Rheumatology

LEIPZIG, GERMANY – With age comes illness: Cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, increased infections, and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatism become more common. This is because the immune system also ages. In the case of autoimmune diseases, this aging happens particularly quickly.

“There is this phenomenon of premature aging of the immune system,” said Cornelia Weyand, PhD, director of Stanford (Calif.) University’s Center for Translational Medicine at the German Rheumatology Congress 2023. In healthy people, the immune system begins to age at age 20. From that point on, the thymus gland, which reaches peak function at 14-15 years old, plays an increasingly minor role. “At age 50 years, the aging process of the immune system gains momentum.”

“What’s good about this is that the T and B cells age together, but all a little differently, each system by itself,” said Thomas Dörner, MD, PhD, head of consultation hours for clinical hemostaseology at the Charité University Hospitals in Berlin.

While the reduced formation of naive T cells can be attributed to the regression of the thymus gland, the naive B cells are a consequence of age-related, fatty bone marrow degeneration. The influence of adipocyte-derived tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha also causes the bone marrow to develop B cells more and more weakly and slowly. “Through this [process], the preimmune range of B-cells decreases and becomes less healthy than in a young person.”
 

‘Inflamm-aging’

“In the periphery, we have identified a process we call “inflamm-aging,” where the cytokines interferon-gamma, interleukin (IL)–10, and IL-17 play a predominant role. This also alters the primary and secondary immune response,” said Dr. Dörner. Here, decreasing stimulation via the B-cell receptor by aging T-lymphocytes makes a difference.

As we age, the immune system restructures itself completely. “Protective immunity regresses and the inferior immunity emerges,” explained Dr. Weyand. Wounds heal more poorly, the protective action against infections and above all malignancies, as well as the immune response to vaccinations, decreases.

The increased occurrence of neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, and autoimmune diseases is not because of a loss of function, but rather to newly gained, undesired functions. These are associated with inflammatory changes. Hence, the term inflamm-aging.

With the B cells, functional germinal centers in the lymphoid organs and protective antibodies become rarer, and age-associated B cells accumulate. As Dr. Dörner emphasized, these cells are not under the command of the B-cell receptor and are independent of the cytokine BAFF (B-cell activating factor). Instead, they react to signals that are sent from the toll-like receptors 7 and 9.

This potentially also explains the increased development of autoantibodies in older people and the association of viral and autoimmune diseases. This means that age-associated B cells develop more frequently, such as with rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, and systemic lupus erythematosus. “There are good data that show that they are triggered by infections and that they are specialized to form autoantibodies,” Dr. Weyand said about the age-associated B cells.
 

‘Bad old T cells’

Under the influence of genetic stop-and-go signals, the composition of the T-cell population also changes over the course of our lives. It becomes less diverse. T-helper cells become less common, and as a result, terminally differentiated effector memory T cells become more common. According to Dr. Weyand, herein lies the problem. “These cells are not just lazy, old cells that sit around. Unfortunately, they are also malicious. What we see in both the T- and B-cell systems is that they become increasingly innate with age,” he said. “They are not quite so precise or good.”

In turn, myeloid cells are less active in old age because of phagocytosis and antigen presentation, and they get more mutations. They are released more often from the bone marrow, produce more cytokines, and essentially contribute to inflamm-aging.
 

Power sources fail

In her cellular and microbiological investigations, Dr. Weyand has devoted a lot of time to studying why T cells age prematurely in patients with RA. The key was in the cellular microbiology. “We learned how the T-cell aging process translates into metabolic reprogramming of the T cells – how a good, strong, and protective T cell transforms into a disease-inducing T cell.”

At the center of premature T-cell aging in RA are disrupted mitochondrial function and insufficient communication of the mitochondria with the lysosomes and the endoplasmic reticulum.

T cells of RA patients (RA T cells) contain less MRE11A, compared with those in healthy people. This is a nuclease that allows the repair of breaks in DNA. If MRE11A is inhibited, then senescent T cells accumulate and form proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-B, IL-6, and TNF. “This is the trio that we rheumatologists are always concerned with.”

Since mitochondrial DNA repair is essential for maintaining mitochondrial fitness, the cellular power sources in patients with RA cannot provide as much energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate as in healthy people. Metabolically, they are not so fit, Dr. Weyand said.
 

Inflammatory cell death

In fact, all metabolic pathways in the T cells are reduced. The bioenergetic failure has consequences. “Unfortunately, as the mitochondrion ages, its DNA leaks into the cytosol,” explained Dr. Weyand. “Cells do not like this.” This is because DNA activates inflammasomes in the cytosol via caspase-1. This process results in a highly inflammatory cell death: pyroptosis. Subsequently, there is no trace of the cells in the tissue. “RA patients’ synovial tissue is a graveyard of dying T cells.”

In the lysosomes, the cells’ “intestine,” problems arise because patients with RA can no longer activate the adenosine monophosphate–activated protein kinase enzyme. It does not receive the lipid tail it needs to take its position as energy sensor on the lysosomal membrane. As a result, its antagonist, mTOR – both usually keep each other in check – gains the upper hand. According to Dr. Weyand, “mTOR has a party.” It activates and stresses the cells.

Additional changes affect the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). “This is where all of your proteins are synthesized and packaged to migrate from within to outside the cell, or to the cell membrane.” Compared with healthy T cells, RA T cells have around 50% more ER. “The less that mitochondria work, the larger the ER. It gets really fat.”

Mitochondria communicate with the ER via aspartate, oxaloacetate, and malate. In so doing, they control their size. RA T cells appear to be aspartate deficient. In animal models, amino acids had an anti-inflammatory effect.

When sequencing the mRNA bound to the ER, Dr. Weyand and her colleagues encountered the building blocks for TNF. “There is more than three times as much mRNA as TNF. It transforms these T cells into TNF superproducers,” said the rheumatologist. “No wonder this kind of cell is proinflammatory – it forms precisely that cytokine on which you focus every day.”

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LEIPZIG, GERMANY – With age comes illness: Cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, increased infections, and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatism become more common. This is because the immune system also ages. In the case of autoimmune diseases, this aging happens particularly quickly.

“There is this phenomenon of premature aging of the immune system,” said Cornelia Weyand, PhD, director of Stanford (Calif.) University’s Center for Translational Medicine at the German Rheumatology Congress 2023. In healthy people, the immune system begins to age at age 20. From that point on, the thymus gland, which reaches peak function at 14-15 years old, plays an increasingly minor role. “At age 50 years, the aging process of the immune system gains momentum.”

“What’s good about this is that the T and B cells age together, but all a little differently, each system by itself,” said Thomas Dörner, MD, PhD, head of consultation hours for clinical hemostaseology at the Charité University Hospitals in Berlin.

While the reduced formation of naive T cells can be attributed to the regression of the thymus gland, the naive B cells are a consequence of age-related, fatty bone marrow degeneration. The influence of adipocyte-derived tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha also causes the bone marrow to develop B cells more and more weakly and slowly. “Through this [process], the preimmune range of B-cells decreases and becomes less healthy than in a young person.”
 

‘Inflamm-aging’

“In the periphery, we have identified a process we call “inflamm-aging,” where the cytokines interferon-gamma, interleukin (IL)–10, and IL-17 play a predominant role. This also alters the primary and secondary immune response,” said Dr. Dörner. Here, decreasing stimulation via the B-cell receptor by aging T-lymphocytes makes a difference.

As we age, the immune system restructures itself completely. “Protective immunity regresses and the inferior immunity emerges,” explained Dr. Weyand. Wounds heal more poorly, the protective action against infections and above all malignancies, as well as the immune response to vaccinations, decreases.

The increased occurrence of neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, and autoimmune diseases is not because of a loss of function, but rather to newly gained, undesired functions. These are associated with inflammatory changes. Hence, the term inflamm-aging.

With the B cells, functional germinal centers in the lymphoid organs and protective antibodies become rarer, and age-associated B cells accumulate. As Dr. Dörner emphasized, these cells are not under the command of the B-cell receptor and are independent of the cytokine BAFF (B-cell activating factor). Instead, they react to signals that are sent from the toll-like receptors 7 and 9.

This potentially also explains the increased development of autoantibodies in older people and the association of viral and autoimmune diseases. This means that age-associated B cells develop more frequently, such as with rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, and systemic lupus erythematosus. “There are good data that show that they are triggered by infections and that they are specialized to form autoantibodies,” Dr. Weyand said about the age-associated B cells.
 

‘Bad old T cells’

Under the influence of genetic stop-and-go signals, the composition of the T-cell population also changes over the course of our lives. It becomes less diverse. T-helper cells become less common, and as a result, terminally differentiated effector memory T cells become more common. According to Dr. Weyand, herein lies the problem. “These cells are not just lazy, old cells that sit around. Unfortunately, they are also malicious. What we see in both the T- and B-cell systems is that they become increasingly innate with age,” he said. “They are not quite so precise or good.”

In turn, myeloid cells are less active in old age because of phagocytosis and antigen presentation, and they get more mutations. They are released more often from the bone marrow, produce more cytokines, and essentially contribute to inflamm-aging.
 

Power sources fail

In her cellular and microbiological investigations, Dr. Weyand has devoted a lot of time to studying why T cells age prematurely in patients with RA. The key was in the cellular microbiology. “We learned how the T-cell aging process translates into metabolic reprogramming of the T cells – how a good, strong, and protective T cell transforms into a disease-inducing T cell.”

At the center of premature T-cell aging in RA are disrupted mitochondrial function and insufficient communication of the mitochondria with the lysosomes and the endoplasmic reticulum.

T cells of RA patients (RA T cells) contain less MRE11A, compared with those in healthy people. This is a nuclease that allows the repair of breaks in DNA. If MRE11A is inhibited, then senescent T cells accumulate and form proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-B, IL-6, and TNF. “This is the trio that we rheumatologists are always concerned with.”

Since mitochondrial DNA repair is essential for maintaining mitochondrial fitness, the cellular power sources in patients with RA cannot provide as much energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate as in healthy people. Metabolically, they are not so fit, Dr. Weyand said.
 

Inflammatory cell death

In fact, all metabolic pathways in the T cells are reduced. The bioenergetic failure has consequences. “Unfortunately, as the mitochondrion ages, its DNA leaks into the cytosol,” explained Dr. Weyand. “Cells do not like this.” This is because DNA activates inflammasomes in the cytosol via caspase-1. This process results in a highly inflammatory cell death: pyroptosis. Subsequently, there is no trace of the cells in the tissue. “RA patients’ synovial tissue is a graveyard of dying T cells.”

