Rheumatology

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Clinical trials of treatments for rheumatologic conditions appear especially vulnerable to inadvertent unblinding, because of noticeable side effects of some drugs and subjective outcome measures, according to a new analysis.

Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer

“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.

Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
 

A sample of pivotal clinical trials

The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.

The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.

In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:

• High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
• Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
• Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).

Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
 

Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity

CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.

“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.

The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.

But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.

“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.

In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.

“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
 

Unblinding measure needs validation

In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”

He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.

“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”

Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”

In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.

There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.

In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”

One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.

“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.

In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.

Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.

Approximately 20% of adults with axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) show active or structural spinal changes without changes in the sacroiliac joint, based on imaging data from 106 individuals. 

Axial PsA has been historically grouped with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but it has received more attention in recent years as a condition potentially distinct from axSpA, Henriette Käding, an MD and PhD student in the department of gastroenterology, infectiology, and rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in her research presentation at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). She added that the debate persists as to whether these conditions are on the same spectrum or should be separated.

Data from previous studies suggest differences in genetic, clinical, radiographic, and prognostic characteristics between axial PsA and axSpA that may affect patients’ response to available treatments. However, there are relatively little data available on distinguishing imaging and clinical features, and there’s a lack of classification criteria for axial PsA, Ms. Käding said.

Ms. Käding and colleagues prospectively collected data from 106 patients with axial PsA between August 2019 and June 2023 and presented the baseline data of this longitudinal project at the GRAPPA annual meeting in Dublin. At baseline, the researchers conducted clinical assessments of the participants, along with blood sampling, stool samples, and imaging protocols that included MRI of the whole spine and sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

The mean age of the included patients was 44.5 years; 55.7% were female. Inflammatory back pain was present in most of the patients at baseline (78.4%), and 48.1% were positive for HLA-B27, a genetic risk factor for both axSpA and axial PsA. Approximately one-third of the patients had elevated C-reactive protein (> 5 mg/L). In the baseline MRI scans, active inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) were seen in 51.9% of the patients and structural changes in 72.1%. MRI spine scans showed active changes in 58.7% of the patients. Notably, active and/or structural changes of the spine without changes in the SIJ appeared in 20% of the patients, Ms. Käding said.

With regard to existing classification criteria, the researchers observed that 92% of the patients met the CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria for PsA, 73% met the ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria, while 66% of patients met both ASAS and CASPAR criteria.

The study will be the first to include longitudinal MRI scans of the whole spine and SIJ in addition to conventional radiographs, Ms. Käding said.

Better characterization should improve treatment

“Axial involvement in PsA might, on one hand, go unnoticed, but on the other hand, it could also be misdiagnosed in patients with degenerative spinal disease,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, one of the study coauthors, also of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in an interview.

“By comprehending the unique characteristics, progression, and treatment responses within the axial domain, rheumatologists can customize interventions and therapies to effectively manage the psoriatic disease,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“One of the most significant findings [of the current study] is the relatively high frequency of spinal involvement without sacroiliac joint” involvement, Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and senior author of the study, said in an interview. “This finding holds importance as, in primary axial SpA, the disease typically originates in the sacroiliac joints. In contrast, in PsA, the scenario differs, which has implications for the diagnostic approach in clinical practice.”

“In individuals with PsA, spinal involvement can occur independently of sacroiliac joint [involvement]. As a result, imaging studies conducted on patients suspected of having axial PsA should encompass not only the sacroiliac joints but also the spine,” Dr. Poddubnyy explained. “It is important to note, however, that imaging findings such as bony spurs and bone marrow edema might be caused by degeneration or mechanical issues and, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution within the clinical context.”

The study was supported in part by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Proft disclosed receiving research grants and consultancy payments from Novartis and serving on speaker bureaus for the company.

Approximately 20% of adults with axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) show active or structural spinal changes without changes in the sacroiliac joint, based on imaging data from 106 individuals. 

Axial PsA has been historically grouped with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but it has received more attention in recent years as a condition potentially distinct from axSpA, Henriette Käding, an MD and PhD student in the department of gastroenterology, infectiology, and rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in her research presentation at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). She added that the debate persists as to whether these conditions are on the same spectrum or should be separated.

