters, 53% of which occurred in the four states that did not expand Medicaid. Although the investigators’ base model found that the probability of a preventable hospitalization did not increase over time (odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.996-1.013), the four expansion states had significantly higher odds of having preventable hospitalizations in the final adjusted model (OR, 1.302; 95% CI, 1.119-1.515).

Variables that contributed to higher odds of a preventable hospitalization included age: Lupus patients who were 55-64 years old had considerably higher odds for preventable lupus hospitalizations than did patients who were 20-34 years old (OR, 1.488; 95% CI, 1.415-1.564). In addition, those with a median household income under $42,000 had higher odds of hospitalization when compared with those making over $68,000 (OR, 1.138; 95% CI, 1.415-1.564), as did those on Medicaid compared with those on private insurance (OR, 1.298; 95% CI, 1.238-1.361).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including relying on potential coding errors within administrative data. In addition, they were unable to factor in Medicaid marketing, enrollment strategies, or other related actions undertaken in each of the eight states.

The study was partially supported by the South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute via a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brown EA et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sept 28. doi: 10.1002/acr.24080

A new study has found that, although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased health insurance coverage in states that expanded their Medicaid program, the expansion did not translate into improved access to care or decreased preventable hospitalizations of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

juststock/gettyimages

“Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing systemic problems with American healthcare delivery at multiple levels,” wrote Elizabeth A. Brown, PhD, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and her coauthors. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To examine the effects of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion on lupus patients when it was implemented Jan. 1, 2014, the researchers launched a retrospective, quasi‐experimental study using administrative data from eight states to compare eight quarterly time points in the 2 years prior to implementation against seven quarterly time points in the 2 years after implementation. Four states expanded Medicaid under the ACA – Arizona, Kentucky, New Jersey, and New York – and four of them did not – Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

During the study period, there were 204,150 lupus hospitalizations across all eight states during the 15 quarters, 53% of which occurred in the four states that did not expand Medicaid. Although the investigators’ base model found that the probability of a preventable hospitalization did not increase over time (odds ratio, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.996-1.013), the four expansion states had significantly higher odds of having preventable hospitalizations in the final adjusted model (OR, 1.302; 95% CI, 1.119-1.515).

Variables that contributed to higher odds of a preventable hospitalization included age: Lupus patients who were 55-64 years old had considerably higher odds for preventable lupus hospitalizations than did patients who were 20-34 years old (OR, 1.488; 95% CI, 1.415-1.564). In addition, those with a median household income under $42,000 had higher odds of hospitalization when compared with those making over $68,000 (OR, 1.138; 95% CI, 1.415-1.564), as did those on Medicaid compared with those on private insurance (OR, 1.298; 95% CI, 1.238-1.361).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including relying on potential coding errors within administrative data. In addition, they were unable to factor in Medicaid marketing, enrollment strategies, or other related actions undertaken in each of the eight states.

The study was partially supported by the South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute via a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brown EA et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Sept 28. doi: 10.1002/acr.24080

ORLANDO – Clinicians shouldn't let the lack of research on osteoporosis treatment compliance and barriers to care keep them from acting on what's already known about drug therapies' effectiveness in preventing fractures.

That's the advice from leaders at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, who discussed recent recommendations issued from a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop on the “Appropriate Use of Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention.”

Speakers at a special session of the annual meeting were in agreement on the need for more research into current barriers of osteoporosis care and new methods for increasing patient and physician compliance with recommendations.

But the focus should also be on what researchers in bone health have already learned about treating osteoporosis, “which is quite a bit,” said Benjamin Z. Leder, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who gave the ASBMR’s perspective at the session. Dr. Leder was also first author on a perspective paper that outlined the society’s concerns about the recommendations coming from the workshop (J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34[9]:1549-51).
 

Gaps in knowledge and treatment

“We thought that [not focusing on what is already known about osteoporosis treatment] perhaps would have the potential to exacerbate the treatment gap that exists in osteoporosis therapy,” Dr. Leder said in his presentation. “We also felt that any knowledge deficits must be understood in the context of what has been unequivocally demonstrated in terms of our knowledge of osteoporosis therapies.”

That includes knowing how to identify patients at the highest risk of fracture, which medications reduce the risk of osteoporotic and osteopenic fractures, and that using these medications saves lives, Dr. Leder noted.

With limited resources in osteoporosis and the absence of any large, randomized, controlled trials or new therapies because of lack of interest from industry, stakeholders should be examining what can be done outside of trials. In osteoporosis, as is the case with any other therapeutic area or disease state, the results of randomized, placebo-controlled trials will not address every patient subgroup of interest, he said.

“Some extrapolation is always required,” Dr. Leder said. “We have to – as we treat, as we practice medicine – use the evidence we have and then try to use that to guide us when the randomized, controlled trial doesn’t answer that specific question.”

Dr. Leder also emphasized that fear of side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture are not the only barriers in osteoporosis care. Adherence is generally poor with osteoporosis treatment, and physicians usually have competing priorities when seeing their patients. “Even in the absence of the idea that these side effects are potentially paralyzing patients and physicians, we have to remember that we started from a fairly low baseline,” Dr. Leder said.

Other issues that complicate the issue of osteoporosis care are misinformation available online that may cause patients to not use medications, overestimations of the benefits of not using osteoporosis medication in favor of nondrug interventions, and conflicting, faulty, or unhelpful guidelines from medical societies, he said.

“There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. The [Pathways to Prevention] has really done us a great service, and the ASBMR hopes to continue supporting their efforts moving forward,” he said.
 

Recommendations for secondary fracture prevention

Although there are gaps in osteoporosis treatment, there is still room to act, which the ASBMR aimed to accomplish in its Secondary Fracture Prevention Initiative, Douglas P. Kiel, MD, MPH, said in his presentation.

In 2016, the ASBMR put out a Call to Action to intensify screening for high-risk patients to prevent fractures, and 39 organizations signed on to the effort. The target population for the initiative is men and women aged 65 years or older who have experienced a vertebral or hip fracture who would ideally be appropriately evaluated, managed, and treated in a multidisciplinary clinical system with case management through systems like a fracture liaison service.

“The bottom line is, if you have a patient in this age group who has already experienced one of these fractures, they should be treated,” said Dr. Kiel, director of the Musculoskeletal Research Center at the Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “It doesn’t mean we should ignore other populations, but we need to start somewhere, and this was a well-defined, at-risk population.”

Consensus clinical recommendations for the initiative were recently published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Sep 20. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3877), and the ASBMR plans to spread the recommendations in a wide number of areas, including through stakeholder organizations, social media, webinars, educational sessions, and in other guidelines.

The next step for the initiative is to execute the ASBMR’s Action Plan, which prioritizes challenges such as reimbursement for fracture liaison services and care coordination, establishment of a national fracture registry, and sharing the society’s messaging on osteoporosis fracture–prevention in guidelines and education services. The ASBMR is also examining whether it could take advantage of a new National Institutes of Health grant for dissemination and implementation research in health to help fund the Secondary Fracture Prevention Initiative, Dr. Kiel said.

Dr. Leder and Dr. Kiel reported no relevant financial disclosures.

ORLANDO – Clinicians shouldn't let the lack of research on osteoporosis treatment compliance and barriers to care keep them from acting on what's already known about drug therapies' effectiveness in preventing fractures.

That's the advice from leaders at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, who discussed recent recommendations issued from a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop on the “Appropriate Use of Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention.”

Speakers at a special session of the annual meeting were in agreement on the need for more research into current barriers of osteoporosis care and new methods for increasing patient and physician compliance with recommendations.

But the focus should also be on what researchers in bone health have already learned about treating osteoporosis, “which is quite a bit,” said Benjamin Z. Leder, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who gave the ASBMR’s perspective at the session. Dr. Leder was also first author on a perspective paper that outlined the society’s concerns about the recommendations coming from the workshop (J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34[9]:1549-51).
 

Gaps in knowledge and treatment

“We thought that [not focusing on what is already known about osteoporosis treatment] perhaps would have the potential to exacerbate the treatment gap that exists in osteoporosis therapy,” Dr. Leder said in his presentation. “We also felt that any knowledge deficits must be understood in the context of what has been unequivocally demonstrated in terms of our knowledge of osteoporosis therapies.”

That includes knowing how to identify patients at the highest risk of fracture, which medications reduce the risk of osteoporotic and osteopenic fractures, and that using these medications saves lives, Dr. Leder noted.

With limited resources in osteoporosis and the absence of any large, randomized, controlled trials or new therapies because of lack of interest from industry, stakeholders should be examining what can be done outside of trials. In osteoporosis, as is the case with any other therapeutic area or disease state, the results of randomized, placebo-controlled trials will not address every patient subgroup of interest, he said.

“Some extrapolation is always required,” Dr. Leder said. “We have to – as we treat, as we practice medicine – use the evidence we have and then try to use that to guide us when the randomized, controlled trial doesn’t answer that specific question.”

Dr. Leder also emphasized that fear of side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture are not the only barriers in osteoporosis care. Adherence is generally poor with osteoporosis treatment, and physicians usually have competing priorities when seeing their patients. “Even in the absence of the idea that these side effects are potentially paralyzing patients and physicians, we have to remember that we started from a fairly low baseline,” Dr. Leder said.

Other issues that complicate the issue of osteoporosis care are misinformation available online that may cause patients to not use medications, overestimations of the benefits of not using osteoporosis medication in favor of nondrug interventions, and conflicting, faulty, or unhelpful guidelines from medical societies, he said.

“There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. The [Pathways to Prevention] has really done us a great service, and the ASBMR hopes to continue supporting their efforts moving forward,” he said.
 

Recommendations for secondary fracture prevention

Although there are gaps in osteoporosis treatment, there is still room to act, which the ASBMR aimed to accomplish in its Secondary Fracture Prevention Initiative, Douglas P. Kiel, MD, MPH, said in his presentation.

In 2016, the ASBMR put out a Call to Action to intensify screening for high-risk patients to prevent fractures, and 39 organizations signed on to the effort. The target population for the initiative is men and women aged 65 years or older who have experienced a vertebral or hip fracture who would ideally be appropriately evaluated, managed, and treated in a multidisciplinary clinical system with case management through systems like a fracture liaison service.

“The bottom line is, if you have a patient in this age group who has already experienced one of these fractures, they should be treated,” said Dr. Kiel, director of the Musculoskeletal Research Center at the Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “It doesn’t mean we should ignore other populations, but we need to start somewhere, and this was a well-defined, at-risk population.”

Consensus clinical recommendations for the initiative were recently published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Sep 20. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3877), and the ASBMR plans to spread the recommendations in a wide number of areas, including through stakeholder organizations, social media, webinars, educational sessions, and in other guidelines.

The next step for the initiative is to execute the ASBMR’s Action Plan, which prioritizes challenges such as reimbursement for fracture liaison services and care coordination, establishment of a national fracture registry, and sharing the society’s messaging on osteoporosis fracture–prevention in guidelines and education services. The ASBMR is also examining whether it could take advantage of a new National Institutes of Health grant for dissemination and implementation research in health to help fund the Secondary Fracture Prevention Initiative, Dr. Kiel said.

Dr. Leder and Dr. Kiel reported no relevant financial disclosures.

ORLANDO – Clinicians shouldn't let the lack of research on osteoporosis treatment compliance and barriers to care keep them from acting on what's already known about drug therapies' effectiveness in preventing fractures.

That's the advice from leaders at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, who discussed recent recommendations issued from a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop on the “Appropriate Use of Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention.”

Speakers at a special session of the annual meeting were in agreement on the need for more research into current barriers of osteoporosis care and new methods for increasing patient and physician compliance with recommendations.

But the focus should also be on what researchers in bone health have already learned about treating osteoporosis, “which is quite a bit,” said Benjamin Z. Leder, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who gave the ASBMR’s perspective at the session. Dr. Leder was also first author on a perspective paper that outlined the society’s concerns about the recommendations coming from the workshop (J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34[9]:1549-51).
 

Gaps in knowledge and treatment

“We thought that [not focusing on what is already known about osteoporosis treatment] perhaps would have the potential to exacerbate the treatment gap that exists in osteoporosis therapy,” Dr. Leder said in his presentation. “We also felt that any knowledge deficits must be understood in the context of what has been unequivocally demonstrated in terms of our knowledge of osteoporosis therapies.”

That includes knowing how to identify patients at the highest risk of fracture, which medications reduce the risk of osteoporotic and osteopenic fractures, and that using these medications saves lives, Dr. Leder noted.

With limited resources in osteoporosis and the absence of any large, randomized, controlled trials or new therapies because of lack of interest from industry, stakeholders should be examining what can be done outside of trials. In osteoporosis, as is the case with any other therapeutic area or disease state, the results of randomized, placebo-controlled trials will not address every patient subgroup of interest, he said.

“Some extrapolation is always required,” Dr. Leder said. “We have to – as we treat, as we practice medicine – use the evidence we have and then try to use that to guide us when the randomized, controlled trial doesn’t answer that specific question.”

Dr. Leder also emphasized that fear of side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fracture are not the only barriers in osteoporosis care. Adherence is generally poor with osteoporosis treatment, and physicians usually have competing priorities when seeing their patients. “Even in the absence of the idea that these side effects are potentially paralyzing patients and physicians, we have to remember that we started from a fairly low baseline,” Dr. Leder said.

Other issues that complicate the issue of osteoporosis care are misinformation available online that may cause patients to not use medications, overestimations of the benefits of not using osteoporosis medication in favor of nondrug interventions, and conflicting, faulty, or unhelpful guidelines from medical societies, he said.