In the lysosomes, the cells’ “intestine,” problems arise because patients with RA can no longer activate the adenosine monophosphate–activated protein kinase enzyme. It does not receive the lipid tail it needs to take its position as energy sensor on the lysosomal membrane. As a result, its antagonist, mTOR – both usually keep each other in check – gains the upper hand. According to Dr. Weyand, “mTOR has a party.” It activates and stresses the cells.

Additional changes affect the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). “This is where all of your proteins are synthesized and packaged to migrate from within to outside the cell, or to the cell membrane.” Compared with healthy T cells, RA T cells have around 50% more ER. “The less that mitochondria work, the larger the ER. It gets really fat.”

Mitochondria communicate with the ER via aspartate, oxaloacetate, and malate. In so doing, they control their size. RA T cells appear to be aspartate deficient. In animal models, amino acids had an anti-inflammatory effect.

When sequencing the mRNA bound to the ER, Dr. Weyand and her colleagues encountered the building blocks for TNF. “There is more than three times as much mRNA as TNF. It transforms these T cells into TNF superproducers,” said the rheumatologist. “No wonder this kind of cell is proinflammatory – it forms precisely that cytokine on which you focus every day.”

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LEIPZIG, GERMANY – With age comes illness: Cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, increased infections, and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatism become more common. This is because the immune system also ages. In the case of autoimmune diseases, this aging happens particularly quickly.

“There is this phenomenon of premature aging of the immune system,” said Cornelia Weyand, PhD, director of Stanford (Calif.) University’s Center for Translational Medicine at the German Rheumatology Congress 2023. In healthy people, the immune system begins to age at age 20. From that point on, the thymus gland, which reaches peak function at 14-15 years old, plays an increasingly minor role. “At age 50 years, the aging process of the immune system gains momentum.”

“What’s good about this is that the T and B cells age together, but all a little differently, each system by itself,” said Thomas Dörner, MD, PhD, head of consultation hours for clinical hemostaseology at the Charité University Hospitals in Berlin.

While the reduced formation of naive T cells can be attributed to the regression of the thymus gland, the naive B cells are a consequence of age-related, fatty bone marrow degeneration. The influence of adipocyte-derived tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha also causes the bone marrow to develop B cells more and more weakly and slowly. “Through this [process], the preimmune range of B-cells decreases and becomes less healthy than in a young person.”
 

‘Inflamm-aging’

“In the periphery, we have identified a process we call “inflamm-aging,” where the cytokines interferon-gamma, interleukin (IL)–10, and IL-17 play a predominant role. This also alters the primary and secondary immune response,” said Dr. Dörner. Here, decreasing stimulation via the B-cell receptor by aging T-lymphocytes makes a difference.

As we age, the immune system restructures itself completely. “Protective immunity regresses and the inferior immunity emerges,” explained Dr. Weyand. Wounds heal more poorly, the protective action against infections and above all malignancies, as well as the immune response to vaccinations, decreases.

The increased occurrence of neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, and autoimmune diseases is not because of a loss of function, but rather to newly gained, undesired functions. These are associated with inflammatory changes. Hence, the term inflamm-aging.

With the B cells, functional germinal centers in the lymphoid organs and protective antibodies become rarer, and age-associated B cells accumulate. As Dr. Dörner emphasized, these cells are not under the command of the B-cell receptor and are independent of the cytokine BAFF (B-cell activating factor). Instead, they react to signals that are sent from the toll-like receptors 7 and 9.

This potentially also explains the increased development of autoantibodies in older people and the association of viral and autoimmune diseases. This means that age-associated B cells develop more frequently, such as with rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, and systemic lupus erythematosus. “There are good data that show that they are triggered by infections and that they are specialized to form autoantibodies,” Dr. Weyand said about the age-associated B cells.
 

‘Bad old T cells’

Under the influence of genetic stop-and-go signals, the composition of the T-cell population also changes over the course of our lives. It becomes less diverse. T-helper cells become less common, and as a result, terminally differentiated effector memory T cells become more common. According to Dr. Weyand, herein lies the problem. “These cells are not just lazy, old cells that sit around. Unfortunately, they are also malicious. What we see in both the T- and B-cell systems is that they become increasingly innate with age,” he said. “They are not quite so precise or good.”

In turn, myeloid cells are less active in old age because of phagocytosis and antigen presentation, and they get more mutations. They are released more often from the bone marrow, produce more cytokines, and essentially contribute to inflamm-aging.
 

Power sources fail

In her cellular and microbiological investigations, Dr. Weyand has devoted a lot of time to studying why T cells age prematurely in patients with RA. The key was in the cellular microbiology. “We learned how the T-cell aging process translates into metabolic reprogramming of the T cells – how a good, strong, and protective T cell transforms into a disease-inducing T cell.”

At the center of premature T-cell aging in RA are disrupted mitochondrial function and insufficient communication of the mitochondria with the lysosomes and the endoplasmic reticulum.

T cells of RA patients (RA T cells) contain less MRE11A, compared with those in healthy people. This is a nuclease that allows the repair of breaks in DNA. If MRE11A is inhibited, then senescent T cells accumulate and form proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-B, IL-6, and TNF. “This is the trio that we rheumatologists are always concerned with.”

Since mitochondrial DNA repair is essential for maintaining mitochondrial fitness, the cellular power sources in patients with RA cannot provide as much energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate as in healthy people. Metabolically, they are not so fit, Dr. Weyand said.
 

Inflammatory cell death

In fact, all metabolic pathways in the T cells are reduced. The bioenergetic failure has consequences. “Unfortunately, as the mitochondrion ages, its DNA leaks into the cytosol,” explained Dr. Weyand. “Cells do not like this.” This is because DNA activates inflammasomes in the cytosol via caspase-1. This process results in a highly inflammatory cell death: pyroptosis. Subsequently, there is no trace of the cells in the tissue. “RA patients’ synovial tissue is a graveyard of dying T cells.”

In the lysosomes, the cells’ “intestine,” problems arise because patients with RA can no longer activate the adenosine monophosphate–activated protein kinase enzyme. It does not receive the lipid tail it needs to take its position as energy sensor on the lysosomal membrane. As a result, its antagonist, mTOR – both usually keep each other in check – gains the upper hand. According to Dr. Weyand, “mTOR has a party.” It activates and stresses the cells.

Additional changes affect the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). “This is where all of your proteins are synthesized and packaged to migrate from within to outside the cell, or to the cell membrane.” Compared with healthy T cells, RA T cells have around 50% more ER. “The less that mitochondria work, the larger the ER. It gets really fat.”

Mitochondria communicate with the ER via aspartate, oxaloacetate, and malate. In so doing, they control their size. RA T cells appear to be aspartate deficient. In animal models, amino acids had an anti-inflammatory effect.

When sequencing the mRNA bound to the ER, Dr. Weyand and her colleagues encountered the building blocks for TNF. “There is more than three times as much mRNA as TNF. It transforms these T cells into TNF superproducers,” said the rheumatologist. “No wonder this kind of cell is proinflammatory – it forms precisely that cytokine on which you focus every day.”

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Drug use disorder increased the likelihood of in-hospital mortality more than 10-fold in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), compared with patients who did not die while hospitalized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from 2,125 adults with AS who were hospitalized between 2015 and 2017, using the Cerner Health Facts Database.
• The final analysis included 41 patients with AS who died while hospitalized and 260 random control patients with AS who did not die.
• The mean age of the deceased patients with AS was 70 years, 85% were male, and 81% were White; 71% had hypertension, 32% had kidney disease, and 22% had congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with AS, cardiovascular disease was the most frequent cause of death, followed by infection, respiratory failure, and fracture/trauma in 15, 14, 8, and 7 patients, respectively. (Some patients had more than one cause of death recorded in the discharge summary.)
• The most common cardiac causes of death were myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, while the top causes of acute respiratory failure were pneumonia and pulmonary embolism.
• Drug abuse, including opioid dependence, was significantly associated with death among hospitalized patients with AS (adjusted odds ratio, 10.9; P = .001).
• Heart failure and kidney disease were the comorbidities most strongly associated with mortality; the odds of death in the presence of heart failure rose 2.76-fold, and it increased 2.46-fold in the presence of kidney disease.

IN PRACTICE:

Underlying comorbidities, especially cardiac and renal, are associated with mortality in AS, and patients should be screened early on for these comorbidities to help reduce the odds of death.

SOURCE:

First author Mohamad Bittar, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Rheumatology).

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked AS-specific data such as disease activity scores, which were not in the database. Also missing were variables linked to disease activity and mortality, including smoking, BMI levels, and C-reactive protein levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with UCB, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Drug use disorder increased the likelihood of in-hospital mortality more than 10-fold in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), compared with patients who did not die while hospitalized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from 2,125 adults with AS who were hospitalized between 2015 and 2017, using the Cerner Health Facts Database.
• The final analysis included 41 patients with AS who died while hospitalized and 260 random control patients with AS who did not die.
• The mean age of the deceased patients with AS was 70 years, 85% were male, and 81% were White; 71% had hypertension, 32% had kidney disease, and 22% had congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with AS, cardiovascular disease was the most frequent cause of death, followed by infection, respiratory failure, and fracture/trauma in 15, 14, 8, and 7 patients, respectively. (Some patients had more than one cause of death recorded in the discharge summary.)
• The most common cardiac causes of death were myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, while the top causes of acute respiratory failure were pneumonia and pulmonary embolism.
• Drug abuse, including opioid dependence, was significantly associated with death among hospitalized patients with AS (adjusted odds ratio, 10.9; P = .001).
• Heart failure and kidney disease were the comorbidities most strongly associated with mortality; the odds of death in the presence of heart failure rose 2.76-fold, and it increased 2.46-fold in the presence of kidney disease.

IN PRACTICE:

Underlying comorbidities, especially cardiac and renal, are associated with mortality in AS, and patients should be screened early on for these comorbidities to help reduce the odds of death.

SOURCE:

First author Mohamad Bittar, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Rheumatology).