Data from previous studies suggest differences in genetic, clinical, radiographic, and prognostic characteristics between axial PsA and axSpA that may affect patients’ response to available treatments. However, there are relatively little data available on distinguishing imaging and clinical features, and there’s a lack of classification criteria for axial PsA, Ms. Käding said.

Ms. Käding and colleagues prospectively collected data from 106 patients with axial PsA between August 2019 and June 2023 and presented the baseline data of this longitudinal project at the GRAPPA annual meeting in Dublin. At baseline, the researchers conducted clinical assessments of the participants, along with blood sampling, stool samples, and imaging protocols that included MRI of the whole spine and sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

The mean age of the included patients was 44.5 years; 55.7% were female. Inflammatory back pain was present in most of the patients at baseline (78.4%), and 48.1% were positive for HLA-B27, a genetic risk factor for both axSpA and axial PsA. Approximately one-third of the patients had elevated C-reactive protein (> 5 mg/L). In the baseline MRI scans, active inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) were seen in 51.9% of the patients and structural changes in 72.1%. MRI spine scans showed active changes in 58.7% of the patients. Notably, active and/or structural changes of the spine without changes in the SIJ appeared in 20% of the patients, Ms. Käding said.

With regard to existing classification criteria, the researchers observed that 92% of the patients met the CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria for PsA, 73% met the ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria, while 66% of patients met both ASAS and CASPAR criteria.

The study will be the first to include longitudinal MRI scans of the whole spine and SIJ in addition to conventional radiographs, Ms. Käding said.

Better characterization should improve treatment

“Axial involvement in PsA might, on one hand, go unnoticed, but on the other hand, it could also be misdiagnosed in patients with degenerative spinal disease,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, one of the study coauthors, also of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in an interview.

“By comprehending the unique characteristics, progression, and treatment responses within the axial domain, rheumatologists can customize interventions and therapies to effectively manage the psoriatic disease,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“One of the most significant findings [of the current study] is the relatively high frequency of spinal involvement without sacroiliac joint” involvement, Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and senior author of the study, said in an interview. “This finding holds importance as, in primary axial SpA, the disease typically originates in the sacroiliac joints. In contrast, in PsA, the scenario differs, which has implications for the diagnostic approach in clinical practice.”

“In individuals with PsA, spinal involvement can occur independently of sacroiliac joint [involvement]. As a result, imaging studies conducted on patients suspected of having axial PsA should encompass not only the sacroiliac joints but also the spine,” Dr. Poddubnyy explained. “It is important to note, however, that imaging findings such as bony spurs and bone marrow edema might be caused by degeneration or mechanical issues and, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution within the clinical context.”

The study was supported in part by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Proft disclosed receiving research grants and consultancy payments from Novartis and serving on speaker bureaus for the company.

Approximately 20% of adults with axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) show active or structural spinal changes without changes in the sacroiliac joint, based on imaging data from 106 individuals. 

Axial PsA has been historically grouped with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but it has received more attention in recent years as a condition potentially distinct from axSpA, Henriette Käding, an MD and PhD student in the department of gastroenterology, infectiology, and rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in her research presentation at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). She added that the debate persists as to whether these conditions are on the same spectrum or should be separated.

Data from previous studies suggest differences in genetic, clinical, radiographic, and prognostic characteristics between axial PsA and axSpA that may affect patients’ response to available treatments. However, there are relatively little data available on distinguishing imaging and clinical features, and there’s a lack of classification criteria for axial PsA, Ms. Käding said.

Ms. Käding and colleagues prospectively collected data from 106 patients with axial PsA between August 2019 and June 2023 and presented the baseline data of this longitudinal project at the GRAPPA annual meeting in Dublin. At baseline, the researchers conducted clinical assessments of the participants, along with blood sampling, stool samples, and imaging protocols that included MRI of the whole spine and sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

The mean age of the included patients was 44.5 years; 55.7% were female. Inflammatory back pain was present in most of the patients at baseline (78.4%), and 48.1% were positive for HLA-B27, a genetic risk factor for both axSpA and axial PsA. Approximately one-third of the patients had elevated C-reactive protein (> 5 mg/L). In the baseline MRI scans, active inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) were seen in 51.9% of the patients and structural changes in 72.1%. MRI spine scans showed active changes in 58.7% of the patients. Notably, active and/or structural changes of the spine without changes in the SIJ appeared in 20% of the patients, Ms. Käding said.