“There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. The [Pathways to Prevention] has really done us a great service, and the ASBMR hopes to continue supporting their efforts moving forward,” he said.
 

Recommendations for secondary fracture prevention

Although there are gaps in osteoporosis treatment, there is still room to act, which the ASBMR aimed to accomplish in its Secondary Fracture Prevention Initiative, Douglas P. Kiel, MD, MPH, said in his presentation.

In 2016, the ASBMR put out a Call to Action to intensify screening for high-risk patients to prevent fractures, and 39 organizations signed on to the effort. The target population for the initiative is men and women aged 65 years or older who have experienced a vertebral or hip fracture who would ideally be appropriately evaluated, managed, and treated in a multidisciplinary clinical system with case management through systems like a fracture liaison service.

“The bottom line is, if you have a patient in this age group who has already experienced one of these fractures, they should be treated,” said Dr. Kiel, director of the Musculoskeletal Research Center at the Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “It doesn’t mean we should ignore other populations, but we need to start somewhere, and this was a well-defined, at-risk population.”

Consensus clinical recommendations for the initiative were recently published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Sep 20. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3877), and the ASBMR plans to spread the recommendations in a wide number of areas, including through stakeholder organizations, social media, webinars, educational sessions, and in other guidelines.

The next step for the initiative is to execute the ASBMR’s Action Plan, which prioritizes challenges such as reimbursement for fracture liaison services and care coordination, establishment of a national fracture registry, and sharing the society’s messaging on osteoporosis fracture–prevention in guidelines and education services. The ASBMR is also examining whether it could take advantage of a new National Institutes of Health grant for dissemination and implementation research in health to help fund the Secondary Fracture Prevention Initiative, Dr. Kiel said.

Dr. Leder and Dr. Kiel reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study has found that ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) may be different diseases with overlapping features rather than entities on the spectrum of the same disease, building on previous research by analyzing AS patients with and without psoriasis and including a longitudinal analysis.

lolostock/Thinkstock

“Our study suggests that axial PsA and AS with psoriasis seem to be two different diseases with different genetics, demographics, and disease expression,” wrote Joy Feld, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors. Their findings were published in Rheumatology.

To investigate the similarities and differences between axPsA and AS patients, the researchers compared two adult cohorts recruited from Toronto clinics. The first was made up of AS patients and divided into two groups: with psoriasis (n = 91) and without psoriasis (n = 675). The second was made up of PsA patients and divided into two groups: axPsA (n = 477) and peripheral PsA (n = 826).

In comparing AS patients with and without psoriasis to axPsA patients, AS patients had a younger age at diagnosis (28.7 years and 30.4 years vs. 35.6 years; P less than .001), were more often male (76% and 72% vs. 64%; P less than .001), and were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (82% and 75% vs. 19%; P less than .001).

At baseline, AS patients had more back pain (90% and 92% vs. 21%; P less than .001) and worse back metrology (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index [BASMI] of 3.1 and 2.3 vs. 1.9; P less than .001).

The mean follow-up periods in the axial and peripheral PsA groups were 12.6 and 6.7 years, respectively, whereas in the AS groups with and without psoriasis the periods were 5.4 and 3.5 years. Over time and after longitudinal analysis, axPsA patients had more tender and swollen joints than AS patients with and without psoriasis (5.2 vs. 1.5 and 0.9; P less than .001) while AS patients with and without psoriasis had a higher BASMI (2.9 and 2.2 vs. 1.8; P less than .001) and worse axial disease activity scores (4.1 and 3.9 vs. 3.5; P = .02) as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

After univariate analysis, AS with psoriasis was found to be more associated with HLA-B27 (odds ratio, 16.37; 95% confidence interval, 8.89-30.13; P less than .0001), a higher adjusted mean BASMI (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P less than .0001), worse sacroiliitis (OR, 7.58; 95% CI, 3.68-15.59; P less than .0001), and greater use of biologics (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .37), compared with axPsA. A multivariate analysis produced similar findings, including the lack of association between AS and active arthritis (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; P less than .0001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that symptoms often dictate which of the two clinics patients will be referred to, which can ultimately define the diagnosis. “Patients with significant back symptoms are more likely to be referred to the AS clinic,” they wrote, “while patients with more prominent peripheral symptoms are more likely to be referred to the PsA clinic.” Patients with AS in the study were also required to have back pain or limitations in spinal range of motion, while PsA patients were accepted even if they were asymptomatic.

Finally, they noted that some milder cases of the two diseases may have been missed in the cohort recruiting process, although they added that mild cases were, in fact, “present in the cohort, which might improve the generalizability of this study to primary rheumatology clinics.”

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation, but this study received no specific funding to carry out the research. Dr. Feld reported being supported by a grant from Novartis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Feld J et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez457.

A new study has found that ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) may be different diseases with overlapping features rather than entities on the spectrum of the same disease, building on previous research by analyzing AS patients with and without psoriasis and including a longitudinal analysis.

lolostock/Thinkstock

“Our study suggests that axial PsA and AS with psoriasis seem to be two different diseases with different genetics, demographics, and disease expression,” wrote Joy Feld, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors. Their findings were published in Rheumatology.

To investigate the similarities and differences between axPsA and AS patients, the researchers compared two adult cohorts recruited from Toronto clinics. The first was made up of AS patients and divided into two groups: with psoriasis (n = 91) and without psoriasis (n = 675). The second was made up of PsA patients and divided into two groups: axPsA (n = 477) and peripheral PsA (n = 826).

In comparing AS patients with and without psoriasis to axPsA patients, AS patients had a younger age at diagnosis (28.7 years and 30.4 years vs. 35.6 years; P less than .001), were more often male (76% and 72% vs. 64%; P less than .001), and were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (82% and 75% vs. 19%; P less than .001).

At baseline, AS patients had more back pain (90% and 92% vs. 21%; P less than .001) and worse back metrology (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index [BASMI] of 3.1 and 2.3 vs. 1.9; P less than .001).

The mean follow-up periods in the axial and peripheral PsA groups were 12.6 and 6.7 years, respectively, whereas in the AS groups with and without psoriasis the periods were 5.4 and 3.5 years. Over time and after longitudinal analysis, axPsA patients had more tender and swollen joints than AS patients with and without psoriasis (5.2 vs. 1.5 and 0.9; P less than .001) while AS patients with and without psoriasis had a higher BASMI (2.9 and 2.2 vs. 1.8; P less than .001) and worse axial disease activity scores (4.1 and 3.9 vs. 3.5; P = .02) as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

After univariate analysis, AS with psoriasis was found to be more associated with HLA-B27 (odds ratio, 16.37; 95% confidence interval, 8.89-30.13; P less than .0001), a higher adjusted mean BASMI (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P less than .0001), worse sacroiliitis (OR, 7.58; 95% CI, 3.68-15.59; P less than .0001), and greater use of biologics (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .37), compared with axPsA. A multivariate analysis produced similar findings, including the lack of association between AS and active arthritis (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; P less than .0001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that symptoms often dictate which of the two clinics patients will be referred to, which can ultimately define the diagnosis. “Patients with significant back symptoms are more likely to be referred to the AS clinic,” they wrote, “while patients with more prominent peripheral symptoms are more likely to be referred to the PsA clinic.” Patients with AS in the study were also required to have back pain or limitations in spinal range of motion, while PsA patients were accepted even if they were asymptomatic.

Finally, they noted that some milder cases of the two diseases may have been missed in the cohort recruiting process, although they added that mild cases were, in fact, “present in the cohort, which might improve the generalizability of this study to primary rheumatology clinics.”

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation, but this study received no specific funding to carry out the research. Dr. Feld reported being supported by a grant from Novartis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Feld J et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez457.

A new study has found that ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) may be different diseases with overlapping features rather than entities on the spectrum of the same disease, building on previous research by analyzing AS patients with and without psoriasis and including a longitudinal analysis.

lolostock/Thinkstock

“Our study suggests that axial PsA and AS with psoriasis seem to be two different diseases with different genetics, demographics, and disease expression,” wrote Joy Feld, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors. Their findings were published in Rheumatology.

To investigate the similarities and differences between axPsA and AS patients, the researchers compared two adult cohorts recruited from Toronto clinics. The first was made up of AS patients and divided into two groups: with psoriasis (n = 91) and without psoriasis (n = 675). The second was made up of PsA patients and divided into two groups: axPsA (n = 477) and peripheral PsA (n = 826).

In comparing AS patients with and without psoriasis to axPsA patients, AS patients had a younger age at diagnosis (28.7 years and 30.4 years vs. 35.6 years; P less than .001), were more often male (76% and 72% vs. 64%; P less than .001), and were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (82% and 75% vs. 19%; P less than .001).

At baseline, AS patients had more back pain (90% and 92% vs. 21%; P less than .001) and worse back metrology (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index [BASMI] of 3.1 and 2.3 vs. 1.9; P less than .001).

The mean follow-up periods in the axial and peripheral PsA groups were 12.6 and 6.7 years, respectively, whereas in the AS groups with and without psoriasis the periods were 5.4 and 3.5 years. Over time and after longitudinal analysis, axPsA patients had more tender and swollen joints than AS patients with and without psoriasis (5.2 vs. 1.5 and 0.9; P less than .001) while AS patients with and without psoriasis had a higher BASMI (2.9 and 2.2 vs. 1.8; P less than .001) and worse axial disease activity scores (4.1 and 3.9 vs. 3.5; P = .02) as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

After univariate analysis, AS with psoriasis was found to be more associated with HLA-B27 (odds ratio, 16.37; 95% confidence interval, 8.89-30.13; P less than .0001), a higher adjusted mean BASMI (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P less than .0001), worse sacroiliitis (OR, 7.58; 95% CI, 3.68-15.59; P less than .0001), and greater use of biologics (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .37), compared with axPsA. A multivariate analysis produced similar findings, including the lack of association between AS and active arthritis (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; P less than .0001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that symptoms often dictate which of the two clinics patients will be referred to, which can ultimately define the diagnosis. “Patients with significant back symptoms are more likely to be referred to the AS clinic,” they wrote, “while patients with more prominent peripheral symptoms are more likely to be referred to the PsA clinic.” Patients with AS in the study were also required to have back pain or limitations in spinal range of motion, while PsA patients were accepted even if they were asymptomatic.

Finally, they noted that some milder cases of the two diseases may have been missed in the cohort recruiting process, although they added that mild cases were, in fact, “present in the cohort, which might improve the generalizability of this study to primary rheumatology clinics.”

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation, but this study received no specific funding to carry out the research. Dr. Feld reported being supported by a grant from Novartis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Feld J et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez457.

ORLANDO – A single infusion of zoledronic acid does not completely prevent bone mineral density (BMD) loss regardless of the timing of the infusion in patients with osteopenia who discontinued denosumab (Prolia), according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“If you consider a treatment break in patients treated with [denosumab] for a long time, I suggest to aim for a higher BMD, allowing a smaller bone loss when transitioning via [zoledronic acid] to a treatment break, or maybe you need to give more than one infusion of [zoledronic acid],” said Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital during her presentation.

Dr. Langdahl and her colleagues enrolled 60 patients with osteopenia in a 2-year, randomized, open-label interventional study of patients who discontinued denosumab after more than 2 years of use (average treatment, 4.6 years). One group of 20 patients received 5 mg of zoledronic acid at 6 months after their last denosumab injection. Another group of 20 patients underwent monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection and received zoledronic acid if their s-carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (s-CTX) increased more than 1.26 mcg/L or if they reached 9 months after their last denosumab injection. A third group underwent observation with monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection, and they received zoledronic acid if s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L, BMD loss was 5% or more at any site, they experienced a fragility vertebral or hip fracture, or they reached 12 months after their last denosumab injection. All patients received a readministration of zoledronic acid if their BMD decreased by greater than 5% or if their s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L after 6 months, 12 months, or 24 months.

The researchers included postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years (mean, 67.7 years), but the majority of patients were women (n = 53) distributed evenly between the 6-month, 9-month, and observation groups. Patients were excluded if they had a low-energy vertebral fracture, had any hip fracture within 12 months, had a T score of less than –2.5 at any site, had received alendronate more than 3 years prior to taking denosumab, used glucocorticoids, had metabolic bone disease, had received hormone replacement therapy, or had cancer.

The observational group patients who met criteria to receive zoledronic acid because of increased s-CTX included one at 1 month after stopping denosumab, two at 2 months, six at 3 months, and one at 4 months. Of six patients who met BMD criteria for treatment at 3 months, one received retreatment 6 months after their first administration of zoledronic acid, and four patients received retreatment at 12 months.

At 2 months, two patients in the 9-month group met s-CTX criteria for treatment, four patients underwent retreatment under BMD criteria 6 months after the first administration of zoledronic acid, and one patient underwent retreatment at 12 months under BMD criteria. In the 6-month group, one patient met s-CTX criteria for retreatment at 6 months, and one patient at 12 months, with five patients meeting BMD criteria for retreatment at 6 months and at 12 months.

Overall, the average bone loss was 4.6% at the lumbar spine and 3.2% for total hip with no clinically significant between-group differences for either site. At 12 months, lumbar spine bone loss was 4.8% in the 6-month group, 4.2% in the 9-month group, and 4.9% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .006), and total hip bone loss was 2.6% in the 6-month group, 3.3% in the 9-month group, and 3.8% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .001).

Although the study followed patients for 2 years after the first zoledronic acid injection, data were available for the first year only, and the study is ongoing, Dr. Langdahl said.