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked AS-specific data such as disease activity scores, which were not in the database. Also missing were variables linked to disease activity and mortality, including smoking, BMI levels, and C-reactive protein levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with UCB, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Drug use disorder increased the likelihood of in-hospital mortality more than 10-fold in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), compared with patients who did not die while hospitalized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from 2,125 adults with AS who were hospitalized between 2015 and 2017, using the Cerner Health Facts Database.
• The final analysis included 41 patients with AS who died while hospitalized and 260 random control patients with AS who did not die.
• The mean age of the deceased patients with AS was 70 years, 85% were male, and 81% were White; 71% had hypertension, 32% had kidney disease, and 22% had congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with AS, cardiovascular disease was the most frequent cause of death, followed by infection, respiratory failure, and fracture/trauma in 15, 14, 8, and 7 patients, respectively. (Some patients had more than one cause of death recorded in the discharge summary.)
• The most common cardiac causes of death were myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, while the top causes of acute respiratory failure were pneumonia and pulmonary embolism.
• Drug abuse, including opioid dependence, was significantly associated with death among hospitalized patients with AS (adjusted odds ratio, 10.9; P = .001).
• Heart failure and kidney disease were the comorbidities most strongly associated with mortality; the odds of death in the presence of heart failure rose 2.76-fold, and it increased 2.46-fold in the presence of kidney disease.

IN PRACTICE:

Underlying comorbidities, especially cardiac and renal, are associated with mortality in AS, and patients should be screened early on for these comorbidities to help reduce the odds of death.

SOURCE:

First author Mohamad Bittar, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Rheumatology).

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked AS-specific data such as disease activity scores, which were not in the database. Also missing were variables linked to disease activity and mortality, including smoking, BMI levels, and C-reactive protein levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with UCB, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Sotatercept, a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor, is currently under scrutiny as a potential game-changer in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Data unveiled at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society, held in Milan, suggest that sotatercept treatment has the capacity to deliver significant clinical benefits and could reshape the trajectory of this challenging disease. Experts are cautiously optimistic that this drug may soon find a place within the PAH treatment algorithm.

The STELLAR trial: A milestone in PAH research

PAH is intricately linked to the dysregulation of members within the TGF-beta superfamily, including activin receptor type IIA (ActRIIA) and its ligands activin A and activin B. This signaling pathway is believed to be a driving force behind the pulmonary vascular remodeling observed in PAH patients. Sotatercept, a fusion protein acting as a ligand trap for selected TGF-beta superfamily members, has been proposed to recalibrate pulmonary vascular homeostasis by promoting growth-inhibiting and pro-apoptotic signaling.

Sotatercept was tested first in a phase 2 trial (PULSAR) and later in a phase 3 trial (STELLAR). The STELLAR clinical trial, funded by Acceleron Pharma (now a subsidiary of Merck), was the subject of two presentations given by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.  

Dr. Hoeper commented on results published in the New England Journal of Medicine during a session titled, “Disease modification in pulmonary arterial hypertension.” Later, during the “From the Editor’s Desk” session, he presented new results recently published in the European Respiratory Journal about the effects of sotatercept on hemodynamics and right heart function.
 

Disease modification in PAH

In his initial address, Dr. Hoeper expounded on the concept of reverse remodeling as a therapeutic avenue for PAH. “PAH is not a disease of pulmonary vasoconstriction,” he clarified, “but a disease of proliferation. Endothelial cells and pulmonary vascular muscle cells proliferate and obliterate the lumen. It has been hypothesized that when we target this system successfully, we may not only stop disease progression, but we may have a chance to have at least some reverse remodeling, because, if these cells go into apoptosis, there may be a partial reopening of the vessels.”

“Sotatercept is probably going to be a game changer in our field,” Dr. Hoeper continued. “Is sotatercept a disease-modifying agent? It certainly induces disease improvement; in a few patients, although not in the majority, we see a normalization of hemodynamics. We target the underlying pathophysiology; this is clearly distinct from symptomatic treatment.” Dr. Hoeper went through the list of characteristics that a disease-modifying agent should have.

“To be able to say that a drug endures sustained clinical benefit, according to the FDA, you need to withdraw the drug, and this is something we do not know. We know that we can interrupt the treatment once or twice, but long-term I do not believe that,” he said, while acknowledging the need for more extended-term safety and efficacy data.
 

Unmasking hemodynamic impact

Dr. Hoeper’s second presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the STELLAR trial never presented before. He analyzed right heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography (ECHO) data. With sotatercept treatment at week 24, the researchers observed:

• A small increase in systemic blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance.
• No changes in systolic and diastolic volumes of the left ventricle (lv).
• A small but significant reduction in lv ejection fraction.
• A great reduction in the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP).
• No change in cardiac output.
• An improvement in pulmonary artery compliance.
• A reduction in the right ventricle work and in right atrial pressure.
• An improvement of echocardiographic parameters, including a significant decrease in tricuspid regurgitation.

“A drop of roughly 14 mm Hg in mPAP is something that we have never seen in PAH with any other add-on medication. This was entirely driven by improvement in the sotatercept group, not by deterioration in the placebo group,” Dr. Hoeper pointed out. Of note, change in mPAP correlated with changes in NT-proNBP and with changes in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), the primary endpoint of the STELLAR trial. “We effectively unload the right ventricle by lowing the artery pressure. What we observe is exactly what we want to achieve in patients with PAH, because the heart is what really matters,” he concluded.
 

A new course in PAH treatment?

Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris-Saclay and consultant at the French Referral Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, echoed Dr. Hoeper’s enthusiasm. “What is important about sotatercept studies is that for the first time it has been demonstrated that to add a fourth drug improves hemodynamics in PAH patients on background triple-combination therapy. Today, triple therapy is the maximum treatment before lung transplantation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Sitbon highlighted ongoing studies with sotatercept, including the ZENITH trial, focused on high-risk PAH patients, and the HYPERION trial, aimed at patients diagnosed within the first year of their PAH journey. He acknowledged that experts currently lack consensus on the ideal position for sotatercept within the PAH treatment algorithm. However, he anticipates a lively debate and expects sotatercept to find its place as a second-line treatment for intermediate low-risk or intermediate high-risk patients, with potential consideration for high-risk patients.

“There are two more studies ongoing with sotatercept: the ZENITH trial, dedicated to PAH patients at high risk, whose primary endpoint is mortality/need for lung transplant, and the HYPERION trial, dedicated to patients diagnosed less than 1 year (not really newly diagnosed but quite incident, while patients included in previous trial were very prevalent), whose primary endpoint is time to clinical worsening,” Dr. Sitbon noted, pointing out that there is currently no consensus among the experts about where to place sotatercept in the PAH treatment algorithm.
 

Further insights into sotatercept

The ERS Congress also unveiled two additional studies that provided fresh perspectives on sotatercept’s potential. Ioana R. Preston, MD, from Tufts Medical Center in Boston, presented the first interim analysis of SOTERIA, a long-term follow-up study involving 409 patients with a median exposure duration of 462 days to sotatercept. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 80% of patients, with 20% reporting a serious TEAE. Overall, four serious TEAEs (1% of patients) led to death, but only five patients (1.2%) discontinued sotatercept because of TEAE.

Notably, improvements in clinical efficacy measures persisted after 1 year. During SOTERIA, roughly 3% of patients on any prostacyclin discontinued it. “Results of SOTERIA support the long-term durable clinical benefit and safety of sotatercept for the treatment of PAH. Of note, patients were offered home self-administration therapy, so they do not need to come back to the office,” Dr. Preston said.

A second late-breaking abstract presented by Vallerie McLaughlin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, described the possible long-term impact of sotatercept on morbidity and mortality. STELLAR trial data were analyzed to see how the risk profile of patients changed in the 24 weeks of study. Real-world registry data from the COMPERA registry were then used to extrapolate mortality and transplant need over 30 years based on risk transition. According to the simulation model, adding sotatercept to background therapy is expected to increase life expectancy by threefold, while avoiding nearly 700 hospitalizations and four lung/heart-lung transplantations per 1,000 patients. “Real-world data are needed to confirm these findings,” cautioned Dr. McLaughlin.

Dr. Hoeper disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Altavant, AOP Health, Bayer, Ferrer, Janssen, Keros, and MSD. Dr. Sitbon disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, Altavant Sciences, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Ferrer, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, MSD, and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD. Dr. Preston disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Janssen and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Janssen and Respira Therapeutics. She has participated in scientific advisory boards for Aereovate, Altavant, and Gossamer Bio, and was in the Steering Committee of Acceleron, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics. Dr. McLaughlin has received speaking and consulting fees from Aerami, Aereovate, Caremark, Corvista, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, United Therapeutics, and Vertex, and grant/research support from Aerovate, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, and Sonovia. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Clene.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Sotatercept, a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor, is currently under scrutiny as a potential game-changer in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Data unveiled at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society, held in Milan, suggest that sotatercept treatment has the capacity to deliver significant clinical benefits and could reshape the trajectory of this challenging disease. Experts are cautiously optimistic that this drug may soon find a place within the PAH treatment algorithm.

The STELLAR trial: A milestone in PAH research

PAH is intricately linked to the dysregulation of members within the TGF-beta superfamily, including activin receptor type IIA (ActRIIA) and its ligands activin A and activin B. This signaling pathway is believed to be a driving force behind the pulmonary vascular remodeling observed in PAH patients. Sotatercept, a fusion protein acting as a ligand trap for selected TGF-beta superfamily members, has been proposed to recalibrate pulmonary vascular homeostasis by promoting growth-inhibiting and pro-apoptotic signaling.

Sotatercept was tested first in a phase 2 trial (PULSAR) and later in a phase 3 trial (STELLAR). The STELLAR clinical trial, funded by Acceleron Pharma (now a subsidiary of Merck), was the subject of two presentations given by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.  

Dr. Hoeper commented on results published in the New England Journal of Medicine during a session titled, “Disease modification in pulmonary arterial hypertension.” Later, during the “From the Editor’s Desk” session, he presented new results recently published in the European Respiratory Journal about the effects of sotatercept on hemodynamics and right heart function.
 

Disease modification in PAH

In his initial address, Dr. Hoeper expounded on the concept of reverse remodeling as a therapeutic avenue for PAH. “PAH is not a disease of pulmonary vasoconstriction,” he clarified, “but a disease of proliferation. Endothelial cells and pulmonary vascular muscle cells proliferate and obliterate the lumen. It has been hypothesized that when we target this system successfully, we may not only stop disease progression, but we may have a chance to have at least some reverse remodeling, because, if these cells go into apoptosis, there may be a partial reopening of the vessels.”