With regard to existing classification criteria, the researchers observed that 92% of the patients met the CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria for PsA, 73% met the ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria, while 66% of patients met both ASAS and CASPAR criteria.

The study will be the first to include longitudinal MRI scans of the whole spine and SIJ in addition to conventional radiographs, Ms. Käding said.

Better characterization should improve treatment

“Axial involvement in PsA might, on one hand, go unnoticed, but on the other hand, it could also be misdiagnosed in patients with degenerative spinal disease,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, one of the study coauthors, also of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in an interview.

“By comprehending the unique characteristics, progression, and treatment responses within the axial domain, rheumatologists can customize interventions and therapies to effectively manage the psoriatic disease,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“One of the most significant findings [of the current study] is the relatively high frequency of spinal involvement without sacroiliac joint” involvement, Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin and senior author of the study, said in an interview. “This finding holds importance as, in primary axial SpA, the disease typically originates in the sacroiliac joints. In contrast, in PsA, the scenario differs, which has implications for the diagnostic approach in clinical practice.”

“In individuals with PsA, spinal involvement can occur independently of sacroiliac joint [involvement]. As a result, imaging studies conducted on patients suspected of having axial PsA should encompass not only the sacroiliac joints but also the spine,” Dr. Poddubnyy explained. “It is important to note, however, that imaging findings such as bony spurs and bone marrow edema might be caused by degeneration or mechanical issues and, therefore, need to be interpreted with caution within the clinical context.”

The study was supported in part by an unrestricted research grant from Novartis. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Proft disclosed receiving research grants and consultancy payments from Novartis and serving on speaker bureaus for the company.

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

A new predictive tool known as the Psoriatic Arthritis Risk Estimation Tool (PRESTO) is now available to help clinicians estimate the risk of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in their patients with psoriasis.

Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.

To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.

The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).

In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.

“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”

courtesy Dr. Saakshi Khattri

Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”

Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.

The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”

The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.

The prevalence of gout is skyrocketing worldwide, and while drugs in the pipeline hold promise for improving the efficacy and safety of treatment, experts warn that “gout remains suboptimally managed.”

“For a really well-understood disease, gout is remarkably undertreated,” said Robert A. Terkeltaub, MD, professor of medicine emeritus at the University of California, San Diego. “This is amazing and depressing because allopurinol has been around for about 60 years or so.”

Randomized, controlled trials show that 80%-90% of patients with gout can be effectively treated to target with existing gout therapies. “Over a year or two, gout flares improve and patients do well,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

By lowering excessive levels of serum urate, current therapies slow the formation of monosodium urate crystals that precipitate within joints and soft tissues, inducing a highly inflammatory local response with superimposed systemic inflammation. These therapies reduce the frequency of excruciatingly painful gout flares.

“Many patients with gout are not taking urate-lowering therapy at all,” Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and head of crystal-induced arthritis diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston, said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, a common problem in gout is treatment inertia,” said Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center.

On a global scale, only one-third of patients with gout are started on urate-lowering therapy, and more than 50% abandon treatment after 1 year. As a result, the effectiveness of urate-lowering therapies in reality is well below 50%, Dr. Terkeltaub said.

“I think gout has been taken less seriously than it should be for quite some time,” he explained in an interview. Gout’s impact on health and well-being is no trivial matter. A recent study showed that a diagnosis of gout was associated with an increased risk of anxiety and depression, and there is new evidence suggesting that gout flares are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, including fatal myocardial infarction and stroke.

“We need drugs that are not just effective but also safe, and we need to incorporate real-world data into our assessment of treatment effectiveness, especially in the presence of comorbidities,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

The prevalence of what used to be thought of as the “disease of kings” has increased 100% over the last 30 years, outstripping world population growth and life expectancy. In the United States, an estimated 5% of adults, or 12 million, have gout. Globally, the number affected exceeds 50 million.

The patient demographics associated with gout have also expanded. Once seen primarily in fleshy, middle-aged men of privilege, gout affects more women, more adults at either end of the age spectrum, and more people in Third World countries than ever before.
 

Management

In the United States, the optimal management of gout remains the subject of debate, with differences in expert opinion reflected in evidence-based clinical guidelines. “We know that the perception of gout is different between primary care physicians, patients, and rheumatologists,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

The 2017 American College of Physicians guidelines for the management of gout recommend a treat-to-symptom approach to urate-lowering therapy. However, the 2020 American College of Rheumatology guidelines reinforce a standard treat-to-target strategy to a serum urate target of < 6.0 mg/dL.