This study was funded in part by Amgen, the Foundation of Vilhelm Pedersen and wife, Aarhus University, the Danish Osteoporosis Society Research Foundation, the P. Carl Petersens Foundation, and the Torkil Steenbeck Foundation. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research funding from Amgen and Novo Nordisk and is on the advisory board for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and UCB.

SOURCE: Sølling A. ASBMR 2019. Abstract LB-1169

ORLANDO – A single infusion of zoledronic acid does not completely prevent bone mineral density (BMD) loss regardless of the timing of the infusion in patients with osteopenia who discontinued denosumab (Prolia), according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“If you consider a treatment break in patients treated with [denosumab] for a long time, I suggest to aim for a higher BMD, allowing a smaller bone loss when transitioning via [zoledronic acid] to a treatment break, or maybe you need to give more than one infusion of [zoledronic acid],” said Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital during her presentation.

Dr. Langdahl and her colleagues enrolled 60 patients with osteopenia in a 2-year, randomized, open-label interventional study of patients who discontinued denosumab after more than 2 years of use (average treatment, 4.6 years). One group of 20 patients received 5 mg of zoledronic acid at 6 months after their last denosumab injection. Another group of 20 patients underwent monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection and received zoledronic acid if their s-carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (s-CTX) increased more than 1.26 mcg/L or if they reached 9 months after their last denosumab injection. A third group underwent observation with monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection, and they received zoledronic acid if s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L, BMD loss was 5% or more at any site, they experienced a fragility vertebral or hip fracture, or they reached 12 months after their last denosumab injection. All patients received a readministration of zoledronic acid if their BMD decreased by greater than 5% or if their s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L after 6 months, 12 months, or 24 months.

The researchers included postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years (mean, 67.7 years), but the majority of patients were women (n = 53) distributed evenly between the 6-month, 9-month, and observation groups. Patients were excluded if they had a low-energy vertebral fracture, had any hip fracture within 12 months, had a T score of less than –2.5 at any site, had received alendronate more than 3 years prior to taking denosumab, used glucocorticoids, had metabolic bone disease, had received hormone replacement therapy, or had cancer.

The observational group patients who met criteria to receive zoledronic acid because of increased s-CTX included one at 1 month after stopping denosumab, two at 2 months, six at 3 months, and one at 4 months. Of six patients who met BMD criteria for treatment at 3 months, one received retreatment 6 months after their first administration of zoledronic acid, and four patients received retreatment at 12 months.

At 2 months, two patients in the 9-month group met s-CTX criteria for treatment, four patients underwent retreatment under BMD criteria 6 months after the first administration of zoledronic acid, and one patient underwent retreatment at 12 months under BMD criteria. In the 6-month group, one patient met s-CTX criteria for retreatment at 6 months, and one patient at 12 months, with five patients meeting BMD criteria for retreatment at 6 months and at 12 months.

Overall, the average bone loss was 4.6% at the lumbar spine and 3.2% for total hip with no clinically significant between-group differences for either site. At 12 months, lumbar spine bone loss was 4.8% in the 6-month group, 4.2% in the 9-month group, and 4.9% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .006), and total hip bone loss was 2.6% in the 6-month group, 3.3% in the 9-month group, and 3.8% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .001).

Although the study followed patients for 2 years after the first zoledronic acid injection, data were available for the first year only, and the study is ongoing, Dr. Langdahl said.

This study was funded in part by Amgen, the Foundation of Vilhelm Pedersen and wife, Aarhus University, the Danish Osteoporosis Society Research Foundation, the P. Carl Petersens Foundation, and the Torkil Steenbeck Foundation. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research funding from Amgen and Novo Nordisk and is on the advisory board for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and UCB.

SOURCE: Sølling A. ASBMR 2019. Abstract LB-1169

ORLANDO – A single infusion of zoledronic acid does not completely prevent bone mineral density (BMD) loss regardless of the timing of the infusion in patients with osteopenia who discontinued denosumab (Prolia), according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“If you consider a treatment break in patients treated with [denosumab] for a long time, I suggest to aim for a higher BMD, allowing a smaller bone loss when transitioning via [zoledronic acid] to a treatment break, or maybe you need to give more than one infusion of [zoledronic acid],” said Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital during her presentation.

Dr. Langdahl and her colleagues enrolled 60 patients with osteopenia in a 2-year, randomized, open-label interventional study of patients who discontinued denosumab after more than 2 years of use (average treatment, 4.6 years). One group of 20 patients received 5 mg of zoledronic acid at 6 months after their last denosumab injection. Another group of 20 patients underwent monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection and received zoledronic acid if their s-carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (s-CTX) increased more than 1.26 mcg/L or if they reached 9 months after their last denosumab injection. A third group underwent observation with monthly monitoring starting at 6 months after their last denosumab injection, and they received zoledronic acid if s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L, BMD loss was 5% or more at any site, they experienced a fragility vertebral or hip fracture, or they reached 12 months after their last denosumab injection. All patients received a readministration of zoledronic acid if their BMD decreased by greater than 5% or if their s-CTX increased more than 1.26 mcg/L after 6 months, 12 months, or 24 months.

The researchers included postmenopausal women and men older than 50 years (mean, 67.7 years), but the majority of patients were women (n = 53) distributed evenly between the 6-month, 9-month, and observation groups. Patients were excluded if they had a low-energy vertebral fracture, had any hip fracture within 12 months, had a T score of less than –2.5 at any site, had received alendronate more than 3 years prior to taking denosumab, used glucocorticoids, had metabolic bone disease, had received hormone replacement therapy, or had cancer.

The observational group patients who met criteria to receive zoledronic acid because of increased s-CTX included one at 1 month after stopping denosumab, two at 2 months, six at 3 months, and one at 4 months. Of six patients who met BMD criteria for treatment at 3 months, one received retreatment 6 months after their first administration of zoledronic acid, and four patients received retreatment at 12 months.

At 2 months, two patients in the 9-month group met s-CTX criteria for treatment, four patients underwent retreatment under BMD criteria 6 months after the first administration of zoledronic acid, and one patient underwent retreatment at 12 months under BMD criteria. In the 6-month group, one patient met s-CTX criteria for retreatment at 6 months, and one patient at 12 months, with five patients meeting BMD criteria for retreatment at 6 months and at 12 months.

Overall, the average bone loss was 4.6% at the lumbar spine and 3.2% for total hip with no clinically significant between-group differences for either site. At 12 months, lumbar spine bone loss was 4.8% in the 6-month group, 4.2% in the 9-month group, and 4.9% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .006), and total hip bone loss was 2.6% in the 6-month group, 3.3% in the 9-month group, and 3.8% in the observational group (P less than or equal to .001).

Although the study followed patients for 2 years after the first zoledronic acid injection, data were available for the first year only, and the study is ongoing, Dr. Langdahl said.

This study was funded in part by Amgen, the Foundation of Vilhelm Pedersen and wife, Aarhus University, the Danish Osteoporosis Society Research Foundation, the P. Carl Petersens Foundation, and the Torkil Steenbeck Foundation. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research funding from Amgen and Novo Nordisk and is on the advisory board for Amgen, Eli Lilly, and UCB.

SOURCE: Sølling A. ASBMR 2019. Abstract LB-1169

LAS VEGAS – Cannabinoids and stem cells may intrigue patients as potential treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence does not support their use. Planned clinical trials may clarify whether they benefit patients, said Joel A. Block, MD, professor of rheumatology at Rush University in Chicago.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

Cannabinoid therapy “is on everybody’s mind, including our patients,” Dr. Block said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “Cannabinoid receptors are widely present in all joint tissues, and endocannabinoids are clearly present in OA joint tissue. There is good evidence that the receptors regulate pain responses and central sensitization in a variety of OA animal models.” Where cannabis is legal, many people use it for chronic noncancer pain. Side effects may include altered perception, dizziness, drowsiness, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Cannabis in the literature

“Nonetheless, if you do a systematic review of all of the randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids in human rheumatic diseases, what you will find is there is a grand total of four,” he said. The trials included patients with rheumatoid arthritis, OA, and fibromyalgia. An analysis of aggregated data found that cannabinoids improved pain and sleep, but all of the trials had a high risk of bias, poor allocation concealment, and poor blinding, said Dr. Block (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 May;68[5]:681-8.). “In OA, there is one randomized trial, and it was entirely null,” he said. “There was no positive effect on pain or on function in human OA” (Pain. 2012 Sep;153[9]:1837-46.).

ClinicalTrials.gov lists two planned randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids – one using vaporized cannabis in patients with knee OA, and one using cannabidiol for hand OA and psoriatic arthritis. “Clinical trials are still scarce as of right now, so it will take a while before we have evidence for or against,” said Dr. Block.

Stem cell injections

Intra-articular stem cell injections are widely offered in the United States and abroad, he said. “In every newspaper, wherever I go, I open it up and there are full-page ads on stem cell injections that will cure everything that you want,” he said.

A systematic review of the effect of stem cell injections on structural outcomes and pain-related behaviors in animals found that “for all outcomes, the evidence quality was either low or very low,” Dr. Block said (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Apr;26[4]:445-61.). “Even in the animal models, it has been very hard to demonstrate any effect at all from just injecting stem cells into the joint.”

Systematic reviews of the evidence in humans have found that the data do not support the use of stem cell injections. The authors of one review concluded, “In the absence of high-level evidence, we do not recommend stem cell therapy” for knee OA (Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51[15]:1125-33.).

For another recent review, researchers screened hundreds of articles and identified 5 trials that met their inclusion criteria. They concluded, “Current evidence does not support the use of intra-articular [mesenchymal stem cells] for improving cartilage repair in knee osteoarthritis” (Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul;139[7]:971-80.).

Many clinical trials are planned, however. “Over the next several years, I would expect that we are going to get some real data on whether these are helpful or not,” Dr. Block said.

Meanwhile, some patients spend thousands of dollars to receive stem cell injections, and clinics report average patient satisfaction rates of 82%. “How can they be getting so much relief when there is no evidence that it is helpful? In fact, whatever evidence we have says that it is no better than placebo,” said Dr. Block. “Placebo itself is very potent....People always do what they feel helps them regardless of objective data, because placebo itself is very palliative.”

Dr. Block is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Medivir, and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals. He has received royalties from Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, and Omeros. In addition, he has received grant or research support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Kolon TissueGene.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Cannabinoids and stem cells may intrigue patients as potential treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence does not support their use. Planned clinical trials may clarify whether they benefit patients, said Joel A. Block, MD, professor of rheumatology at Rush University in Chicago.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

Cannabinoid therapy “is on everybody’s mind, including our patients,” Dr. Block said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “Cannabinoid receptors are widely present in all joint tissues, and endocannabinoids are clearly present in OA joint tissue. There is good evidence that the receptors regulate pain responses and central sensitization in a variety of OA animal models.” Where cannabis is legal, many people use it for chronic noncancer pain. Side effects may include altered perception, dizziness, drowsiness, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Cannabis in the literature

“Nonetheless, if you do a systematic review of all of the randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids in human rheumatic diseases, what you will find is there is a grand total of four,” he said. The trials included patients with rheumatoid arthritis, OA, and fibromyalgia. An analysis of aggregated data found that cannabinoids improved pain and sleep, but all of the trials had a high risk of bias, poor allocation concealment, and poor blinding, said Dr. Block (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 May;68[5]:681-8.). “In OA, there is one randomized trial, and it was entirely null,” he said. “There was no positive effect on pain or on function in human OA” (Pain. 2012 Sep;153[9]:1837-46.).

ClinicalTrials.gov lists two planned randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids – one using vaporized cannabis in patients with knee OA, and one using cannabidiol for hand OA and psoriatic arthritis. “Clinical trials are still scarce as of right now, so it will take a while before we have evidence for or against,” said Dr. Block.

Stem cell injections

Intra-articular stem cell injections are widely offered in the United States and abroad, he said. “In every newspaper, wherever I go, I open it up and there are full-page ads on stem cell injections that will cure everything that you want,” he said.

A systematic review of the effect of stem cell injections on structural outcomes and pain-related behaviors in animals found that “for all outcomes, the evidence quality was either low or very low,” Dr. Block said (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Apr;26[4]:445-61.). “Even in the animal models, it has been very hard to demonstrate any effect at all from just injecting stem cells into the joint.”

Systematic reviews of the evidence in humans have found that the data do not support the use of stem cell injections. The authors of one review concluded, “In the absence of high-level evidence, we do not recommend stem cell therapy” for knee OA (Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51[15]:1125-33.).

For another recent review, researchers screened hundreds of articles and identified 5 trials that met their inclusion criteria. They concluded, “Current evidence does not support the use of intra-articular [mesenchymal stem cells] for improving cartilage repair in knee osteoarthritis” (Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul;139[7]:971-80.).

Many clinical trials are planned, however. “Over the next several years, I would expect that we are going to get some real data on whether these are helpful or not,” Dr. Block said.

Meanwhile, some patients spend thousands of dollars to receive stem cell injections, and clinics report average patient satisfaction rates of 82%. “How can they be getting so much relief when there is no evidence that it is helpful? In fact, whatever evidence we have says that it is no better than placebo,” said Dr. Block. “Placebo itself is very potent....People always do what they feel helps them regardless of objective data, because placebo itself is very palliative.”