“Sotatercept is probably going to be a game changer in our field,” Dr. Hoeper continued. “Is sotatercept a disease-modifying agent? It certainly induces disease improvement; in a few patients, although not in the majority, we see a normalization of hemodynamics. We target the underlying pathophysiology; this is clearly distinct from symptomatic treatment.” Dr. Hoeper went through the list of characteristics that a disease-modifying agent should have.

“To be able to say that a drug endures sustained clinical benefit, according to the FDA, you need to withdraw the drug, and this is something we do not know. We know that we can interrupt the treatment once or twice, but long-term I do not believe that,” he said, while acknowledging the need for more extended-term safety and efficacy data.
 

Unmasking hemodynamic impact

Dr. Hoeper’s second presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the STELLAR trial never presented before. He analyzed right heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography (ECHO) data. With sotatercept treatment at week 24, the researchers observed:

• A small increase in systemic blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance.
• No changes in systolic and diastolic volumes of the left ventricle (lv).
• A small but significant reduction in lv ejection fraction.
• A great reduction in the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP).
• No change in cardiac output.
• An improvement in pulmonary artery compliance.
• A reduction in the right ventricle work and in right atrial pressure.
• An improvement of echocardiographic parameters, including a significant decrease in tricuspid regurgitation.

“A drop of roughly 14 mm Hg in mPAP is something that we have never seen in PAH with any other add-on medication. This was entirely driven by improvement in the sotatercept group, not by deterioration in the placebo group,” Dr. Hoeper pointed out. Of note, change in mPAP correlated with changes in NT-proNBP and with changes in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), the primary endpoint of the STELLAR trial. “We effectively unload the right ventricle by lowing the artery pressure. What we observe is exactly what we want to achieve in patients with PAH, because the heart is what really matters,” he concluded.
 

A new course in PAH treatment?

Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris-Saclay and consultant at the French Referral Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, echoed Dr. Hoeper’s enthusiasm. “What is important about sotatercept studies is that for the first time it has been demonstrated that to add a fourth drug improves hemodynamics in PAH patients on background triple-combination therapy. Today, triple therapy is the maximum treatment before lung transplantation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Sitbon highlighted ongoing studies with sotatercept, including the ZENITH trial, focused on high-risk PAH patients, and the HYPERION trial, aimed at patients diagnosed within the first year of their PAH journey. He acknowledged that experts currently lack consensus on the ideal position for sotatercept within the PAH treatment algorithm. However, he anticipates a lively debate and expects sotatercept to find its place as a second-line treatment for intermediate low-risk or intermediate high-risk patients, with potential consideration for high-risk patients.

“There are two more studies ongoing with sotatercept: the ZENITH trial, dedicated to PAH patients at high risk, whose primary endpoint is mortality/need for lung transplant, and the HYPERION trial, dedicated to patients diagnosed less than 1 year (not really newly diagnosed but quite incident, while patients included in previous trial were very prevalent), whose primary endpoint is time to clinical worsening,” Dr. Sitbon noted, pointing out that there is currently no consensus among the experts about where to place sotatercept in the PAH treatment algorithm.
 

Further insights into sotatercept

The ERS Congress also unveiled two additional studies that provided fresh perspectives on sotatercept’s potential. Ioana R. Preston, MD, from Tufts Medical Center in Boston, presented the first interim analysis of SOTERIA, a long-term follow-up study involving 409 patients with a median exposure duration of 462 days to sotatercept. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 80% of patients, with 20% reporting a serious TEAE. Overall, four serious TEAEs (1% of patients) led to death, but only five patients (1.2%) discontinued sotatercept because of TEAE.

Notably, improvements in clinical efficacy measures persisted after 1 year. During SOTERIA, roughly 3% of patients on any prostacyclin discontinued it. “Results of SOTERIA support the long-term durable clinical benefit and safety of sotatercept for the treatment of PAH. Of note, patients were offered home self-administration therapy, so they do not need to come back to the office,” Dr. Preston said.

A second late-breaking abstract presented by Vallerie McLaughlin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, described the possible long-term impact of sotatercept on morbidity and mortality. STELLAR trial data were analyzed to see how the risk profile of patients changed in the 24 weeks of study. Real-world registry data from the COMPERA registry were then used to extrapolate mortality and transplant need over 30 years based on risk transition. According to the simulation model, adding sotatercept to background therapy is expected to increase life expectancy by threefold, while avoiding nearly 700 hospitalizations and four lung/heart-lung transplantations per 1,000 patients. “Real-world data are needed to confirm these findings,” cautioned Dr. McLaughlin.

Dr. Hoeper disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Altavant, AOP Health, Bayer, Ferrer, Janssen, Keros, and MSD. Dr. Sitbon disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, Altavant Sciences, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Ferrer, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, MSD, and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD. Dr. Preston disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Janssen and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Janssen and Respira Therapeutics. She has participated in scientific advisory boards for Aereovate, Altavant, and Gossamer Bio, and was in the Steering Committee of Acceleron, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics. Dr. McLaughlin has received speaking and consulting fees from Aerami, Aereovate, Caremark, Corvista, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, United Therapeutics, and Vertex, and grant/research support from Aerovate, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, and Sonovia. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Clene.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Sotatercept, a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor, is currently under scrutiny as a potential game-changer in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Data unveiled at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society, held in Milan, suggest that sotatercept treatment has the capacity to deliver significant clinical benefits and could reshape the trajectory of this challenging disease. Experts are cautiously optimistic that this drug may soon find a place within the PAH treatment algorithm.

The STELLAR trial: A milestone in PAH research

PAH is intricately linked to the dysregulation of members within the TGF-beta superfamily, including activin receptor type IIA (ActRIIA) and its ligands activin A and activin B. This signaling pathway is believed to be a driving force behind the pulmonary vascular remodeling observed in PAH patients. Sotatercept, a fusion protein acting as a ligand trap for selected TGF-beta superfamily members, has been proposed to recalibrate pulmonary vascular homeostasis by promoting growth-inhibiting and pro-apoptotic signaling.

Sotatercept was tested first in a phase 2 trial (PULSAR) and later in a phase 3 trial (STELLAR). The STELLAR clinical trial, funded by Acceleron Pharma (now a subsidiary of Merck), was the subject of two presentations given by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.  

Dr. Hoeper commented on results published in the New England Journal of Medicine during a session titled, “Disease modification in pulmonary arterial hypertension.” Later, during the “From the Editor’s Desk” session, he presented new results recently published in the European Respiratory Journal about the effects of sotatercept on hemodynamics and right heart function.
 

Disease modification in PAH

In his initial address, Dr. Hoeper expounded on the concept of reverse remodeling as a therapeutic avenue for PAH. “PAH is not a disease of pulmonary vasoconstriction,” he clarified, “but a disease of proliferation. Endothelial cells and pulmonary vascular muscle cells proliferate and obliterate the lumen. It has been hypothesized that when we target this system successfully, we may not only stop disease progression, but we may have a chance to have at least some reverse remodeling, because, if these cells go into apoptosis, there may be a partial reopening of the vessels.”

“Sotatercept is probably going to be a game changer in our field,” Dr. Hoeper continued. “Is sotatercept a disease-modifying agent? It certainly induces disease improvement; in a few patients, although not in the majority, we see a normalization of hemodynamics. We target the underlying pathophysiology; this is clearly distinct from symptomatic treatment.” Dr. Hoeper went through the list of characteristics that a disease-modifying agent should have.

“To be able to say that a drug endures sustained clinical benefit, according to the FDA, you need to withdraw the drug, and this is something we do not know. We know that we can interrupt the treatment once or twice, but long-term I do not believe that,” he said, while acknowledging the need for more extended-term safety and efficacy data.
 

Unmasking hemodynamic impact

Dr. Hoeper’s second presentation focused on a post hoc analysis of the STELLAR trial never presented before. He analyzed right heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography (ECHO) data. With sotatercept treatment at week 24, the researchers observed:

• A small increase in systemic blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance.
• No changes in systolic and diastolic volumes of the left ventricle (lv).
• A small but significant reduction in lv ejection fraction.
• A great reduction in the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP).
• No change in cardiac output.
• An improvement in pulmonary artery compliance.
• A reduction in the right ventricle work and in right atrial pressure.
• An improvement of echocardiographic parameters, including a significant decrease in tricuspid regurgitation.

“A drop of roughly 14 mm Hg in mPAP is something that we have never seen in PAH with any other add-on medication. This was entirely driven by improvement in the sotatercept group, not by deterioration in the placebo group,” Dr. Hoeper pointed out. Of note, change in mPAP correlated with changes in NT-proNBP and with changes in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), the primary endpoint of the STELLAR trial. “We effectively unload the right ventricle by lowing the artery pressure. What we observe is exactly what we want to achieve in patients with PAH, because the heart is what really matters,” he concluded.
 

A new course in PAH treatment?

Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, professor of respiratory medicine at Université Paris-Saclay and consultant at the French Referral Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, echoed Dr. Hoeper’s enthusiasm. “What is important about sotatercept studies is that for the first time it has been demonstrated that to add a fourth drug improves hemodynamics in PAH patients on background triple-combination therapy. Today, triple therapy is the maximum treatment before lung transplantation,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Sitbon highlighted ongoing studies with sotatercept, including the ZENITH trial, focused on high-risk PAH patients, and the HYPERION trial, aimed at patients diagnosed within the first year of their PAH journey. He acknowledged that experts currently lack consensus on the ideal position for sotatercept within the PAH treatment algorithm. However, he anticipates a lively debate and expects sotatercept to find its place as a second-line treatment for intermediate low-risk or intermediate high-risk patients, with potential consideration for high-risk patients.

“There are two more studies ongoing with sotatercept: the ZENITH trial, dedicated to PAH patients at high risk, whose primary endpoint is mortality/need for lung transplant, and the HYPERION trial, dedicated to patients diagnosed less than 1 year (not really newly diagnosed but quite incident, while patients included in previous trial were very prevalent), whose primary endpoint is time to clinical worsening,” Dr. Sitbon noted, pointing out that there is currently no consensus among the experts about where to place sotatercept in the PAH treatment algorithm.
 