In their report, the ACR guidelines’ authors stated that the use of urate-lowering therapy for gout has not increased in the last decade. Research shows that adherence to treatment for gout continues to be the lowest among seven common chronic medical conditions, including hypertension and seizure disorders, they said.

Some physicians don’t recommend urate-lowering medication to their patients with gout, and others don’t up-titrate it sufficiently to meet the recommended serum urate target, said Dr. Tedeschi. The latter “can require increasing the dose of allopurinol well beyond the 300 mg that often seems the landing point for many patients with gout,” she pointed out.

In fact, it can take up to 800 mg a day of allopurinol – less in patients with moderate to severe kidney disease – to reduce the symptom burden in gout. And it can take a year or longer of drug testing and titration to reach the optimal serum urate target. Paradoxically, gout flares usually get worse during this time.

“We need to reduce the time it takes to get the patient to the serum urate target, and simplify regimens with once-a-day dosing,” Dr. Terkeltaub said. “We also need greater precision so that we can get a home run, hitting the serum urate target the first or second visit, with minimal dose titration.”

Clinician education is important, but education alone is not enough, Dr. Neogi emphasized. “Just as clinicians treat-to-target in other conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, or titrate warfarin to maintain a certain level of anticoagulation, gout must be monitored and treatments adjusted accordingly,” she said.

Practice changes, such as partnering with nursing or pharmacy, may help facilitate in-clinic dose titration, “much like a warfarin clinic,” Dr. Neogi suggested.

That’s exactly what Dr. Terkeltaub has done. Overwhelmed by the number of gout consults, Dr. Terkeltaub and his team set up a pharmacist-managed, rheumatology-supervised clinic to care for gout patients remotely. The model has been very successful, he said. Nurses and clinical pharmacists educate the patients and manage their lab testing and prescriptions, all according to ACR guidelines.

The treatment of gout has become more complex, with a greater risk of drug complications and interactions, particularly in older patients with comorbid diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart disease. Many of the patients he sees are already on “10, 15, or 20 other medications,” Dr. Terkeltaub noted.

The steps involved in the titration of urate-lowering therapy also complicate the treatment of gout, making it impractical for many patients and impossible for others whose access to primary care is limited to one or two visits a year. The process of drug titration, with steadily increasing doses, can make patients anxious about the possibility of being overmedicated. Taking a drug every day, even when joints feel “normal,” can also increase the risk of nonadherence.

“In our conversations with patients with gout, it’s extremely important that we counsel them about the need to take urate-lowering therapy on an ongoing basis to reduce the risk of a gout flare,” said Dr. Tedeschi. “Patients need to have prescription refills available and know to contact the doctor before they run out, so that the chances of having a gout flare are reduced.”
 

Current drugs

Although urate-lowering drugs form the cornerstone of gout therapy, there are only three oral medications available in the United States currently, and all have significant limitations. “We need more drugs, basically,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

• Allopurinol (Zyloprim, Aloprim), an inexpensive xanthine oxidase inhibitor (XOI), is still considered a first-line treatment, but is associated with allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome. In select patients of Asian, African, and Arab descent, this adverse drug reaction can be life-threatening, and is associated with a mortality rate of 20%-25%.
• Febuxostat (Uloric), another XOI, is considered a second-line drug in the treatment of gout, but has carried a boxed warning from the Food and Drug Administration since 2019. It is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death.
• Probenecid (Probalan), a uricosuric agent that increases renal uric acid excretion, is associated with an increased risk of drug interactions and kidney stones, and is rarely used.

Drugs in the pipeline

New drugs in the pipeline offer treatment options that are not only effective but also safe. “This will be important in clinical practice, especially for patients in whom existing medications are contraindicated or there is an increased risk of side effects,” Dr. Neogi said.

Most of these investigational drugs are uricosuric agents that increase the renal excretion of uric acid, reducing serum levels. “The pipeline of new drugs is rich,” Dr. Terkeltaub said. “These drugs are very selective and really work well and they appear to be safe.”

AR882, an inhibitor of selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1), is shaping up to be one of them. In July, results from a phase 2b study of AR882 were presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology in Milan. They showed that in the intent-to-treat population, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy. In the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” said Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, who presented the results.