Dr. Block is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Medivir, and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals. He has received royalties from Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, and Omeros. In addition, he has received grant or research support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Kolon TissueGene.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Cannabinoids and stem cells may intrigue patients as potential treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence does not support their use. Planned clinical trials may clarify whether they benefit patients, said Joel A. Block, MD, professor of rheumatology at Rush University in Chicago.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

Cannabinoid therapy “is on everybody’s mind, including our patients,” Dr. Block said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “Cannabinoid receptors are widely present in all joint tissues, and endocannabinoids are clearly present in OA joint tissue. There is good evidence that the receptors regulate pain responses and central sensitization in a variety of OA animal models.” Where cannabis is legal, many people use it for chronic noncancer pain. Side effects may include altered perception, dizziness, drowsiness, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Cannabis in the literature

“Nonetheless, if you do a systematic review of all of the randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids in human rheumatic diseases, what you will find is there is a grand total of four,” he said. The trials included patients with rheumatoid arthritis, OA, and fibromyalgia. An analysis of aggregated data found that cannabinoids improved pain and sleep, but all of the trials had a high risk of bias, poor allocation concealment, and poor blinding, said Dr. Block (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 May;68[5]:681-8.). “In OA, there is one randomized trial, and it was entirely null,” he said. “There was no positive effect on pain or on function in human OA” (Pain. 2012 Sep;153[9]:1837-46.).

ClinicalTrials.gov lists two planned randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids – one using vaporized cannabis in patients with knee OA, and one using cannabidiol for hand OA and psoriatic arthritis. “Clinical trials are still scarce as of right now, so it will take a while before we have evidence for or against,” said Dr. Block.

Stem cell injections

Intra-articular stem cell injections are widely offered in the United States and abroad, he said. “In every newspaper, wherever I go, I open it up and there are full-page ads on stem cell injections that will cure everything that you want,” he said.

A systematic review of the effect of stem cell injections on structural outcomes and pain-related behaviors in animals found that “for all outcomes, the evidence quality was either low or very low,” Dr. Block said (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Apr;26[4]:445-61.). “Even in the animal models, it has been very hard to demonstrate any effect at all from just injecting stem cells into the joint.”

Systematic reviews of the evidence in humans have found that the data do not support the use of stem cell injections. The authors of one review concluded, “In the absence of high-level evidence, we do not recommend stem cell therapy” for knee OA (Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51[15]:1125-33.).

For another recent review, researchers screened hundreds of articles and identified 5 trials that met their inclusion criteria. They concluded, “Current evidence does not support the use of intra-articular [mesenchymal stem cells] for improving cartilage repair in knee osteoarthritis” (Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul;139[7]:971-80.).

Many clinical trials are planned, however. “Over the next several years, I would expect that we are going to get some real data on whether these are helpful or not,” Dr. Block said.

Meanwhile, some patients spend thousands of dollars to receive stem cell injections, and clinics report average patient satisfaction rates of 82%. “How can they be getting so much relief when there is no evidence that it is helpful? In fact, whatever evidence we have says that it is no better than placebo,” said Dr. Block. “Placebo itself is very potent....People always do what they feel helps them regardless of objective data, because placebo itself is very palliative.”

Dr. Block is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Medivir, and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals. He has received royalties from Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, and Omeros. In addition, he has received grant or research support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Kolon TissueGene.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

[email protected]

An uncommon but potentially deadly inflammatory lung disease is emerging among children with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and its history appears to coincide with the rise of powerful biologics as first-line therapy for children with the disease.

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth Mellins

Most confirmed cases of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) are in the United States. But it’s popping up in other places that have adopted early biologic treatment for sJIA – including Canada, South America, Europe, and the Middle East.

The respiratory symptoms are relatively subtle, so by the time of lung disease detection, the amount of affected lung can be extensive, said Elizabeth Mellins, MD, a Stanford (Calif.) University researcher who, along with first author Vivian Saper, MD, recently published the largest case series comprising reports from 37 institutions (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216040). By the end of follow-up, 22 of the 61 children in her cohort had died, including all 12 patients who demonstrated excessively high neutrophil levels in bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

Another recent report, authored by Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, and colleagues of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, described 18 patients, 9 of whom were also included in the Stanford cohort (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41073).

Both investigators have now identified new patients.

“We are aware of 60 additional cases beyond what were included in our series,” Dr. Mellins said in an interview, bringing her entire cohort to 121. Dr. Schulert also continues to expand his group, detailing nine new cases at a recent private meeting.

“We are up to 27 now,” he said. “The features of these new patients are all very similar: The children are very young, all have had macrophage activation syndrome in the past and very-difficult-to-control JIA. Reactions to tocilizumab [Actemra] were also not uncommon in this group.”

Dr. Mellins also saw this association with allergic-type tocilizumab reactions, severe delayed hypersensitivity reactions to anakinra (Kineret) or canakinumab (Ilaris). Although serious lung disease in sJIA patients is not unheard of, this phenotype was virtually unknown until about a decade ago. Both investigators said that it’s been rising steadily since 2010 – just about the time that powerful cytokine-inhibiting biologics were changing these patients’ world for the better. After decades of relying almost solely on steroids and methotrexate, with rather poor results and significant long-term side effects, children were not only improving, but thriving. Gone was the life-changing glucocorticoid-related growth inhibition. Biologics could halt fevers, rash, and joint destruction in their tracks.

“For the first time in history, these kids could look forward to a more or less normal life,” Dr. Schulert said.

But the emergence of this particular type of lung disease could throw a pall over that success story, he said. If sJIA-LD is temporally associated with increasing reliance on long-term interleukin-1/IL-6 inhibition in children with early-onset disease, could these drugs actually be the causative agent? The picture remains unclear.

Some of the 18 in his initial series have improved, while 36% of those in the Stanford series died. Most who do recover stay on their IL-1 or IL-6 blocking therapy with good disease control without further lung problems. Both investigators found compelling genetic hints, but nothing conclusive. Children with trisomy 21 appear especially vulnerable. Most patients are very young – around 2 years old – but others are school aged. Some had a history of macrophage activation syndrome. Some had hard-to-control disease and some were clinically well controlled when the lung disease presented.

There are simply no answers yet.

With so many potential links, all unproven, clinicians may question the wisdom of embarking on long-term biologic therapy for their children with sJIA. Peter Nigrovic, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, addressed this in an accompanying editorial (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41071).

“My take on this is that it’s a very worrisome trend,” he said in an interview. “We’ve been going full bore toward early biologic therapy in sJIA and at the same time we are seeing more of this lung disease. Is it guilt by association? Or is there something more? The challenge for us is not to jump too soon to that conclusion.”

Although the association is there, he said, association does not equal causation. And there’s no doubt that biologics have vastly improved the lives of sJIA patients. “The drugs might be causal, and I worry about that and think we need to study it. But we absolutely need stronger evidence before we change practice.”

“This is a new manifestation of the disease, and it’s coming at the same time we are changing the treatment paradigm,” Dr. Nigrovic continued. “It could be because of interleukin-1 or interleukin-6 blockade. There is biological plausibility for such a link. It could also be related to the fact that we are using less steroids and methotrexate, which might have been preventing this. The appearance of sJIA lung disease could also be that a distinct secular trend unrelated to treatment, just as we saw amyloid come and go in this population in Europe. These other therapies were actually preventing this. We just don’t know.”
 

Clinical characteristics

Children presented with similar symptoms. Respiratory symptoms are usually subtle and mild. These can include tachypnea, hypoxia (43% in the Stanford series), and pulmonary hypertension (30% in the Stanford series).

Digital clubbing, often with erythema, was a common finding. Some children showed pruritic, nonevanescent rashes. Eosinophilia occurred in 37% of the Stanford series and severe abdominal pain in 16%, although Dr. Mellins noted that belly pain may be underestimated, as it was only volunteered, not queried, information.

“There are some red flags that should raise suspicion even without obvious respiratory symptoms,” Dr. Mellins said. These include lymphopenia, unexplained abdominal pain, eosinophilia, an unusual rash, and finger clubbing with or without erythema.

Findings on imaging were consistent in both series. Several key clinic features emerged: pleural thickening, septal thickening, bronchial wall or peribronchovascular thickening, “tree-in-bud” opacities, “ground-glass” opacities, peripheral consolidation, and lymphadenopathy.

Courtesy Dr. Grant Schulert

“The imaging findings correspond to two things,” Dr. Schulert said. “The first is inflammation in the interstitium, which is evidence of chronic and ongoing inflammation. The other thing is that the alveoli are filled with a lipoproteinaceous material which is actually surfactant that’s not being normally recycled by the lung macrophages. You can see these features in other conditions where there’s a problem with lung macrophages, like pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, genetic and autoimmune disorders, infections, or inhalants.”

Pathology showed alveolar filling – a location in the lung that hides usual symptoms until the lung disease is advanced. Prior drug reactions were common. Tocilizumab anaphylaxis occurred in close to 40% of the Stanford series – a surprising finding given the 0.6% reaction incidence in the drug’s sJIA trials. Dr. Schulert saw a similar story.

“In our cohort we also observed a striking number of adverse events to cytokine-targeted biologics exposure,” Dr. Schulert said. “Most of these reactions were to tocilizumab, and were described variously from pain and feeling unwell, to difficulty breathing, to anaphylaxis.”

In a risk analysis, Dr. Schulert determined that adverse events to cytokine-targeting biologics increased the likelihood of lung disease more than 13 times (odds ratio, 13.6).

“We also identified a statistically significant association with history of macrophage activation syndrome when compared to controls (OR, 14.5),” Dr. Schulert and associates wrote.

Genetics

Both the Cincinnati and Stanford teams conducted genetic analyses on some of their patients.

Among eight lung biopsy samples, Dr. Schulert found 37 differentially expressed genes: 36 with increased expression and 1 with decreased expression. Many of the up-regulated genes are involved in interferon-gamma response. Two (CXCL10 and CXCL9) are interferon-induced chemokines associated with macrophage activation syndrome. The down-regulated gene, PADI4, modulates immune response in lupus, and has been associated with the risk of interstitial lung disease in RA.

Dr. Mellins and her team analyzed whole-exome sequencing data from 20 patients and found some rare protein-altering gene variants in genes related to pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, all of which were heterozygous and shared with a healthy parent. But none of them could be directly tied to the disorder.

Another genetic puzzle demands attention, she said. About 10% of the children had trisomy 21 – a stark contrast to the typical 0.2% prevalence among a control group of sJIA patients without any known lung disease in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry cohort, similar to the background population rate. There were suggestions of more aggressive lung disease in all six of these children. Four presented with hypoxia, and two showed advanced interstitial fibrosis. Children with trisomy 21 also seemed more susceptible to infections; 83% had a viral or fungal lung infection at diagnosis, compared with 29% of those without trisomy 21.

Prior exposure to cytokine inhibitors

Parenchymal lung disease and pulmonary hypertension complicating sJIA was first highlighted in a series of 25 cases reported by Kimura et al. in 2013. These authors raised the question of the possible relationship of this and the increasing use of anti–IL-1 and anti–IL-6 biologics in sJIA treatment.

Following this lead, Dr. Mellins started looking into this new clinical entity in 2015. By then, she was identifying some past cases by autopsy records and current cases by clinical presentation. She saw a dramatic shift over time. From 2002 to 2011, she identified four cases, half of which had been exposed to IL-1/IL-6 inhibitors. From 2012 to 2014, eight new cases came to light, and seven had been exposed to those drugs. The crescendo continued from 2015 to 2017. During those years, Dr. Mellins and associates identified 10 new patients, 7 of whom had taken interleukin-inhibiting biologics. The mean time from initial drug exposure to diagnosis was a little more than 1 year.

An adjusted analysis comparing sJIA-LD patients and sJIA patients without lung disease didn’t find any significant difference in drug exposure. However, children with lung disease were more likely to have taken anakinra before the symptoms developed. Additionally, the symptoms of clubbing, abdominal pain, eosinophilia, hyperenhancing lymph nodes, and pulmonary alveolar proteinosis were much more common in children who’d taken the drugs.

The authors pointed out that this association does not prove causality and is confounded by the concomitant reduction in glucocorticoids with IL-1/IL-6 inhibitor use. And the vast majority of children with sJIA take cytokine inhibitors with no problems.

“Possibly, drug exposure may promote lung disease in a subset of children with sJIA, among the substantially larger group of patients who derive striking benefit from these drugs,” Dr. Mellins said, “Importantly, our results argue strongly for more investigation into a possible connection.”

Survival

After a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, the Stanford group saw high mortality. The 5-year survival rate translated to a mortality incidence of 159 deaths per 1,000 person-years, compared with 3.9 per 1,000 person-years in a historical cohort of sJIA patients who required biologic therapy.

Diffuse lung disease was the cause of 12 deaths; 5 of these patients also had macrophage activation syndrome at the time of death. Factors significantly associated with shortened survival included male sex, hypoxia at presentation, and neutrophilic bronchoalveolar lavage with more than 10 times the normal count. In an adjusted analysis, all of these variables fell out. However, none of the children with excessively high neutrophilic bronchoalveolar lavage survived.

Does it affect adults?

Could adults be experiencing the same disorder? There is some evidence to support it: The Food and Drug Administration adverse event website shows alveolar disease or pulmonary hypertension in 39 adults who have been exposed to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibition. Of these, 23 had RA, 11 adult-onset Still’s disease, and 5 unclassified rheumatic disorders.

The research groups were supported by grants from the sJIA Foundation, the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health, Stanford graduate fellowships, the Life Sciences Research Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, the Arthritis Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. Many authors on both papers reported financial ties to Genentech, which markets tocilizumab, and other pharmaceutical companies*. Dr. Nigrovic reported receiving consulting fees and research support from Novartis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Saper V et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216040; Schulert GS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41073; Nigrovic PA. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41071.