Further insights into sotatercept

The ERS Congress also unveiled two additional studies that provided fresh perspectives on sotatercept’s potential. Ioana R. Preston, MD, from Tufts Medical Center in Boston, presented the first interim analysis of SOTERIA, a long-term follow-up study involving 409 patients with a median exposure duration of 462 days to sotatercept. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 80% of patients, with 20% reporting a serious TEAE. Overall, four serious TEAEs (1% of patients) led to death, but only five patients (1.2%) discontinued sotatercept because of TEAE.

Notably, improvements in clinical efficacy measures persisted after 1 year. During SOTERIA, roughly 3% of patients on any prostacyclin discontinued it. “Results of SOTERIA support the long-term durable clinical benefit and safety of sotatercept for the treatment of PAH. Of note, patients were offered home self-administration therapy, so they do not need to come back to the office,” Dr. Preston said.

A second late-breaking abstract presented by Vallerie McLaughlin, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, described the possible long-term impact of sotatercept on morbidity and mortality. STELLAR trial data were analyzed to see how the risk profile of patients changed in the 24 weeks of study. Real-world registry data from the COMPERA registry were then used to extrapolate mortality and transplant need over 30 years based on risk transition. According to the simulation model, adding sotatercept to background therapy is expected to increase life expectancy by threefold, while avoiding nearly 700 hospitalizations and four lung/heart-lung transplantations per 1,000 patients. “Real-world data are needed to confirm these findings,” cautioned Dr. McLaughlin.

Dr. Hoeper disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Altavant, AOP Health, Bayer, Ferrer, Janssen, Keros, and MSD. Dr. Sitbon disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, Altavant Sciences, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Ferrer, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, MSD, and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Acceleron Pharmaceuticals, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD. Dr. Preston disclosed speaking and consulting fees from Janssen and United Therapeutics, and grant/research support from Janssen and Respira Therapeutics. She has participated in scientific advisory boards for Aereovate, Altavant, and Gossamer Bio, and was in the Steering Committee of Acceleron, Liquidia, and United Therapeutics. Dr. McLaughlin has received speaking and consulting fees from Aerami, Aereovate, Caremark, Corvista, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, United Therapeutics, and Vertex, and grant/research support from Aerovate, Enzyvant, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, and Sonovia. She is a member of the Board of Directors of Clene.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (ExRA) has declined over time, but the manifestations’ association with increased mortality risk has not changed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included 907 adults with incident RA diagnosed during 1985-1999 (n = 296) or 2000-2014 (n = 611) in Olmsted County, Minn.
• Researchers assessed the cumulative incidence of ExRA in groups from both time periods.
• Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify associations between mortality and ExRA.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ExRA had double the risk for premature mortality compared with those without ExRA (hazard ratio, 2.0), with increased mortality for both severe and nonsevere cases of ExRA (HR, 3.05 and 1.83, respectively).
• The 10-year cumulative incidence of developing any ExRA decreased significantly between the 1985-1999 group and the 2000-2014 group (45.1% vs. 31.6%; P = .001).
• The incidence of subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules decreased significantly between the two time periods (30.9% vs. 15.8%, respectively; P < .001), as did the incidence of nonsevere ExRA (41.4% vs. 28.8%, respectively; P < .001).
• Rheumatoid nodules were associated with increased mortality risk, and rheumatoid factor positivity was the strongest risk factor for developing ExRA and rheumatoid nodules.

IN PRACTICE:

The results illustrate the need to recognize the increased mortality risk for patients with severe or nonsevere ExRA.

SOURCE:

First author Bradly A. Kimbrough, MD, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The single geographic region and demographics of the study limit its generalizability, and its interpretation is affected by a lack of data on disease activity and the impact of improved therapeutics and management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and SkinDiseases, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kimbrough had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (ExRA) has declined over time, but the manifestations’ association with increased mortality risk has not changed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included 907 adults with incident RA diagnosed during 1985-1999 (n = 296) or 2000-2014 (n = 611) in Olmsted County, Minn.
• Researchers assessed the cumulative incidence of ExRA in groups from both time periods.
• Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify associations between mortality and ExRA.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ExRA had double the risk for premature mortality compared with those without ExRA (hazard ratio, 2.0), with increased mortality for both severe and nonsevere cases of ExRA (HR, 3.05 and 1.83, respectively).
• The 10-year cumulative incidence of developing any ExRA decreased significantly between the 1985-1999 group and the 2000-2014 group (45.1% vs. 31.6%; P = .001).
• The incidence of subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules decreased significantly between the two time periods (30.9% vs. 15.8%, respectively; P < .001), as did the incidence of nonsevere ExRA (41.4% vs. 28.8%, respectively; P < .001).
• Rheumatoid nodules were associated with increased mortality risk, and rheumatoid factor positivity was the strongest risk factor for developing ExRA and rheumatoid nodules.

IN PRACTICE:

The results illustrate the need to recognize the increased mortality risk for patients with severe or nonsevere ExRA.

SOURCE:

First author Bradly A. Kimbrough, MD, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The single geographic region and demographics of the study limit its generalizability, and its interpretation is affected by a lack of data on disease activity and the impact of improved therapeutics and management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and SkinDiseases, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kimbrough had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (ExRA) has declined over time, but the manifestations’ association with increased mortality risk has not changed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included 907 adults with incident RA diagnosed during 1985-1999 (n = 296) or 2000-2014 (n = 611) in Olmsted County, Minn.
• Researchers assessed the cumulative incidence of ExRA in groups from both time periods.
• Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify associations between mortality and ExRA.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ExRA had double the risk for premature mortality compared with those without ExRA (hazard ratio, 2.0), with increased mortality for both severe and nonsevere cases of ExRA (HR, 3.05 and 1.83, respectively).
• The 10-year cumulative incidence of developing any ExRA decreased significantly between the 1985-1999 group and the 2000-2014 group (45.1% vs. 31.6%; P = .001).
• The incidence of subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules decreased significantly between the two time periods (30.9% vs. 15.8%, respectively; P < .001), as did the incidence of nonsevere ExRA (41.4% vs. 28.8%, respectively; P < .001).
• Rheumatoid nodules were associated with increased mortality risk, and rheumatoid factor positivity was the strongest risk factor for developing ExRA and rheumatoid nodules.

IN PRACTICE:

The results illustrate the need to recognize the increased mortality risk for patients with severe or nonsevere ExRA.

SOURCE:

First author Bradly A. Kimbrough, MD, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The single geographic region and demographics of the study limit its generalizability, and its interpretation is affected by a lack of data on disease activity and the impact of improved therapeutics and management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and SkinDiseases, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kimbrough had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new salvo in the dispute over the wisdom of early “bridging” treatment with glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis, Dutch researchers suggested in a new meta-analysis that the American College of Rheumatology guideline is too cautious.

The report, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined three randomized trials of bridging versus nonbridging. The findings “emphasize the benefits of bridging therapy and shows that bridgers are not using more glucocorticoids after their intended bridging period, compared with nonbridgers, during a 2-year follow-up,” study coauthor Sytske Anne Bergstra, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

However, an American researcher who helped create the 2021 ACR guideline is unmoved by the new report. “This publication didn’t do anything to assuage my concerns,” Joel Kremer, MD, founder and president of the Corrona Research Foundation and professor of medicine emeritus at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, said in an interview.

At issue is whether patients with early RA should be temporarily treated with glucocorticoids in order to provide rapid relief. The ACR’s 2021 guideline on the treatment of RA says short-term glucocorticoids should not be “systematically prescribed” but notes that they are still “frequently necessary to alleviate symptoms” before disease-modifying therapies are given. The guideline adds that “these recommendations were made in recognition of the frequent difficulty tapering glucocorticoids, leading to undesirable prolonged use and the increasing evidence of the negative impact of glucocorticoids on long-term patient outcomes, including risk for infection, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease, in RA and other rheumatic diseases.”

For its part, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology’s 2022 recommendations state that short-term glucocorticoids “should be considered when initiating or changing [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], in different dose regimens and routes of administration, but should be tapered and discontinued as rapidly as clinically feasible.”

Members of the Dutch team behind the new meta-analysis have been supporters of “bridging” therapy. For the new report, they analyzed three studies, including one led by a member of the team. Each study had at least one arm that randomized patients with RA to glucocorticoid bridging. Patients also took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

There were 252 patients in study arms that started with bridging (mean age, 52 years; 68% female) and 373 other patients (mean age, 53 years; 67% female).

The researchers found that glucocorticoid use was higher in the bridgers at 12 months (odds ratio, 3.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-10.08), but the excess risk at 18 months (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.46-5.60) and 24 months (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.58-4.97) dipped below statistical significance. Also, they reported that “bridgers improved more rapidly (P < .001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94).”

“Based on our results, combined with two earlier publications [here and here], we show that most patients included in clinical trials with protocolized tapering schedules are able to stop glucocorticoids after bridging,” Dr. Bergstra said. “We also confirm the well-known short-term clinical effects and show that patients using glucocorticoid bridging require fewer DMARD changes. For a re-evaluation of the ACR guideline, this evidence should be combined with the extensive evidence showing short- as well as long-term clinical benefits of glucocorticoid bridging but also with evidence on potential side effects at different doses.”

She added that “implementing predefined tapering protocols may help clinicians and patients to stop glucocorticoids after bridging.” As for limitations, “patients included in these trials may differ from patients in clinical practice. We cannot be sure whether these results can be generalized to the full patient population.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Kremer, a coauthor of the ACR guideline, pointed out that the patients who took glucocorticoids early were much more likely to be on them at 12 months.

By definition, “bridging” is temporary, he said, a brief period to help patients tolerate RA until DMARDs kick in. But in the studies, many of the patients clearly took the drugs for extended periods of time. In those cases, “it not a bridge,” and the risk is that “you’re treating people with a lifelong disease with doses of glucocorticoids that have been shown in multiple studies to be dangerous.”

He added that, while the excess likelihood of these patients staying on the drugs at 18 or 24 months wasn’t deemed to be statistically significant in the meta-analysis, the confidence intervals were unusually wide. That raises questions about whether some of the patients actually stay on the drugs.