“More efficacious URAT1 inhibitors that are safe and have a reduced pill burden will be useful additions to current urate lowering options,” Dr. Neogi said.

The recent phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials of the investigational uricase-based infusion therapy SEL-212 in refractory gout have also demonstrated encouraging results, particularly in older patients. In DISSOLVE I, a response rate of 65% was observed in patients 50 years of age and older at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II, a response rate of 47% was reported in older patients.

SEL-212, which is made up of PEGylated uricase (pegadricase) coadministered with sirolimus (Rapamycin), will be submitted for U.S. regulatory approval in the first half of 2024.

In the management of gout flares, interleukin (IL)-1beta and inflammasome inhibitors, both of which target specific inflammatory pathways, could also provide attractive additions to urate-lowering therapies. Other agents commonly used in the treatment of flares, such as NSAIDs, steroids, and colchicine (Colcrys), are not as specific, and have side effects that often limit their usability, Dr. Neogi said.

In the meantime, new research indicates that an inflammasome inhibitor that has already been approved for use in diabetes may provide distinct benefits for the management of gout. An analysis of data from 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes showed that when a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor was added to urate-lowering therapy, the symptoms of gout, including flares, were significantly reduced, resulting in fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

“SGLT-2 inhibitors have anti-inflammatory activity that limits the progression of kidney failure, heart failure, and will also lower the serum uric acid,” said Dr. Terkeltaub. “That’s a major development.”

Dr. Neogi disclosed relationships with Novartis, Pfizer/Lilly, and Regeneron, Dr. Terkeltaub reported relationships with Dyve, Fortress, and Atom, and Dr. Tedeschi reported a relationship with Novartis.

This story was updated on August 14, 2023.

The prevalence of gout is skyrocketing worldwide, and while drugs in the pipeline hold promise for improving the efficacy and safety of treatment, experts warn that “gout remains suboptimally managed.”

“For a really well-understood disease, gout is remarkably undertreated,” said Robert A. Terkeltaub, MD, professor of medicine emeritus at the University of California, San Diego. “This is amazing and depressing because allopurinol has been around for about 60 years or so.”

Randomized, controlled trials show that 80%-90% of patients with gout can be effectively treated to target with existing gout therapies. “Over a year or two, gout flares improve and patients do well,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

By lowering excessive levels of serum urate, current therapies slow the formation of monosodium urate crystals that precipitate within joints and soft tissues, inducing a highly inflammatory local response with superimposed systemic inflammation. These therapies reduce the frequency of excruciatingly painful gout flares.

“Many patients with gout are not taking urate-lowering therapy at all,” Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and head of crystal-induced arthritis diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston, said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, a common problem in gout is treatment inertia,” said Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center.

On a global scale, only one-third of patients with gout are started on urate-lowering therapy, and more than 50% abandon treatment after 1 year. As a result, the effectiveness of urate-lowering therapies in reality is well below 50%, Dr. Terkeltaub said.

“I think gout has been taken less seriously than it should be for quite some time,” he explained in an interview. Gout’s impact on health and well-being is no trivial matter. A recent study showed that a diagnosis of gout was associated with an increased risk of anxiety and depression, and there is new evidence suggesting that gout flares are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, including fatal myocardial infarction and stroke.

“We need drugs that are not just effective but also safe, and we need to incorporate real-world data into our assessment of treatment effectiveness, especially in the presence of comorbidities,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

The prevalence of what used to be thought of as the “disease of kings” has increased 100% over the last 30 years, outstripping world population growth and life expectancy. In the United States, an estimated 5% of adults, or 12 million, have gout. Globally, the number affected exceeds 50 million.

The patient demographics associated with gout have also expanded. Once seen primarily in fleshy, middle-aged men of privilege, gout affects more women, more adults at either end of the age spectrum, and more people in Third World countries than ever before.
 

Management

In the United States, the optimal management of gout remains the subject of debate, with differences in expert opinion reflected in evidence-based clinical guidelines. “We know that the perception of gout is different between primary care physicians, patients, and rheumatologists,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

The 2017 American College of Physicians guidelines for the management of gout recommend a treat-to-symptom approach to urate-lowering therapy. However, the 2020 American College of Rheumatology guidelines reinforce a standard treat-to-target strategy to a serum urate target of < 6.0 mg/dL.