*Correction, 10/12/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the manufacturer of Actemra (tocilizumab).

This article was updated 10/14/19.

An uncommon but potentially deadly inflammatory lung disease is emerging among children with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and its history appears to coincide with the rise of powerful biologics as first-line therapy for children with the disease.

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth Mellins

Most confirmed cases of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) are in the United States. But it’s popping up in other places that have adopted early biologic treatment for sJIA – including Canada, South America, Europe, and the Middle East.

The respiratory symptoms are relatively subtle, so by the time of lung disease detection, the amount of affected lung can be extensive, said Elizabeth Mellins, MD, a Stanford (Calif.) University researcher who, along with first author Vivian Saper, MD, recently published the largest case series comprising reports from 37 institutions (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216040). By the end of follow-up, 22 of the 61 children in her cohort had died, including all 12 patients who demonstrated excessively high neutrophil levels in bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

Another recent report, authored by Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, and colleagues of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, described 18 patients, 9 of whom were also included in the Stanford cohort (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41073).

Both investigators have now identified new patients.

“We are aware of 60 additional cases beyond what were included in our series,” Dr. Mellins said in an interview, bringing her entire cohort to 121. Dr. Schulert also continues to expand his group, detailing nine new cases at a recent private meeting.

“We are up to 27 now,” he said. “The features of these new patients are all very similar: The children are very young, all have had macrophage activation syndrome in the past and very-difficult-to-control JIA. Reactions to tocilizumab [Actemra] were also not uncommon in this group.”

Dr. Mellins also saw this association with allergic-type tocilizumab reactions, severe delayed hypersensitivity reactions to anakinra (Kineret) or canakinumab (Ilaris). Although serious lung disease in sJIA patients is not unheard of, this phenotype was virtually unknown until about a decade ago. Both investigators said that it’s been rising steadily since 2010 – just about the time that powerful cytokine-inhibiting biologics were changing these patients’ world for the better. After decades of relying almost solely on steroids and methotrexate, with rather poor results and significant long-term side effects, children were not only improving, but thriving. Gone was the life-changing glucocorticoid-related growth inhibition. Biologics could halt fevers, rash, and joint destruction in their tracks.

“For the first time in history, these kids could look forward to a more or less normal life,” Dr. Schulert said.

But the emergence of this particular type of lung disease could throw a pall over that success story, he said. If sJIA-LD is temporally associated with increasing reliance on long-term interleukin-1/IL-6 inhibition in children with early-onset disease, could these drugs actually be the causative agent? The picture remains unclear.

Some of the 18 in his initial series have improved, while 36% of those in the Stanford series died. Most who do recover stay on their IL-1 or IL-6 blocking therapy with good disease control without further lung problems. Both investigators found compelling genetic hints, but nothing conclusive. Children with trisomy 21 appear especially vulnerable. Most patients are very young – around 2 years old – but others are school aged. Some had a history of macrophage activation syndrome. Some had hard-to-control disease and some were clinically well controlled when the lung disease presented.

There are simply no answers yet.

With so many potential links, all unproven, clinicians may question the wisdom of embarking on long-term biologic therapy for their children with sJIA. Peter Nigrovic, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, addressed this in an accompanying editorial (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41071).

“My take on this is that it’s a very worrisome trend,” he said in an interview. “We’ve been going full bore toward early biologic therapy in sJIA and at the same time we are seeing more of this lung disease. Is it guilt by association? Or is there something more? The challenge for us is not to jump too soon to that conclusion.”

Although the association is there, he said, association does not equal causation. And there’s no doubt that biologics have vastly improved the lives of sJIA patients. “The drugs might be causal, and I worry about that and think we need to study it. But we absolutely need stronger evidence before we change practice.”

“This is a new manifestation of the disease, and it’s coming at the same time we are changing the treatment paradigm,” Dr. Nigrovic continued. “It could be because of interleukin-1 or interleukin-6 blockade. There is biological plausibility for such a link. It could also be related to the fact that we are using less steroids and methotrexate, which might have been preventing this. The appearance of sJIA lung disease could also be that a distinct secular trend unrelated to treatment, just as we saw amyloid come and go in this population in Europe. These other therapies were actually preventing this. We just don’t know.”
 

Clinical characteristics

Children presented with similar symptoms. Respiratory symptoms are usually subtle and mild. These can include tachypnea, hypoxia (43% in the Stanford series), and pulmonary hypertension (30% in the Stanford series).

Digital clubbing, often with erythema, was a common finding. Some children showed pruritic, nonevanescent rashes. Eosinophilia occurred in 37% of the Stanford series and severe abdominal pain in 16%, although Dr. Mellins noted that belly pain may be underestimated, as it was only volunteered, not queried, information.

“There are some red flags that should raise suspicion even without obvious respiratory symptoms,” Dr. Mellins said. These include lymphopenia, unexplained abdominal pain, eosinophilia, an unusual rash, and finger clubbing with or without erythema.

Findings on imaging were consistent in both series. Several key clinic features emerged: pleural thickening, septal thickening, bronchial wall or peribronchovascular thickening, “tree-in-bud” opacities, “ground-glass” opacities, peripheral consolidation, and lymphadenopathy.

Courtesy Dr. Grant Schulert

“The imaging findings correspond to two things,” Dr. Schulert said. “The first is inflammation in the interstitium, which is evidence of chronic and ongoing inflammation. The other thing is that the alveoli are filled with a lipoproteinaceous material which is actually surfactant that’s not being normally recycled by the lung macrophages. You can see these features in other conditions where there’s a problem with lung macrophages, like pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, genetic and autoimmune disorders, infections, or inhalants.”

Pathology showed alveolar filling – a location in the lung that hides usual symptoms until the lung disease is advanced. Prior drug reactions were common. Tocilizumab anaphylaxis occurred in close to 40% of the Stanford series – a surprising finding given the 0.6% reaction incidence in the drug’s sJIA trials. Dr. Schulert saw a similar story.

“In our cohort we also observed a striking number of adverse events to cytokine-targeted biologics exposure,” Dr. Schulert said. “Most of these reactions were to tocilizumab, and were described variously from pain and feeling unwell, to difficulty breathing, to anaphylaxis.”

In a risk analysis, Dr. Schulert determined that adverse events to cytokine-targeting biologics increased the likelihood of lung disease more than 13 times (odds ratio, 13.6).

“We also identified a statistically significant association with history of macrophage activation syndrome when compared to controls (OR, 14.5),” Dr. Schulert and associates wrote.

Genetics

Both the Cincinnati and Stanford teams conducted genetic analyses on some of their patients.

Among eight lung biopsy samples, Dr. Schulert found 37 differentially expressed genes: 36 with increased expression and 1 with decreased expression. Many of the up-regulated genes are involved in interferon-gamma response. Two (CXCL10 and CXCL9) are interferon-induced chemokines associated with macrophage activation syndrome. The down-regulated gene, PADI4, modulates immune response in lupus, and has been associated with the risk of interstitial lung disease in RA.

Dr. Mellins and her team analyzed whole-exome sequencing data from 20 patients and found some rare protein-altering gene variants in genes related to pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, all of which were heterozygous and shared with a healthy parent. But none of them could be directly tied to the disorder.

Another genetic puzzle demands attention, she said. About 10% of the children had trisomy 21 – a stark contrast to the typical 0.2% prevalence among a control group of sJIA patients without any known lung disease in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry cohort, similar to the background population rate. There were suggestions of more aggressive lung disease in all six of these children. Four presented with hypoxia, and two showed advanced interstitial fibrosis. Children with trisomy 21 also seemed more susceptible to infections; 83% had a viral or fungal lung infection at diagnosis, compared with 29% of those without trisomy 21.

Prior exposure to cytokine inhibitors

Parenchymal lung disease and pulmonary hypertension complicating sJIA was first highlighted in a series of 25 cases reported by Kimura et al. in 2013. These authors raised the question of the possible relationship of this and the increasing use of anti–IL-1 and anti–IL-6 biologics in sJIA treatment.

Following this lead, Dr. Mellins started looking into this new clinical entity in 2015. By then, she was identifying some past cases by autopsy records and current cases by clinical presentation. She saw a dramatic shift over time. From 2002 to 2011, she identified four cases, half of which had been exposed to IL-1/IL-6 inhibitors. From 2012 to 2014, eight new cases came to light, and seven had been exposed to those drugs. The crescendo continued from 2015 to 2017. During those years, Dr. Mellins and associates identified 10 new patients, 7 of whom had taken interleukin-inhibiting biologics. The mean time from initial drug exposure to diagnosis was a little more than 1 year.

An adjusted analysis comparing sJIA-LD patients and sJIA patients without lung disease didn’t find any significant difference in drug exposure. However, children with lung disease were more likely to have taken anakinra before the symptoms developed. Additionally, the symptoms of clubbing, abdominal pain, eosinophilia, hyperenhancing lymph nodes, and pulmonary alveolar proteinosis were much more common in children who’d taken the drugs.

The authors pointed out that this association does not prove causality and is confounded by the concomitant reduction in glucocorticoids with IL-1/IL-6 inhibitor use. And the vast majority of children with sJIA take cytokine inhibitors with no problems.

“Possibly, drug exposure may promote lung disease in a subset of children with sJIA, among the substantially larger group of patients who derive striking benefit from these drugs,” Dr. Mellins said, “Importantly, our results argue strongly for more investigation into a possible connection.”

Survival

After a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, the Stanford group saw high mortality. The 5-year survival rate translated to a mortality incidence of 159 deaths per 1,000 person-years, compared with 3.9 per 1,000 person-years in a historical cohort of sJIA patients who required biologic therapy.

Diffuse lung disease was the cause of 12 deaths; 5 of these patients also had macrophage activation syndrome at the time of death. Factors significantly associated with shortened survival included male sex, hypoxia at presentation, and neutrophilic bronchoalveolar lavage with more than 10 times the normal count. In an adjusted analysis, all of these variables fell out. However, none of the children with excessively high neutrophilic bronchoalveolar lavage survived.

Does it affect adults?

Could adults be experiencing the same disorder? There is some evidence to support it: The Food and Drug Administration adverse event website shows alveolar disease or pulmonary hypertension in 39 adults who have been exposed to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibition. Of these, 23 had RA, 11 adult-onset Still’s disease, and 5 unclassified rheumatic disorders.

The research groups were supported by grants from the sJIA Foundation, the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health, Stanford graduate fellowships, the Life Sciences Research Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, the Arthritis Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. Many authors on both papers reported financial ties to Genentech, which markets tocilizumab, and other pharmaceutical companies*. Dr. Nigrovic reported receiving consulting fees and research support from Novartis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Saper V et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216040; Schulert GS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41073; Nigrovic PA. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41071.

*Correction, 10/12/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the manufacturer of Actemra (tocilizumab).

This article was updated 10/14/19.

An uncommon but potentially deadly inflammatory lung disease is emerging among children with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and its history appears to coincide with the rise of powerful biologics as first-line therapy for children with the disease.

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth Mellins

Most confirmed cases of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis with lung disease (sJIA-LD) are in the United States. But it’s popping up in other places that have adopted early biologic treatment for sJIA – including Canada, South America, Europe, and the Middle East.

The respiratory symptoms are relatively subtle, so by the time of lung disease detection, the amount of affected lung can be extensive, said Elizabeth Mellins, MD, a Stanford (Calif.) University researcher who, along with first author Vivian Saper, MD, recently published the largest case series comprising reports from 37 institutions (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216040). By the end of follow-up, 22 of the 61 children in her cohort had died, including all 12 patients who demonstrated excessively high neutrophil levels in bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

Another recent report, authored by Grant Schulert, MD, PhD, and colleagues of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, described 18 patients, 9 of whom were also included in the Stanford cohort (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41073).

Both investigators have now identified new patients.

“We are aware of 60 additional cases beyond what were included in our series,” Dr. Mellins said in an interview, bringing her entire cohort to 121. Dr. Schulert also continues to expand his group, detailing nine new cases at a recent private meeting.

“We are up to 27 now,” he said. “The features of these new patients are all very similar: The children are very young, all have had macrophage activation syndrome in the past and very-difficult-to-control JIA. Reactions to tocilizumab [Actemra] were also not uncommon in this group.”

Dr. Mellins also saw this association with allergic-type tocilizumab reactions, severe delayed hypersensitivity reactions to anakinra (Kineret) or canakinumab (Ilaris). Although serious lung disease in sJIA patients is not unheard of, this phenotype was virtually unknown until about a decade ago. Both investigators said that it’s been rising steadily since 2010 – just about the time that powerful cytokine-inhibiting biologics were changing these patients’ world for the better. After decades of relying almost solely on steroids and methotrexate, with rather poor results and significant long-term side effects, children were not only improving, but thriving. Gone was the life-changing glucocorticoid-related growth inhibition. Biologics could halt fevers, rash, and joint destruction in their tracks.

“For the first time in history, these kids could look forward to a more or less normal life,” Dr. Schulert said.

But the emergence of this particular type of lung disease could throw a pall over that success story, he said. If sJIA-LD is temporally associated with increasing reliance on long-term interleukin-1/IL-6 inhibition in children with early-onset disease, could these drugs actually be the causative agent? The picture remains unclear.

Some of the 18 in his initial series have improved, while 36% of those in the Stanford series died. Most who do recover stay on their IL-1 or IL-6 blocking therapy with good disease control without further lung problems. Both investigators found compelling genetic hints, but nothing conclusive. Children with trisomy 21 appear especially vulnerable. Most patients are very young – around 2 years old – but others are school aged. Some had a history of macrophage activation syndrome. Some had hard-to-control disease and some were clinically well controlled when the lung disease presented.