Dr. Kremer said it can still be appropriate to give glucocorticoids to patients in distress, although it’s crucial in those cases to take the patients off them as soon as possible. It’s best, though, to not prescribe them at all. “If you can avoid it,” he said, “definitely avoid it.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Bergstra reported receiving grant funding from Pfizer, and some of the other study authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Kremer had no relevant disclosures.

In a new salvo in the dispute over the wisdom of early “bridging” treatment with glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis, Dutch researchers suggested in a new meta-analysis that the American College of Rheumatology guideline is too cautious.

The report, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined three randomized trials of bridging versus nonbridging. The findings “emphasize the benefits of bridging therapy and shows that bridgers are not using more glucocorticoids after their intended bridging period, compared with nonbridgers, during a 2-year follow-up,” study coauthor Sytske Anne Bergstra, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

However, an American researcher who helped create the 2021 ACR guideline is unmoved by the new report. “This publication didn’t do anything to assuage my concerns,” Joel Kremer, MD, founder and president of the Corrona Research Foundation and professor of medicine emeritus at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, said in an interview.

At issue is whether patients with early RA should be temporarily treated with glucocorticoids in order to provide rapid relief. The ACR’s 2021 guideline on the treatment of RA says short-term glucocorticoids should not be “systematically prescribed” but notes that they are still “frequently necessary to alleviate symptoms” before disease-modifying therapies are given. The guideline adds that “these recommendations were made in recognition of the frequent difficulty tapering glucocorticoids, leading to undesirable prolonged use and the increasing evidence of the negative impact of glucocorticoids on long-term patient outcomes, including risk for infection, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease, in RA and other rheumatic diseases.”

For its part, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology’s 2022 recommendations state that short-term glucocorticoids “should be considered when initiating or changing [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], in different dose regimens and routes of administration, but should be tapered and discontinued as rapidly as clinically feasible.”

Members of the Dutch team behind the new meta-analysis have been supporters of “bridging” therapy. For the new report, they analyzed three studies, including one led by a member of the team. Each study had at least one arm that randomized patients with RA to glucocorticoid bridging. Patients also took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

There were 252 patients in study arms that started with bridging (mean age, 52 years; 68% female) and 373 other patients (mean age, 53 years; 67% female).

The researchers found that glucocorticoid use was higher in the bridgers at 12 months (odds ratio, 3.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-10.08), but the excess risk at 18 months (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.46-5.60) and 24 months (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.58-4.97) dipped below statistical significance. Also, they reported that “bridgers improved more rapidly (P < .001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94).”

“Based on our results, combined with two earlier publications [here and here], we show that most patients included in clinical trials with protocolized tapering schedules are able to stop glucocorticoids after bridging,” Dr. Bergstra said. “We also confirm the well-known short-term clinical effects and show that patients using glucocorticoid bridging require fewer DMARD changes. For a re-evaluation of the ACR guideline, this evidence should be combined with the extensive evidence showing short- as well as long-term clinical benefits of glucocorticoid bridging but also with evidence on potential side effects at different doses.”

She added that “implementing predefined tapering protocols may help clinicians and patients to stop glucocorticoids after bridging.” As for limitations, “patients included in these trials may differ from patients in clinical practice. We cannot be sure whether these results can be generalized to the full patient population.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Kremer, a coauthor of the ACR guideline, pointed out that the patients who took glucocorticoids early were much more likely to be on them at 12 months.

By definition, “bridging” is temporary, he said, a brief period to help patients tolerate RA until DMARDs kick in. But in the studies, many of the patients clearly took the drugs for extended periods of time. In those cases, “it not a bridge,” and the risk is that “you’re treating people with a lifelong disease with doses of glucocorticoids that have been shown in multiple studies to be dangerous.”

He added that, while the excess likelihood of these patients staying on the drugs at 18 or 24 months wasn’t deemed to be statistically significant in the meta-analysis, the confidence intervals were unusually wide. That raises questions about whether some of the patients actually stay on the drugs.

Dr. Kremer said it can still be appropriate to give glucocorticoids to patients in distress, although it’s crucial in those cases to take the patients off them as soon as possible. It’s best, though, to not prescribe them at all. “If you can avoid it,” he said, “definitely avoid it.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Bergstra reported receiving grant funding from Pfizer, and some of the other study authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Kremer had no relevant disclosures.

In a new salvo in the dispute over the wisdom of early “bridging” treatment with glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis, Dutch researchers suggested in a new meta-analysis that the American College of Rheumatology guideline is too cautious.

The report, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined three randomized trials of bridging versus nonbridging. The findings “emphasize the benefits of bridging therapy and shows that bridgers are not using more glucocorticoids after their intended bridging period, compared with nonbridgers, during a 2-year follow-up,” study coauthor Sytske Anne Bergstra, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

However, an American researcher who helped create the 2021 ACR guideline is unmoved by the new report. “This publication didn’t do anything to assuage my concerns,” Joel Kremer, MD, founder and president of the Corrona Research Foundation and professor of medicine emeritus at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, said in an interview.

At issue is whether patients with early RA should be temporarily treated with glucocorticoids in order to provide rapid relief. The ACR’s 2021 guideline on the treatment of RA says short-term glucocorticoids should not be “systematically prescribed” but notes that they are still “frequently necessary to alleviate symptoms” before disease-modifying therapies are given. The guideline adds that “these recommendations were made in recognition of the frequent difficulty tapering glucocorticoids, leading to undesirable prolonged use and the increasing evidence of the negative impact of glucocorticoids on long-term patient outcomes, including risk for infection, osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease, in RA and other rheumatic diseases.”

For its part, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology’s 2022 recommendations state that short-term glucocorticoids “should be considered when initiating or changing [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], in different dose regimens and routes of administration, but should be tapered and discontinued as rapidly as clinically feasible.”

Members of the Dutch team behind the new meta-analysis have been supporters of “bridging” therapy. For the new report, they analyzed three studies, including one led by a member of the team. Each study had at least one arm that randomized patients with RA to glucocorticoid bridging. Patients also took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

There were 252 patients in study arms that started with bridging (mean age, 52 years; 68% female) and 373 other patients (mean age, 53 years; 67% female).

The researchers found that glucocorticoid use was higher in the bridgers at 12 months (odds ratio, 3.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-10.08), but the excess risk at 18 months (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.46-5.60) and 24 months (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.58-4.97) dipped below statistical significance. Also, they reported that “bridgers improved more rapidly (P < .001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94).”

“Based on our results, combined with two earlier publications [here and here], we show that most patients included in clinical trials with protocolized tapering schedules are able to stop glucocorticoids after bridging,” Dr. Bergstra said. “We also confirm the well-known short-term clinical effects and show that patients using glucocorticoid bridging require fewer DMARD changes. For a re-evaluation of the ACR guideline, this evidence should be combined with the extensive evidence showing short- as well as long-term clinical benefits of glucocorticoid bridging but also with evidence on potential side effects at different doses.”

She added that “implementing predefined tapering protocols may help clinicians and patients to stop glucocorticoids after bridging.” As for limitations, “patients included in these trials may differ from patients in clinical practice. We cannot be sure whether these results can be generalized to the full patient population.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Kremer, a coauthor of the ACR guideline, pointed out that the patients who took glucocorticoids early were much more likely to be on them at 12 months.

By definition, “bridging” is temporary, he said, a brief period to help patients tolerate RA until DMARDs kick in. But in the studies, many of the patients clearly took the drugs for extended periods of time. In those cases, “it not a bridge,” and the risk is that “you’re treating people with a lifelong disease with doses of glucocorticoids that have been shown in multiple studies to be dangerous.”

He added that, while the excess likelihood of these patients staying on the drugs at 18 or 24 months wasn’t deemed to be statistically significant in the meta-analysis, the confidence intervals were unusually wide. That raises questions about whether some of the patients actually stay on the drugs.

Dr. Kremer said it can still be appropriate to give glucocorticoids to patients in distress, although it’s crucial in those cases to take the patients off them as soon as possible. It’s best, though, to not prescribe them at all. “If you can avoid it,” he said, “definitely avoid it.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Bergstra reported receiving grant funding from Pfizer, and some of the other study authors reported various relationships with industry. Dr. Kremer had no relevant disclosures.

A blood-level reference range of 750-1,200 ng/mL of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been linked with 71% lower odds of active lupus, new research suggests.

AlexLMX/iStock/Getty Images

Researchers, led by Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, also found that maintaining levels within that range lowered the odds for flares by 26% over 9 months of follow-up.

The findings, published in Arthritis Care & Research, could help clinicians personalize HCQ doses to maximize efficacy for each patient.

UW Health

HCQ levels in whole blood and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) were measured during a baseline visit and again during a routine follow-up visit.

Among 158 baseline patient visits, 19% of the patients had active lupus. Researchers longitudinally followed 42 patients using convenience sampling, and among those patients, 7 (17%) had flares at the follow-up visit.

Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Lupus Center in Baltimore, called the findings that suggest upper and lower efficacy and safety boundaries “very important.”

The findings highlight that guidelines for dosing don’t match efficacy needs, said Dr. Petri, who was not involved with the study.

“HCQ dosing has been under threat by guidelines insisting that the dose should be < 5 mg/kg even though this does not correlate with efficacy,” she said. “Basically, if we dose too low, the patient loses efficacy. If we dose too high, the risk of retinopathy increases, so this paper hones down the sweet spot.”

A 2014 study identified a higher eye toxicity risk with HCQ doses > 5 mg/kg per day, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology followed with guidelines for HCQ retinopathy screening that recommended reducing HCQ to ≤ 5 mg/kg per day.

Dr. Petri said that the range Dr. Garg and colleagues identified corroborates findings in one of her team’s studies.

That paper showed that thrombotic events dropped by 69% in patients with average HCQ blood levels ≥ 1,068 ng/mL vs. those with levels < 648 ng/mL (relative risk, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.86; P = .024).

Dr. Garg and colleagues write that current lupus treatment guidelines do not universally recommend blood level monitoring for HCQ “as different cut-points have been used to define therapeutic HCQ blood levels and an effective range of HCQ levels with upper and lower bounds for efficacy has not been extensively examined.”
 

When to start checking levels

Blood levels of HCQ can be checked for any patient, although 1-3 months after starting the medication may be best to get steady levels, Dr. Garg told this news organization.

Dr. Petri said that she recommends HCQ whole blood levels be checked routinely for maximum dosing efficacy “but also to identify patients who are missing so many doses that they are subtherapeutic.”