There are simply no answers yet.

With so many potential links, all unproven, clinicians may question the wisdom of embarking on long-term biologic therapy for their children with sJIA. Peter Nigrovic, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, addressed this in an accompanying editorial (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41071).

“My take on this is that it’s a very worrisome trend,” he said in an interview. “We’ve been going full bore toward early biologic therapy in sJIA and at the same time we are seeing more of this lung disease. Is it guilt by association? Or is there something more? The challenge for us is not to jump too soon to that conclusion.”

Although the association is there, he said, association does not equal causation. And there’s no doubt that biologics have vastly improved the lives of sJIA patients. “The drugs might be causal, and I worry about that and think we need to study it. But we absolutely need stronger evidence before we change practice.”

“This is a new manifestation of the disease, and it’s coming at the same time we are changing the treatment paradigm,” Dr. Nigrovic continued. “It could be because of interleukin-1 or interleukin-6 blockade. There is biological plausibility for such a link. It could also be related to the fact that we are using less steroids and methotrexate, which might have been preventing this. The appearance of sJIA lung disease could also be that a distinct secular trend unrelated to treatment, just as we saw amyloid come and go in this population in Europe. These other therapies were actually preventing this. We just don’t know.”
 

Clinical characteristics

Children presented with similar symptoms. Respiratory symptoms are usually subtle and mild. These can include tachypnea, hypoxia (43% in the Stanford series), and pulmonary hypertension (30% in the Stanford series).

Digital clubbing, often with erythema, was a common finding. Some children showed pruritic, nonevanescent rashes. Eosinophilia occurred in 37% of the Stanford series and severe abdominal pain in 16%, although Dr. Mellins noted that belly pain may be underestimated, as it was only volunteered, not queried, information.

“There are some red flags that should raise suspicion even without obvious respiratory symptoms,” Dr. Mellins said. These include lymphopenia, unexplained abdominal pain, eosinophilia, an unusual rash, and finger clubbing with or without erythema.

Findings on imaging were consistent in both series. Several key clinic features emerged: pleural thickening, septal thickening, bronchial wall or peribronchovascular thickening, “tree-in-bud” opacities, “ground-glass” opacities, peripheral consolidation, and lymphadenopathy.

Courtesy Dr. Grant Schulert

“The imaging findings correspond to two things,” Dr. Schulert said. “The first is inflammation in the interstitium, which is evidence of chronic and ongoing inflammation. The other thing is that the alveoli are filled with a lipoproteinaceous material which is actually surfactant that’s not being normally recycled by the lung macrophages. You can see these features in other conditions where there’s a problem with lung macrophages, like pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, genetic and autoimmune disorders, infections, or inhalants.”

Pathology showed alveolar filling – a location in the lung that hides usual symptoms until the lung disease is advanced. Prior drug reactions were common. Tocilizumab anaphylaxis occurred in close to 40% of the Stanford series – a surprising finding given the 0.6% reaction incidence in the drug’s sJIA trials. Dr. Schulert saw a similar story.

“In our cohort we also observed a striking number of adverse events to cytokine-targeted biologics exposure,” Dr. Schulert said. “Most of these reactions were to tocilizumab, and were described variously from pain and feeling unwell, to difficulty breathing, to anaphylaxis.”

In a risk analysis, Dr. Schulert determined that adverse events to cytokine-targeting biologics increased the likelihood of lung disease more than 13 times (odds ratio, 13.6).

“We also identified a statistically significant association with history of macrophage activation syndrome when compared to controls (OR, 14.5),” Dr. Schulert and associates wrote.

Genetics

Both the Cincinnati and Stanford teams conducted genetic analyses on some of their patients.

Among eight lung biopsy samples, Dr. Schulert found 37 differentially expressed genes: 36 with increased expression and 1 with decreased expression. Many of the up-regulated genes are involved in interferon-gamma response. Two (CXCL10 and CXCL9) are interferon-induced chemokines associated with macrophage activation syndrome. The down-regulated gene, PADI4, modulates immune response in lupus, and has been associated with the risk of interstitial lung disease in RA.

Dr. Mellins and her team analyzed whole-exome sequencing data from 20 patients and found some rare protein-altering gene variants in genes related to pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, all of which were heterozygous and shared with a healthy parent. But none of them could be directly tied to the disorder.

Another genetic puzzle demands attention, she said. About 10% of the children had trisomy 21 – a stark contrast to the typical 0.2% prevalence among a control group of sJIA patients without any known lung disease in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry cohort, similar to the background population rate. There were suggestions of more aggressive lung disease in all six of these children. Four presented with hypoxia, and two showed advanced interstitial fibrosis. Children with trisomy 21 also seemed more susceptible to infections; 83% had a viral or fungal lung infection at diagnosis, compared with 29% of those without trisomy 21.

Prior exposure to cytokine inhibitors

Parenchymal lung disease and pulmonary hypertension complicating sJIA was first highlighted in a series of 25 cases reported by Kimura et al. in 2013. These authors raised the question of the possible relationship of this and the increasing use of anti–IL-1 and anti–IL-6 biologics in sJIA treatment.

Following this lead, Dr. Mellins started looking into this new clinical entity in 2015. By then, she was identifying some past cases by autopsy records and current cases by clinical presentation. She saw a dramatic shift over time. From 2002 to 2011, she identified four cases, half of which had been exposed to IL-1/IL-6 inhibitors. From 2012 to 2014, eight new cases came to light, and seven had been exposed to those drugs. The crescendo continued from 2015 to 2017. During those years, Dr. Mellins and associates identified 10 new patients, 7 of whom had taken interleukin-inhibiting biologics. The mean time from initial drug exposure to diagnosis was a little more than 1 year.

An adjusted analysis comparing sJIA-LD patients and sJIA patients without lung disease didn’t find any significant difference in drug exposure. However, children with lung disease were more likely to have taken anakinra before the symptoms developed. Additionally, the symptoms of clubbing, abdominal pain, eosinophilia, hyperenhancing lymph nodes, and pulmonary alveolar proteinosis were much more common in children who’d taken the drugs.

The authors pointed out that this association does not prove causality and is confounded by the concomitant reduction in glucocorticoids with IL-1/IL-6 inhibitor use. And the vast majority of children with sJIA take cytokine inhibitors with no problems.

“Possibly, drug exposure may promote lung disease in a subset of children with sJIA, among the substantially larger group of patients who derive striking benefit from these drugs,” Dr. Mellins said, “Importantly, our results argue strongly for more investigation into a possible connection.”

Survival

After a mean follow-up of 1.7 years, the Stanford group saw high mortality. The 5-year survival rate translated to a mortality incidence of 159 deaths per 1,000 person-years, compared with 3.9 per 1,000 person-years in a historical cohort of sJIA patients who required biologic therapy.

Diffuse lung disease was the cause of 12 deaths; 5 of these patients also had macrophage activation syndrome at the time of death. Factors significantly associated with shortened survival included male sex, hypoxia at presentation, and neutrophilic bronchoalveolar lavage with more than 10 times the normal count. In an adjusted analysis, all of these variables fell out. However, none of the children with excessively high neutrophilic bronchoalveolar lavage survived.

Does it affect adults?

Could adults be experiencing the same disorder? There is some evidence to support it: The Food and Drug Administration adverse event website shows alveolar disease or pulmonary hypertension in 39 adults who have been exposed to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibition. Of these, 23 had RA, 11 adult-onset Still’s disease, and 5 unclassified rheumatic disorders.

The research groups were supported by grants from the sJIA Foundation, the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health, Stanford graduate fellowships, the Life Sciences Research Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, the Arthritis Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. Many authors on both papers reported financial ties to Genentech, which markets tocilizumab, and other pharmaceutical companies*. Dr. Nigrovic reported receiving consulting fees and research support from Novartis and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Saper V et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216040; Schulert GS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41073; Nigrovic PA. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Aug 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41071.

*Correction, 10/12/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the manufacturer of Actemra (tocilizumab).

This article was updated 10/14/19.

LAS VEGAS – Rheumatoid arthritis that is difficult to treat may occur in about 10% of patients with the disease. The definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis varies among experts, however, and the reasons for refractoriness are often unknown, said Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow and current president of the European League Against Rheumatism.

There may be an intrinsic refractory disease state, where the disease will manifest despite the use of any existing medications. Patients may have pharmacokinetic refractory disease, which could result from antidrug antibodies. There may be false positives. “It could well be that the patient is sore, but it is not because of the active inflammation,” he said. “It is because of biomechanical disease or pain sensitization. Or it could be that there is osteoarthritis.”

In the end, managing patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis may come down to setting reasonable expectations and addressing practical concerns, such as medication adherence, comorbidities, and adverse drug reactions – “the realpolitik of rheumatological care,” Dr. McInnes said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
 

Defining difficult to treat

In a recently published study, Dr. McInnes and colleagues surveyed rheumatologists about what characterizes difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec;77[12]:1705-9).

“There was remarkable variation,” Dr. McInnes said. “Should fatigue be involved? Do the types of drugs that you have failed matter? Should a patient’s need for glucocorticoids be part of the definition? ... We did not really find much of a consensus.”

The presence of cardiovascular disease, extra-articular manifestations, infection, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, and other factors add to the challenge. “These are all very familiar problems that you face in your routine practice, whether you are in rheumatology care primarily or whether you are in family practice,” he said.

Although it is difficult to determine how many patients have refractory rheumatoid arthritis, “the rule of thumb is about 10%,” Dr. McInnes said. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis, researchers estimated that approximately 6% of patients would be refractory to a biologic drug, defined as patients who move on to a third class of biologic therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;77[10]:1405-12).

The same study found that, in recent years, patients have cycled through drugs more quickly than they had in the past. Many patients prove difficult to treat within 4 or 5 years, “which is pretty terrifying with a disease whose median age of onset is early 50s, but whose clinics are full of people in their teens, 20s, and 30s,” Dr. McInnes said.

Approaches to treatment

New medications, therapeutic targets, and treatment approaches eventually may help treat or prevent refractory disease. In the meantime, it may be beneficial to “go back to the beginning” when caring for patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. McInnes said. “Make absolutely certain that we understand what is going on in that patient. Even just the opportunity to go through the disease course is reassuring for our patients. If nothing else, it tells them that we are listening, paying attention, and we are taking it seriously.”

Physicians may need to recognize the presence of antidrug antibodies. In addition, medication adherence may be a problem. About one-third of patients who are prescribed methotrexate do not take the medication, which may be a difficult topic for them to discuss, he said.

“Detect that inflammation which is there and treat it,” Dr. McInnes said. “And detect that which is not of an inflammatory origin and manage it on its own merits.”

Dr. McInnes is a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galvani, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has received grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Rheumatoid arthritis that is difficult to treat may occur in about 10% of patients with the disease. The definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis varies among experts, however, and the reasons for refractoriness are often unknown, said Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow and current president of the European League Against Rheumatism.

There may be an intrinsic refractory disease state, where the disease will manifest despite the use of any existing medications. Patients may have pharmacokinetic refractory disease, which could result from antidrug antibodies. There may be false positives. “It could well be that the patient is sore, but it is not because of the active inflammation,” he said. “It is because of biomechanical disease or pain sensitization. Or it could be that there is osteoarthritis.”

In the end, managing patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis may come down to setting reasonable expectations and addressing practical concerns, such as medication adherence, comorbidities, and adverse drug reactions – “the realpolitik of rheumatological care,” Dr. McInnes said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
 

Defining difficult to treat

In a recently published study, Dr. McInnes and colleagues surveyed rheumatologists about what characterizes difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec;77[12]:1705-9).

“There was remarkable variation,” Dr. McInnes said. “Should fatigue be involved? Do the types of drugs that you have failed matter? Should a patient’s need for glucocorticoids be part of the definition? ... We did not really find much of a consensus.”

The presence of cardiovascular disease, extra-articular manifestations, infection, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, and other factors add to the challenge. “These are all very familiar problems that you face in your routine practice, whether you are in rheumatology care primarily or whether you are in family practice,” he said.

Although it is difficult to determine how many patients have refractory rheumatoid arthritis, “the rule of thumb is about 10%,” Dr. McInnes said. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis, researchers estimated that approximately 6% of patients would be refractory to a biologic drug, defined as patients who move on to a third class of biologic therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;77[10]:1405-12).

The same study found that, in recent years, patients have cycled through drugs more quickly than they had in the past. Many patients prove difficult to treat within 4 or 5 years, “which is pretty terrifying with a disease whose median age of onset is early 50s, but whose clinics are full of people in their teens, 20s, and 30s,” Dr. McInnes said.

Approaches to treatment

New medications, therapeutic targets, and treatment approaches eventually may help treat or prevent refractory disease. In the meantime, it may be beneficial to “go back to the beginning” when caring for patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. McInnes said. “Make absolutely certain that we understand what is going on in that patient. Even just the opportunity to go through the disease course is reassuring for our patients. If nothing else, it tells them that we are listening, paying attention, and we are taking it seriously.”

Physicians may need to recognize the presence of antidrug antibodies. In addition, medication adherence may be a problem. About one-third of patients who are prescribed methotrexate do not take the medication, which may be a difficult topic for them to discuss, he said.

“Detect that inflammation which is there and treat it,” Dr. McInnes said. “And detect that which is not of an inflammatory origin and manage it on its own merits.”