She noted that nonadherence is a major issue among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, especially among those who are younger and newly diagnosed.

Dr. Garg and Dr. Petri both said that insurance does not automatically cover the costs of checking HCQ levels in the blood, which has been a consistent frustration in the field.

“Having more data validates the reason to do it,” Dr. Garg said.

She added that “HCQ blood levels are still not done routinely in all patients, and at times the test needs to be sent to outside laboratories.”
 

Importance for patients with CKD

Many patient factors can affect how the body absorbs HCQ, Dr. Garg said, so finding the right level that is safe and maximizes benefit individually is important.

The findings are particularly important for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) of stage 3 or higher, Dr. Garg said.

The authors write that because kidneys clear more than half of all HCQ, impaired kidney function could boost HCQ blood levels, risking toxicity.

“Our study found a sixfold higher odds of having supratherapeutic HCQ blood levels in patients with CKD stage ≥ 3,” they write.

Dr. Garg added that if blood levels cannot be analyzed in all patients, they could be prioritized in patients with CKD stage 3 or above because these patients are at “higher risk of being underdosed with arbitrary reductions in HCQ doses and carry higher risk of toxicity if HCQ doses are not adjusted.”

More research will uncover other high-risk groups who would benefit most from close monitoring of HCQ blood levels, she said.

The study was supported by an award from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and by an award to the institution from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Garg and coauthors as well as Dr. Petri report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood-level reference range of 750-1,200 ng/mL of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been linked with 71% lower odds of active lupus, new research suggests.

AlexLMX/iStock/Getty Images

Researchers, led by Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, also found that maintaining levels within that range lowered the odds for flares by 26% over 9 months of follow-up.

The findings, published in Arthritis Care & Research, could help clinicians personalize HCQ doses to maximize efficacy for each patient.

UW Health

HCQ levels in whole blood and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) were measured during a baseline visit and again during a routine follow-up visit.

Among 158 baseline patient visits, 19% of the patients had active lupus. Researchers longitudinally followed 42 patients using convenience sampling, and among those patients, 7 (17%) had flares at the follow-up visit.

Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Lupus Center in Baltimore, called the findings that suggest upper and lower efficacy and safety boundaries “very important.”

The findings highlight that guidelines for dosing don’t match efficacy needs, said Dr. Petri, who was not involved with the study.

“HCQ dosing has been under threat by guidelines insisting that the dose should be < 5 mg/kg even though this does not correlate with efficacy,” she said. “Basically, if we dose too low, the patient loses efficacy. If we dose too high, the risk of retinopathy increases, so this paper hones down the sweet spot.”

A 2014 study identified a higher eye toxicity risk with HCQ doses > 5 mg/kg per day, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology followed with guidelines for HCQ retinopathy screening that recommended reducing HCQ to ≤ 5 mg/kg per day.

Dr. Petri said that the range Dr. Garg and colleagues identified corroborates findings in one of her team’s studies.

That paper showed that thrombotic events dropped by 69% in patients with average HCQ blood levels ≥ 1,068 ng/mL vs. those with levels < 648 ng/mL (relative risk, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.86; P = .024).

Dr. Garg and colleagues write that current lupus treatment guidelines do not universally recommend blood level monitoring for HCQ “as different cut-points have been used to define therapeutic HCQ blood levels and an effective range of HCQ levels with upper and lower bounds for efficacy has not been extensively examined.”
 

When to start checking levels

Blood levels of HCQ can be checked for any patient, although 1-3 months after starting the medication may be best to get steady levels, Dr. Garg told this news organization.

Dr. Petri said that she recommends HCQ whole blood levels be checked routinely for maximum dosing efficacy “but also to identify patients who are missing so many doses that they are subtherapeutic.”

She noted that nonadherence is a major issue among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, especially among those who are younger and newly diagnosed.

Dr. Garg and Dr. Petri both said that insurance does not automatically cover the costs of checking HCQ levels in the blood, which has been a consistent frustration in the field.

“Having more data validates the reason to do it,” Dr. Garg said.

She added that “HCQ blood levels are still not done routinely in all patients, and at times the test needs to be sent to outside laboratories.”
 

Importance for patients with CKD

Many patient factors can affect how the body absorbs HCQ, Dr. Garg said, so finding the right level that is safe and maximizes benefit individually is important.

The findings are particularly important for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) of stage 3 or higher, Dr. Garg said.

The authors write that because kidneys clear more than half of all HCQ, impaired kidney function could boost HCQ blood levels, risking toxicity.

“Our study found a sixfold higher odds of having supratherapeutic HCQ blood levels in patients with CKD stage ≥ 3,” they write.

Dr. Garg added that if blood levels cannot be analyzed in all patients, they could be prioritized in patients with CKD stage 3 or above because these patients are at “higher risk of being underdosed with arbitrary reductions in HCQ doses and carry higher risk of toxicity if HCQ doses are not adjusted.”

More research will uncover other high-risk groups who would benefit most from close monitoring of HCQ blood levels, she said.

The study was supported by an award from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and by an award to the institution from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Garg and coauthors as well as Dr. Petri report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood-level reference range of 750-1,200 ng/mL of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been linked with 71% lower odds of active lupus, new research suggests.

AlexLMX/iStock/Getty Images

Researchers, led by Shivani Garg, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, also found that maintaining levels within that range lowered the odds for flares by 26% over 9 months of follow-up.

The findings, published in Arthritis Care & Research, could help clinicians personalize HCQ doses to maximize efficacy for each patient.

UW Health

HCQ levels in whole blood and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) were measured during a baseline visit and again during a routine follow-up visit.

Among 158 baseline patient visits, 19% of the patients had active lupus. Researchers longitudinally followed 42 patients using convenience sampling, and among those patients, 7 (17%) had flares at the follow-up visit.

Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Lupus Center in Baltimore, called the findings that suggest upper and lower efficacy and safety boundaries “very important.”

The findings highlight that guidelines for dosing don’t match efficacy needs, said Dr. Petri, who was not involved with the study.

“HCQ dosing has been under threat by guidelines insisting that the dose should be < 5 mg/kg even though this does not correlate with efficacy,” she said. “Basically, if we dose too low, the patient loses efficacy. If we dose too high, the risk of retinopathy increases, so this paper hones down the sweet spot.”

A 2014 study identified a higher eye toxicity risk with HCQ doses > 5 mg/kg per day, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology followed with guidelines for HCQ retinopathy screening that recommended reducing HCQ to ≤ 5 mg/kg per day.

Dr. Petri said that the range Dr. Garg and colleagues identified corroborates findings in one of her team’s studies.

That paper showed that thrombotic events dropped by 69% in patients with average HCQ blood levels ≥ 1,068 ng/mL vs. those with levels < 648 ng/mL (relative risk, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.86; P = .024).

Dr. Garg and colleagues write that current lupus treatment guidelines do not universally recommend blood level monitoring for HCQ “as different cut-points have been used to define therapeutic HCQ blood levels and an effective range of HCQ levels with upper and lower bounds for efficacy has not been extensively examined.”
 

When to start checking levels

Blood levels of HCQ can be checked for any patient, although 1-3 months after starting the medication may be best to get steady levels, Dr. Garg told this news organization.

Dr. Petri said that she recommends HCQ whole blood levels be checked routinely for maximum dosing efficacy “but also to identify patients who are missing so many doses that they are subtherapeutic.”

She noted that nonadherence is a major issue among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, especially among those who are younger and newly diagnosed.

Dr. Garg and Dr. Petri both said that insurance does not automatically cover the costs of checking HCQ levels in the blood, which has been a consistent frustration in the field.

“Having more data validates the reason to do it,” Dr. Garg said.

She added that “HCQ blood levels are still not done routinely in all patients, and at times the test needs to be sent to outside laboratories.”
 

Importance for patients with CKD

Many patient factors can affect how the body absorbs HCQ, Dr. Garg said, so finding the right level that is safe and maximizes benefit individually is important.

The findings are particularly important for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) of stage 3 or higher, Dr. Garg said.

The authors write that because kidneys clear more than half of all HCQ, impaired kidney function could boost HCQ blood levels, risking toxicity.

“Our study found a sixfold higher odds of having supratherapeutic HCQ blood levels in patients with CKD stage ≥ 3,” they write.

Dr. Garg added that if blood levels cannot be analyzed in all patients, they could be prioritized in patients with CKD stage 3 or above because these patients are at “higher risk of being underdosed with arbitrary reductions in HCQ doses and carry higher risk of toxicity if HCQ doses are not adjusted.”

More research will uncover other high-risk groups who would benefit most from close monitoring of HCQ blood levels, she said.

The study was supported by an award from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and by an award to the institution from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Garg and coauthors as well as Dr. Petri report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of colchicine prophylaxis during the process of up-titrating allopurinol slowly to reach target serum urate levels for patients with gout proved necessary to reduce the risk of flares in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial conducted by researchers in New Zealand.

Use of colchicine led to fewer flares during the first 6 months after initiating treatment with allopurinol, but when colchicine and placebo were stopped at 6 months, the number of flares rose, and there was no overall difference in the average number of flares between the placebo and colchicine groups over 12 months.

“Gout flares are common when starting urate-lowering therapy, although may be less frequent using the newer allopurinol ‘start-low, go-slow’ dose escalation strategy,” Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This study was undertaken to determine whether colchicine prophylaxis is required with the more gradual dose escalation of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate.”

The study was published online  in the BMJ.

The researchers randomly assigned 200 participants to receive colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo. At the same time, allopurinol 50 mg daily was initially given to those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100 mg daily was given to those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2; doses were increased monthly by 50 mg daily for those with eGFR less than 60 and by 100 mg daily for those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 until the target urate level of less than 0.36 mmol/L (about < 6 mg/dL) was achieved. In total, 93% of patients were male, and 69% were White. Patients were enrolled from February 2019 through December 2021. The final study visit was in January 2023. Researchers tracked the mean number of patient-reported gout flares per month with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.12 gout flares/month. After the first 6 months, colchicine and placebo were stopped, and researchers continued to track outcomes up to month 12.

From baseline to 6 months, there were more gout flares per month in the placebo group (0.61) than in the colchicine group (0.35). From 6 to 12 months, there were more gout flares among patients who previously received colchicine, compared with those who received placebo. While 22.8% of patients in the colchicine group experienced flares at month 6, the following month – after stopping the drug – 41.2% experienced flares. For comparison, 30.8% of the placebo group experienced flares at month 6, and in month 7, 23.5% experienced flares. The spike in flares in the colchicine group began to decline after month 9.