Dr. McInnes is a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galvani, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has received grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Rheumatoid arthritis that is difficult to treat may occur in about 10% of patients with the disease. The definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis varies among experts, however, and the reasons for refractoriness are often unknown, said Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow and current president of the European League Against Rheumatism.

There may be an intrinsic refractory disease state, where the disease will manifest despite the use of any existing medications. Patients may have pharmacokinetic refractory disease, which could result from antidrug antibodies. There may be false positives. “It could well be that the patient is sore, but it is not because of the active inflammation,” he said. “It is because of biomechanical disease or pain sensitization. Or it could be that there is osteoarthritis.”

In the end, managing patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis may come down to setting reasonable expectations and addressing practical concerns, such as medication adherence, comorbidities, and adverse drug reactions – “the realpolitik of rheumatological care,” Dr. McInnes said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
 

Defining difficult to treat

In a recently published study, Dr. McInnes and colleagues surveyed rheumatologists about what characterizes difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec;77[12]:1705-9).

“There was remarkable variation,” Dr. McInnes said. “Should fatigue be involved? Do the types of drugs that you have failed matter? Should a patient’s need for glucocorticoids be part of the definition? ... We did not really find much of a consensus.”

The presence of cardiovascular disease, extra-articular manifestations, infection, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, and other factors add to the challenge. “These are all very familiar problems that you face in your routine practice, whether you are in rheumatology care primarily or whether you are in family practice,” he said.

Although it is difficult to determine how many patients have refractory rheumatoid arthritis, “the rule of thumb is about 10%,” Dr. McInnes said. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis, researchers estimated that approximately 6% of patients would be refractory to a biologic drug, defined as patients who move on to a third class of biologic therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;77[10]:1405-12).

The same study found that, in recent years, patients have cycled through drugs more quickly than they had in the past. Many patients prove difficult to treat within 4 or 5 years, “which is pretty terrifying with a disease whose median age of onset is early 50s, but whose clinics are full of people in their teens, 20s, and 30s,” Dr. McInnes said.

Approaches to treatment

New medications, therapeutic targets, and treatment approaches eventually may help treat or prevent refractory disease. In the meantime, it may be beneficial to “go back to the beginning” when caring for patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. McInnes said. “Make absolutely certain that we understand what is going on in that patient. Even just the opportunity to go through the disease course is reassuring for our patients. If nothing else, it tells them that we are listening, paying attention, and we are taking it seriously.”

Physicians may need to recognize the presence of antidrug antibodies. In addition, medication adherence may be a problem. About one-third of patients who are prescribed methotrexate do not take the medication, which may be a difficult topic for them to discuss, he said.

“Detect that inflammation which is there and treat it,” Dr. McInnes said. “And detect that which is not of an inflammatory origin and manage it on its own merits.”

Dr. McInnes is a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galvani, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has received grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Las Vegas – A fibromyalgia survey may provide important information about the degree to which patients with rheumatic disease experience centralized pain. This information may guide treatment decisions, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The questionnaire that Dr. Clauw uses is a patient self-report survey for the assessment of fibromyalgia based on criteria in the 2011 modification of the American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. In it, he asks patients to report where they experience pain throughout the body and symptoms such as fatigue, sleep problems, and memory problems. The survey predicts outcomes of surgery for osteoarthritis better than x-rays, MRI scans, or psychological factors do, he said.

Physicians should ask every patient with chronic pain, including patients with OA, rheumatoid arthritis, or lupus, to complete the survey, Dr. Clauw said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “This score will tell you the degree to which their central nervous system is augmenting or amplifying what is going on in their body,” he said. “And the higher their score is, the more you should treat them like you would someone with fibromyalgia, even if their underlying disease might be an autoimmune disease.”

Physicians should not use a cutoff of 13 points on the fibromyalgia measure to define whether a patient has the disease, as has been done in the past, he said. The threshold is arbitrary, he said. “We should not think about fibromyalgia as ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We should think of the degree of fibromyalgia that people have.”
 

A poor relationship between pain and imaging

Some patients who have severe knee OA on imaging walk without pain. Other patients have normal x-rays, but severe pain. “There is a terrible relationship between what you see on a knee x-ray or an MRI and whether someone has pain,” Dr. Clauw said. Furthermore, the poor relationship between imaging and pain is common across chronic pain conditions, he said.

This phenomenon may occur because pain manifests in different ways, similar to there being multiple ways to adjust the volume of an electric guitar, he said. How hard the strings are strummed affects the volume. But so does the amplifier setting. “In these centralized pain conditions, the problem is an amplifier problem, not a guitar problem,” he said. “The amplifier, i.e., the central nervous system, is set too high.”

Researchers have found that people who have severe OA of the knee on x-ray but do not experience pain “have a very low amplifier setting,” he said. That is, they are nontender and less sensitive to pain. Most of these patients are men. “On average, men have a much lower amplifier setting than women,” he said. “This is also why ... women have 1.5 to 2 times the rate of any type of chronic pain than men, because on average women have a higher amplifier setting. ... In OA, at any given age, men and women have the exact same percentage of radiographic OA. But if you look at the clinical condition of OA, it is always two-thirds women, one-third men.”
 

Opioid responsiveness

To examine whether fibromyalgia survey results correlate with outcomes after knee and hip arthroplasty, Dr. Clauw and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational cohort study that included approximately 500 people. Patients completed the questionnaire on the day of surgery.

Patients with higher levels of fibromyalgia were less responsive to opioids. “For each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score, people needed about one more hydrocodone tablet in the first 24-48 hours to control their pain,” he said (Anesthesiology. 2013 Dec;119[6]:1434-43). In addition, each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score made people about 25% less likely to have a 50% improvement in knee pain level after 6 months (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 May;67[5]:1386-94). The correlations were independent of psychological factors. In addition, the associations were linear. “There was nothing magical about a fibromyalgia score of 13,” Dr. Clauw said.

Dr. Clauw is a coauthor of a study to be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Professionals annual meeting that found pain centralization in patients with RA is associated with poor response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Prior studies in patients with RA have found that the degree of fibromyalgia is a better predictor of pain and disability than erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the number of swollen joints.
 

Diagnosed cases are the “tip of the iceberg”

Researchers at Dr. Clauw’s institution have identified dozens of patients undergoing knee surgery who met criteria for fibromyalgia but had not received the diagnosis. “This is at the University of Michigan, which is the epicenter for fibromyalgia research. If we are not seeing fibromyalgia superimposed on OA in our patients, no one is seeing it,” he said.

Patients with diagnosed fibromyalgia are “the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There are far greater numbers of individuals whose primary diagnosis is OA, RA, lupus, ankylosing spondylitis, cancer pain, or sickle cell disease that have the same fundamental problem as fibromyalgia patients. But you do not see it because you label them as having an autoimmune disease or osteoarthritis. And that is at your peril and at their peril. Because treating that individual as if all of their pain and other symptoms are due to a problem out on the periphery will not make that person better.”

Patients with high levels of centralized pain may be less responsive to peripherally directed therapies such as surgery or injections, Dr. Clauw said. Pharmacologic options for patients with centralized pain include gabapentinoids (e.g., pregabalin and gabapentin), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (e.g., duloxetine and milnacipran), and tricyclic compounds (e.g., amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine), he said. “Opioids are going to be quite unlikely to help these individuals,” he said. “In fact, it is likely that opioids will make this kind of pain worse.”

Dr. Clauw is a consultant for Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Intec Pharma, Pfizer, Samumed, Theravance, Tonix, and Zynerba Pharma. He has received grant or research support from Aptinyx and Pfizer and is an expert witness.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Las Vegas – A fibromyalgia survey may provide important information about the degree to which patients with rheumatic disease experience centralized pain. This information may guide treatment decisions, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The questionnaire that Dr. Clauw uses is a patient self-report survey for the assessment of fibromyalgia based on criteria in the 2011 modification of the American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. In it, he asks patients to report where they experience pain throughout the body and symptoms such as fatigue, sleep problems, and memory problems. The survey predicts outcomes of surgery for osteoarthritis better than x-rays, MRI scans, or psychological factors do, he said.

Physicians should ask every patient with chronic pain, including patients with OA, rheumatoid arthritis, or lupus, to complete the survey, Dr. Clauw said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “This score will tell you the degree to which their central nervous system is augmenting or amplifying what is going on in their body,” he said. “And the higher their score is, the more you should treat them like you would someone with fibromyalgia, even if their underlying disease might be an autoimmune disease.”

Physicians should not use a cutoff of 13 points on the fibromyalgia measure to define whether a patient has the disease, as has been done in the past, he said. The threshold is arbitrary, he said. “We should not think about fibromyalgia as ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We should think of the degree of fibromyalgia that people have.”
 

A poor relationship between pain and imaging

Some patients who have severe knee OA on imaging walk without pain. Other patients have normal x-rays, but severe pain. “There is a terrible relationship between what you see on a knee x-ray or an MRI and whether someone has pain,” Dr. Clauw said. Furthermore, the poor relationship between imaging and pain is common across chronic pain conditions, he said.

This phenomenon may occur because pain manifests in different ways, similar to there being multiple ways to adjust the volume of an electric guitar, he said. How hard the strings are strummed affects the volume. But so does the amplifier setting. “In these centralized pain conditions, the problem is an amplifier problem, not a guitar problem,” he said. “The amplifier, i.e., the central nervous system, is set too high.”

Researchers have found that people who have severe OA of the knee on x-ray but do not experience pain “have a very low amplifier setting,” he said. That is, they are nontender and less sensitive to pain. Most of these patients are men. “On average, men have a much lower amplifier setting than women,” he said. “This is also why ... women have 1.5 to 2 times the rate of any type of chronic pain than men, because on average women have a higher amplifier setting. ... In OA, at any given age, men and women have the exact same percentage of radiographic OA. But if you look at the clinical condition of OA, it is always two-thirds women, one-third men.”
 

Opioid responsiveness

To examine whether fibromyalgia survey results correlate with outcomes after knee and hip arthroplasty, Dr. Clauw and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational cohort study that included approximately 500 people. Patients completed the questionnaire on the day of surgery.

Patients with higher levels of fibromyalgia were less responsive to opioids. “For each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score, people needed about one more hydrocodone tablet in the first 24-48 hours to control their pain,” he said (Anesthesiology. 2013 Dec;119[6]:1434-43). In addition, each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score made people about 25% less likely to have a 50% improvement in knee pain level after 6 months (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 May;67[5]:1386-94). The correlations were independent of psychological factors. In addition, the associations were linear. “There was nothing magical about a fibromyalgia score of 13,” Dr. Clauw said.

Dr. Clauw is a coauthor of a study to be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Professionals annual meeting that found pain centralization in patients with RA is associated with poor response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Prior studies in patients with RA have found that the degree of fibromyalgia is a better predictor of pain and disability than erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the number of swollen joints.
 

Diagnosed cases are the “tip of the iceberg”

Researchers at Dr. Clauw’s institution have identified dozens of patients undergoing knee surgery who met criteria for fibromyalgia but had not received the diagnosis. “This is at the University of Michigan, which is the epicenter for fibromyalgia research. If we are not seeing fibromyalgia superimposed on OA in our patients, no one is seeing it,” he said.

Patients with diagnosed fibromyalgia are “the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There are far greater numbers of individuals whose primary diagnosis is OA, RA, lupus, ankylosing spondylitis, cancer pain, or sickle cell disease that have the same fundamental problem as fibromyalgia patients. But you do not see it because you label them as having an autoimmune disease or osteoarthritis. And that is at your peril and at their peril. Because treating that individual as if all of their pain and other symptoms are due to a problem out on the periphery will not make that person better.”

Patients with high levels of centralized pain may be less responsive to peripherally directed therapies such as surgery or injections, Dr. Clauw said. Pharmacologic options for patients with centralized pain include gabapentinoids (e.g., pregabalin and gabapentin), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (e.g., duloxetine and milnacipran), and tricyclic compounds (e.g., amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine), he said. “Opioids are going to be quite unlikely to help these individuals,” he said. “In fact, it is likely that opioids will make this kind of pain worse.”

Dr. Clauw is a consultant for Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Intec Pharma, Pfizer, Samumed, Theravance, Tonix, and Zynerba Pharma. He has received grant or research support from Aptinyx and Pfizer and is an expert witness.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Las Vegas – A fibromyalgia survey may provide important information about the degree to which patients with rheumatic disease experience centralized pain. This information may guide treatment decisions, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The questionnaire that Dr. Clauw uses is a patient self-report survey for the assessment of fibromyalgia based on criteria in the 2011 modification of the American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. In it, he asks patients to report where they experience pain throughout the body and symptoms such as fatigue, sleep problems, and memory problems. The survey predicts outcomes of surgery for osteoarthritis better than x-rays, MRI scans, or psychological factors do, he said.

Physicians should ask every patient with chronic pain, including patients with OA, rheumatoid arthritis, or lupus, to complete the survey, Dr. Clauw said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “This score will tell you the degree to which their central nervous system is augmenting or amplifying what is going on in their body,” he said. “And the higher their score is, the more you should treat them like you would someone with fibromyalgia, even if their underlying disease might be an autoimmune disease.”

Physicians should not use a cutoff of 13 points on the fibromyalgia measure to define whether a patient has the disease, as has been done in the past, he said. The threshold is arbitrary, he said. “We should not think about fibromyalgia as ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We should think of the degree of fibromyalgia that people have.”
 

A poor relationship between pain and imaging

Some patients who have severe knee OA on imaging walk without pain. Other patients have normal x-rays, but severe pain. “There is a terrible relationship between what you see on a knee x-ray or an MRI and whether someone has pain,” Dr. Clauw said. Furthermore, the poor relationship between imaging and pain is common across chronic pain conditions, he said.

This phenomenon may occur because pain manifests in different ways, similar to there being multiple ways to adjust the volume of an electric guitar, he said. How hard the strings are strummed affects the volume. But so does the amplifier setting. “In these centralized pain conditions, the problem is an amplifier problem, not a guitar problem,” he said. “The amplifier, i.e., the central nervous system, is set too high.”

Researchers have found that people who have severe OA of the knee on x-ray but do not experience pain “have a very low amplifier setting,” he said. That is, they are nontender and less sensitive to pain. Most of these patients are men. “On average, men have a much lower amplifier setting than women,” he said. “This is also why ... women have 1.5 to 2 times the rate of any type of chronic pain than men, because on average women have a higher amplifier setting. ... In OA, at any given age, men and women have the exact same percentage of radiographic OA. But if you look at the clinical condition of OA, it is always two-thirds women, one-third men.”
 

Opioid responsiveness

To examine whether fibromyalgia survey results correlate with outcomes after knee and hip arthroplasty, Dr. Clauw and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational cohort study that included approximately 500 people. Patients completed the questionnaire on the day of surgery.

Patients with higher levels of fibromyalgia were less responsive to opioids. “For each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score, people needed about one more hydrocodone tablet in the first 24-48 hours to control their pain,” he said (Anesthesiology. 2013 Dec;119[6]:1434-43). In addition, each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score made people about 25% less likely to have a 50% improvement in knee pain level after 6 months (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 May;67[5]:1386-94). The correlations were independent of psychological factors. In addition, the associations were linear. “There was nothing magical about a fibromyalgia score of 13,” Dr. Clauw said.

Dr. Clauw is a coauthor of a study to be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Professionals annual meeting that found pain centralization in patients with RA is associated with poor response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Prior studies in patients with RA have found that the degree of fibromyalgia is a better predictor of pain and disability than erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the number of swollen joints.
 

Diagnosed cases are the “tip of the iceberg”

Researchers at Dr. Clauw’s institution have identified dozens of patients undergoing knee surgery who met criteria for fibromyalgia but had not received the diagnosis. “This is at the University of Michigan, which is the epicenter for fibromyalgia research. If we are not seeing fibromyalgia superimposed on OA in our patients, no one is seeing it,” he said.

Patients with diagnosed fibromyalgia are “the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There are far greater numbers of individuals whose primary diagnosis is OA, RA, lupus, ankylosing spondylitis, cancer pain, or sickle cell disease that have the same fundamental problem as fibromyalgia patients. But you do not see it because you label them as having an autoimmune disease or osteoarthritis. And that is at your peril and at their peril. Because treating that individual as if all of their pain and other symptoms are due to a problem out on the periphery will not make that person better.”

Patients with high levels of centralized pain may be less responsive to peripherally directed therapies such as surgery or injections, Dr. Clauw said. Pharmacologic options for patients with centralized pain include gabapentinoids (e.g., pregabalin and gabapentin), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (e.g., duloxetine and milnacipran), and tricyclic compounds (e.g., amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine), he said. “Opioids are going to be quite unlikely to help these individuals,” he said. “In fact, it is likely that opioids will make this kind of pain worse.”

Dr. Clauw is a consultant for Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Intec Pharma, Pfizer, Samumed, Theravance, Tonix, and Zynerba Pharma. He has received grant or research support from Aptinyx and Pfizer and is an expert witness.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Pregnant women taking oral corticosteroids for rheumatoid arthritis may be at increased risk of preterm birth, according to research published online Sept. 30 in Rheumatology.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

A study of 528 pregnant women with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies found that those taking a daily dose of 10 mg or more of prednisone equivalent – representing a mean cumulative dose of 2,208.6 mg over the first 139 days of pregnancy – had 4.77-fold higher odds of preterm birth, compared with those not taking oral corticosteroids. Women on medium doses – with a mean cumulative dose of 883 mg – had 81% higher odds of preterm birth, while those on low cumulative doses of 264.9 mg showed a nonsignificant 38% increase in preterm birth risk.

Women who did not use oral corticosteroids before day 140 of pregnancy had a 2.2% risk of early preterm birth. Among women with low use of oral corticosteroids, the risk was 3.4%, among those with medium use the risk was 3.3%, but among those with high use the risk was 26.7%.

After day 140 of gestation, there was a nonsignificant 64% increase in the risk for preterm birth with any use of oral corticosteroids, compared with no use. But among women taking 10 mg or more of prednisone equivalent per day, the risk was 2.45-fold higher, whereas those taking under 10 mg showed no significant increase in risk.

“Systemic corticosteroid use has been associated with serious infection in pregnant women and serious and nonserious infection in individuals with autoimmune diseases, independent of other immunosuppressive medications, especially for doses of 10 mg of prednisone equivalent per day and greater,” wrote Kristin Palmsten, ScD, a research investigator with HealthPartners Institute in Minneapolis, Minn., and coauthors.

Given that intrauterine infection is believed to contribute to preterm birth, some have suggested that the immunosuppressive effects of oral corticosteroids could be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth because of subclinical intra-amniotic infection, they wrote.

However, they noted that there was a lack of information on the effect of dose and timing of oral corticosteroids during pregnancy on the risk of preterm birth.

The authors acknowledged that dosage of oral corticosteroids during pregnancy was linked to disease activity, which was itself associated with preterm birth risk. They adjusted for self-assessed rheumatoid arthritis severity at enrollment, which was generally during the first trimester, and found that this did attenuate the association with preterm birth.

“Ideally, we would have measures of disease severity at the time of every medication start, stop, or dose change to account for time-varying confounding later in pregnancy,” they wrote.

The study did not find any effect of biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, either before or after the first 140 days of gestation.

The authors also looked at pregnancy outcomes among women with inflammatory bowel disease and asthma who were taking corticosteroids for those conditions.

While noting that these estimates were “imprecise,” they did see the suggestion of an increase in preterm birth among women taking oral corticosteroids for asthma, especially when used in the first half of pregnancy. There was also a suggestion of increased preterm birth risk associated with high oral corticosteroid use for inflammatory bowel disease, but these estimates were unadjusted, they noted.

“Overall, IBD and asthma exploratory analyses align with the direction of the associations in the RA analysis despite limitations of precision and inability to adjust for IBD severity,” they wrote.

The conclusions to be drawn from the study are limited by its small size, the investigators noted, as well as a lack of information on the type of rheumatoid arthritis and longitudinal disease severity. They added that while the hypothesized mechanism of action linking oral corticosteroid use to preterm birth was subclinical intrauterine infection, they did not have access to placental pathology to confirm this.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies are supported by research grants from a number of pharmaceutical companies. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Palmsten K et al. Rheumatology 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez405.

Pregnant women taking oral corticosteroids for rheumatoid arthritis may be at increased risk of preterm birth, according to research published online Sept. 30 in Rheumatology.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

A study of 528 pregnant women with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies found that those taking a daily dose of 10 mg or more of prednisone equivalent – representing a mean cumulative dose of 2,208.6 mg over the first 139 days of pregnancy – had 4.77-fold higher odds of preterm birth, compared with those not taking oral corticosteroids. Women on medium doses – with a mean cumulative dose of 883 mg – had 81% higher odds of preterm birth, while those on low cumulative doses of 264.9 mg showed a nonsignificant 38% increase in preterm birth risk.

Women who did not use oral corticosteroids before day 140 of pregnancy had a 2.2% risk of early preterm birth. Among women with low use of oral corticosteroids, the risk was 3.4%, among those with medium use the risk was 3.3%, but among those with high use the risk was 26.7%.

After day 140 of gestation, there was a nonsignificant 64% increase in the risk for preterm birth with any use of oral corticosteroids, compared with no use. But among women taking 10 mg or more of prednisone equivalent per day, the risk was 2.45-fold higher, whereas those taking under 10 mg showed no significant increase in risk.

“Systemic corticosteroid use has been associated with serious infection in pregnant women and serious and nonserious infection in individuals with autoimmune diseases, independent of other immunosuppressive medications, especially for doses of 10 mg of prednisone equivalent per day and greater,” wrote Kristin Palmsten, ScD, a research investigator with HealthPartners Institute in Minneapolis, Minn., and coauthors.

Given that intrauterine infection is believed to contribute to preterm birth, some have suggested that the immunosuppressive effects of oral corticosteroids could be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth because of subclinical intra-amniotic infection, they wrote.

However, they noted that there was a lack of information on the effect of dose and timing of oral corticosteroids during pregnancy on the risk of preterm birth.

The authors acknowledged that dosage of oral corticosteroids during pregnancy was linked to disease activity, which was itself associated with preterm birth risk. They adjusted for self-assessed rheumatoid arthritis severity at enrollment, which was generally during the first trimester, and found that this did attenuate the association with preterm birth.

“Ideally, we would have measures of disease severity at the time of every medication start, stop, or dose change to account for time-varying confounding later in pregnancy,” they wrote.

The study did not find any effect of biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, either before or after the first 140 days of gestation.

The authors also looked at pregnancy outcomes among women with inflammatory bowel disease and asthma who were taking corticosteroids for those conditions.

While noting that these estimates were “imprecise,” they did see the suggestion of an increase in preterm birth among women taking oral corticosteroids for asthma, especially when used in the first half of pregnancy. There was also a suggestion of increased preterm birth risk associated with high oral corticosteroid use for inflammatory bowel disease, but these estimates were unadjusted, they noted.

“Overall, IBD and asthma exploratory analyses align with the direction of the associations in the RA analysis despite limitations of precision and inability to adjust for IBD severity,” they wrote.

The conclusions to be drawn from the study are limited by its small size, the investigators noted, as well as a lack of information on the type of rheumatoid arthritis and longitudinal disease severity. They added that while the hypothesized mechanism of action linking oral corticosteroid use to preterm birth was subclinical intrauterine infection, they did not have access to placental pathology to confirm this.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies are supported by research grants from a number of pharmaceutical companies. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Palmsten K et al. Rheumatology 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez405.

Pregnant women taking oral corticosteroids for rheumatoid arthritis may be at increased risk of preterm birth, according to research published online Sept. 30 in Rheumatology.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

A study of 528 pregnant women with rheumatoid arthritis enrolled in the MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies found that those taking a daily dose of 10 mg or more of prednisone equivalent – representing a mean cumulative dose of 2,208.6 mg over the first 139 days of pregnancy – had 4.77-fold higher odds of preterm birth, compared with those not taking oral corticosteroids. Women on medium doses – with a mean cumulative dose of 883 mg – had 81% higher odds of preterm birth, while those on low cumulative doses of 264.9 mg showed a nonsignificant 38% increase in preterm birth risk.

Women who did not use oral corticosteroids before day 140 of pregnancy had a 2.2% risk of early preterm birth. Among women with low use of oral corticosteroids, the risk was 3.4%, among those with medium use the risk was 3.3%, but among those with high use the risk was 26.7%.

After day 140 of gestation, there was a nonsignificant 64% increase in the risk for preterm birth with any use of oral corticosteroids, compared with no use. But among women taking 10 mg or more of prednisone equivalent per day, the risk was 2.45-fold higher, whereas those taking under 10 mg showed no significant increase in risk.

“Systemic corticosteroid use has been associated with serious infection in pregnant women and serious and nonserious infection in individuals with autoimmune diseases, independent of other immunosuppressive medications, especially for doses of 10 mg of prednisone equivalent per day and greater,” wrote Kristin Palmsten, ScD, a research investigator with HealthPartners Institute in Minneapolis, Minn., and coauthors.

Given that intrauterine infection is believed to contribute to preterm birth, some have suggested that the immunosuppressive effects of oral corticosteroids could be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth because of subclinical intra-amniotic infection, they wrote.

However, they noted that there was a lack of information on the effect of dose and timing of oral corticosteroids during pregnancy on the risk of preterm birth.

The authors acknowledged that dosage of oral corticosteroids during pregnancy was linked to disease activity, which was itself associated with preterm birth risk. They adjusted for self-assessed rheumatoid arthritis severity at enrollment, which was generally during the first trimester, and found that this did attenuate the association with preterm birth.

“Ideally, we would have measures of disease severity at the time of every medication start, stop, or dose change to account for time-varying confounding later in pregnancy,” they wrote.

The study did not find any effect of biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, either before or after the first 140 days of gestation.

The authors also looked at pregnancy outcomes among women with inflammatory bowel disease and asthma who were taking corticosteroids for those conditions.

While noting that these estimates were “imprecise,” they did see the suggestion of an increase in preterm birth among women taking oral corticosteroids for asthma, especially when used in the first half of pregnancy. There was also a suggestion of increased preterm birth risk associated with high oral corticosteroid use for inflammatory bowel disease, but these estimates were unadjusted, they noted.

“Overall, IBD and asthma exploratory analyses align with the direction of the associations in the RA analysis despite limitations of precision and inability to adjust for IBD severity,” they wrote.

The conclusions to be drawn from the study are limited by its small size, the investigators noted, as well as a lack of information on the type of rheumatoid arthritis and longitudinal disease severity. They added that while the hypothesized mechanism of action linking oral corticosteroid use to preterm birth was subclinical intrauterine infection, they did not have access to placental pathology to confirm this.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies are supported by research grants from a number of pharmaceutical companies. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Palmsten K et al. Rheumatology 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez405.