Among the colchicine and placebo groups, reductions in serum urate at 6 and 12 months were similar, and mean serum urate levels declined below 0.36 mmol/L at 4 months and thereafter. Both groups reached a mean allopurinol dose of 280 mg/d at 6 months.

It is not clear what caused this rise in flares in the colchicine group, Stamp noted in an email to this news organization. Overall, there was no difference in the average number of gout flares between either group over the entire 12-month study period.

The study findings make a case for continuing colchicine prophylaxis considerably beyond the point at which the target urate serum level is reached, said Robert Terkeltaub, MD, professor emeritus of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego. He was not involved with the research.

“The flare burden with this really conservative allopurinol dosing regimen is really stunning,” he said in an interview. Despite this “start low and go slow” strategy, flares remained a problem, he noted. “It argues that you need at least a year to get out of the woods and have a lower flare burden, even if colchicine prophylaxis is used for the first 6 months.”

The current standard of care in rheumatology for gout treatment includes flare prophylaxis when starting urate-lowering therapy. In daily practice, “this can (and often does) mean continuing flare prophylaxis for longer than the recommended minimum duration from [established] gout treatment guidelines for an individual patient,” explained Elizabeth R. Graef, DO, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center.

There are many different factors to consider when determining a patient’s flare risk beyond serum urate levels and date of last flare, she noted. Flare severity, concurrent diuretic use, dose changes, tophus count, and additional health conditions such as diabetes can all contribute to individual patient outcomes.

“Gout is an erosive arthritis, and every time someone flares, there’s a risk of permanent erosive damage, so I tend to be more aggressive with prophylaxis,” she said.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Graef disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Terkeltaub consults for LG Chem, Fortress/Urica, Selecta Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Atom Biosciences, Acquist Therapeutics, Generate Biomedicines, AstraZeneca, and Synlogic. Dr. Terkeltaub serves as the nonsalaried president of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network, which annually receives unrestricted arms-length grant support from pharma donors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of colchicine prophylaxis during the process of up-titrating allopurinol slowly to reach target serum urate levels for patients with gout proved necessary to reduce the risk of flares in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial conducted by researchers in New Zealand.

Use of colchicine led to fewer flares during the first 6 months after initiating treatment with allopurinol, but when colchicine and placebo were stopped at 6 months, the number of flares rose, and there was no overall difference in the average number of flares between the placebo and colchicine groups over 12 months.

“Gout flares are common when starting urate-lowering therapy, although may be less frequent using the newer allopurinol ‘start-low, go-slow’ dose escalation strategy,” Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This study was undertaken to determine whether colchicine prophylaxis is required with the more gradual dose escalation of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate.”

The study was published online  in the BMJ.

The researchers randomly assigned 200 participants to receive colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo. At the same time, allopurinol 50 mg daily was initially given to those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100 mg daily was given to those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2; doses were increased monthly by 50 mg daily for those with eGFR less than 60 and by 100 mg daily for those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 until the target urate level of less than 0.36 mmol/L (about < 6 mg/dL) was achieved. In total, 93% of patients were male, and 69% were White. Patients were enrolled from February 2019 through December 2021. The final study visit was in January 2023. Researchers tracked the mean number of patient-reported gout flares per month with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.12 gout flares/month. After the first 6 months, colchicine and placebo were stopped, and researchers continued to track outcomes up to month 12.

From baseline to 6 months, there were more gout flares per month in the placebo group (0.61) than in the colchicine group (0.35). From 6 to 12 months, there were more gout flares among patients who previously received colchicine, compared with those who received placebo. While 22.8% of patients in the colchicine group experienced flares at month 6, the following month – after stopping the drug – 41.2% experienced flares. For comparison, 30.8% of the placebo group experienced flares at month 6, and in month 7, 23.5% experienced flares. The spike in flares in the colchicine group began to decline after month 9.

Among the colchicine and placebo groups, reductions in serum urate at 6 and 12 months were similar, and mean serum urate levels declined below 0.36 mmol/L at 4 months and thereafter. Both groups reached a mean allopurinol dose of 280 mg/d at 6 months.

It is not clear what caused this rise in flares in the colchicine group, Stamp noted in an email to this news organization. Overall, there was no difference in the average number of gout flares between either group over the entire 12-month study period.

The study findings make a case for continuing colchicine prophylaxis considerably beyond the point at which the target urate serum level is reached, said Robert Terkeltaub, MD, professor emeritus of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego. He was not involved with the research.

“The flare burden with this really conservative allopurinol dosing regimen is really stunning,” he said in an interview. Despite this “start low and go slow” strategy, flares remained a problem, he noted. “It argues that you need at least a year to get out of the woods and have a lower flare burden, even if colchicine prophylaxis is used for the first 6 months.”

The current standard of care in rheumatology for gout treatment includes flare prophylaxis when starting urate-lowering therapy. In daily practice, “this can (and often does) mean continuing flare prophylaxis for longer than the recommended minimum duration from [established] gout treatment guidelines for an individual patient,” explained Elizabeth R. Graef, DO, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center.

There are many different factors to consider when determining a patient’s flare risk beyond serum urate levels and date of last flare, she noted. Flare severity, concurrent diuretic use, dose changes, tophus count, and additional health conditions such as diabetes can all contribute to individual patient outcomes.

“Gout is an erosive arthritis, and every time someone flares, there’s a risk of permanent erosive damage, so I tend to be more aggressive with prophylaxis,” she said.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Graef disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Terkeltaub consults for LG Chem, Fortress/Urica, Selecta Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Atom Biosciences, Acquist Therapeutics, Generate Biomedicines, AstraZeneca, and Synlogic. Dr. Terkeltaub serves as the nonsalaried president of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network, which annually receives unrestricted arms-length grant support from pharma donors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of colchicine prophylaxis during the process of up-titrating allopurinol slowly to reach target serum urate levels for patients with gout proved necessary to reduce the risk of flares in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial conducted by researchers in New Zealand.

Use of colchicine led to fewer flares during the first 6 months after initiating treatment with allopurinol, but when colchicine and placebo were stopped at 6 months, the number of flares rose, and there was no overall difference in the average number of flares between the placebo and colchicine groups over 12 months.

“Gout flares are common when starting urate-lowering therapy, although may be less frequent using the newer allopurinol ‘start-low, go-slow’ dose escalation strategy,” Lisa Stamp, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “This study was undertaken to determine whether colchicine prophylaxis is required with the more gradual dose escalation of allopurinol to achieve target serum urate.”

The study was published online  in the BMJ.

The researchers randomly assigned 200 participants to receive colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo. At the same time, allopurinol 50 mg daily was initially given to those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 100 mg daily was given to those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2; doses were increased monthly by 50 mg daily for those with eGFR less than 60 and by 100 mg daily for those with eGFR greater than or equal to 60 until the target urate level of less than 0.36 mmol/L (about < 6 mg/dL) was achieved. In total, 93% of patients were male, and 69% were White. Patients were enrolled from February 2019 through December 2021. The final study visit was in January 2023. Researchers tracked the mean number of patient-reported gout flares per month with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.12 gout flares/month. After the first 6 months, colchicine and placebo were stopped, and researchers continued to track outcomes up to month 12.

From baseline to 6 months, there were more gout flares per month in the placebo group (0.61) than in the colchicine group (0.35). From 6 to 12 months, there were more gout flares among patients who previously received colchicine, compared with those who received placebo. While 22.8% of patients in the colchicine group experienced flares at month 6, the following month – after stopping the drug – 41.2% experienced flares. For comparison, 30.8% of the placebo group experienced flares at month 6, and in month 7, 23.5% experienced flares. The spike in flares in the colchicine group began to decline after month 9.

Among the colchicine and placebo groups, reductions in serum urate at 6 and 12 months were similar, and mean serum urate levels declined below 0.36 mmol/L at 4 months and thereafter. Both groups reached a mean allopurinol dose of 280 mg/d at 6 months.

It is not clear what caused this rise in flares in the colchicine group, Stamp noted in an email to this news organization. Overall, there was no difference in the average number of gout flares between either group over the entire 12-month study period.

The study findings make a case for continuing colchicine prophylaxis considerably beyond the point at which the target urate serum level is reached, said Robert Terkeltaub, MD, professor emeritus of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego. He was not involved with the research.

“The flare burden with this really conservative allopurinol dosing regimen is really stunning,” he said in an interview. Despite this “start low and go slow” strategy, flares remained a problem, he noted. “It argues that you need at least a year to get out of the woods and have a lower flare burden, even if colchicine prophylaxis is used for the first 6 months.”

The current standard of care in rheumatology for gout treatment includes flare prophylaxis when starting urate-lowering therapy. In daily practice, “this can (and often does) mean continuing flare prophylaxis for longer than the recommended minimum duration from [established] gout treatment guidelines for an individual patient,” explained Elizabeth R. Graef, DO, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center.

There are many different factors to consider when determining a patient’s flare risk beyond serum urate levels and date of last flare, she noted. Flare severity, concurrent diuretic use, dose changes, tophus count, and additional health conditions such as diabetes can all contribute to individual patient outcomes.

“Gout is an erosive arthritis, and every time someone flares, there’s a risk of permanent erosive damage, so I tend to be more aggressive with prophylaxis,” she said.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Graef disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Terkeltaub consults for LG Chem, Fortress/Urica, Selecta Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Atom Biosciences, Acquist Therapeutics, Generate Biomedicines, AstraZeneca, and Synlogic. Dr. Terkeltaub serves as the nonsalaried president of the Gout, Hyperuricemia, and Crystal-Associated Disease Network, which annually receives unrestricted arms-length grant support from pharma donors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover a molecular diagnostic test to predict treatment response for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The blood test, PrismRA, is the first and only commercially available test that can help predict which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, according to the test manufacturer, Scipher Medicine.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover a molecular diagnostic test to predict treatment response for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The blood test, PrismRA, is the first and only commercially available test that can help predict which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, according to the test manufacturer, Scipher Medicine.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover a molecular diagnostic test to predict treatment response for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The blood test, PrismRA, is the first and only commercially available test that can help predict which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy, according to the test manufacturer, Scipher Medicine.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.