In their report, the ACR guidelines’ authors stated that the use of urate-lowering therapy for gout has not increased in the last decade. Research shows that adherence to treatment for gout continues to be the lowest among seven common chronic medical conditions, including hypertension and seizure disorders, they said.

Some physicians don’t recommend urate-lowering medication to their patients with gout, and others don’t up-titrate it sufficiently to meet the recommended serum urate target, said Dr. Tedeschi. The latter “can require increasing the dose of allopurinol well beyond the 300 mg that often seems the landing point for many patients with gout,” she pointed out.

In fact, it can take up to 800 mg a day of allopurinol – less in patients with moderate to severe kidney disease – to reduce the symptom burden in gout. And it can take a year or longer of drug testing and titration to reach the optimal serum urate target. Paradoxically, gout flares usually get worse during this time.

“We need to reduce the time it takes to get the patient to the serum urate target, and simplify regimens with once-a-day dosing,” Dr. Terkeltaub said. “We also need greater precision so that we can get a home run, hitting the serum urate target the first or second visit, with minimal dose titration.”

Clinician education is important, but education alone is not enough, Dr. Neogi emphasized. “Just as clinicians treat-to-target in other conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, or titrate warfarin to maintain a certain level of anticoagulation, gout must be monitored and treatments adjusted accordingly,” she said.

Practice changes, such as partnering with nursing or pharmacy, may help facilitate in-clinic dose titration, “much like a warfarin clinic,” Dr. Neogi suggested.

That’s exactly what Dr. Terkeltaub has done. Overwhelmed by the number of gout consults, Dr. Terkeltaub and his team set up a pharmacist-managed, rheumatology-supervised clinic to care for gout patients remotely. The model has been very successful, he said. Nurses and clinical pharmacists educate the patients and manage their lab testing and prescriptions, all according to ACR guidelines.

The treatment of gout has become more complex, with a greater risk of drug complications and interactions, particularly in older patients with comorbid diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart disease. Many of the patients he sees are already on “10, 15, or 20 other medications,” Dr. Terkeltaub noted.

The steps involved in the titration of urate-lowering therapy also complicate the treatment of gout, making it impractical for many patients and impossible for others whose access to primary care is limited to one or two visits a year. The process of drug titration, with steadily increasing doses, can make patients anxious about the possibility of being overmedicated. Taking a drug every day, even when joints feel “normal,” can also increase the risk of nonadherence.

“In our conversations with patients with gout, it’s extremely important that we counsel them about the need to take urate-lowering therapy on an ongoing basis to reduce the risk of a gout flare,” said Dr. Tedeschi. “Patients need to have prescription refills available and know to contact the doctor before they run out, so that the chances of having a gout flare are reduced.”
 

Current drugs

Although urate-lowering drugs form the cornerstone of gout therapy, there are only three oral medications available in the United States currently, and all have significant limitations. “We need more drugs, basically,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

• Allopurinol (Zyloprim, Aloprim), an inexpensive xanthine oxidase inhibitor (XOI), is still considered a first-line treatment, but is associated with allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome. In select patients of Asian, African, and Arab descent, this adverse drug reaction can be life-threatening, and is associated with a mortality rate of 20%-25%.
• Febuxostat (Uloric), another XOI, is considered a second-line drug in the treatment of gout, but has carried a boxed warning from the Food and Drug Administration since 2019. It is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death.
• Probenecid (Probalan), a uricosuric agent that increases renal uric acid excretion, is associated with an increased risk of drug interactions and kidney stones, and is rarely used.

Drugs in the pipeline

New drugs in the pipeline offer treatment options that are not only effective but also safe. “This will be important in clinical practice, especially for patients in whom existing medications are contraindicated or there is an increased risk of side effects,” Dr. Neogi said.

Most of these investigational drugs are uricosuric agents that increase the renal excretion of uric acid, reducing serum levels. “The pipeline of new drugs is rich,” Dr. Terkeltaub said. “These drugs are very selective and really work well and they appear to be safe.”

AR882, an inhibitor of selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1), is shaping up to be one of them. In July, results from a phase 2b study of AR882 were presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology in Milan. They showed that in the intent-to-treat population, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy. In the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” said Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, who presented the results.

“More efficacious URAT1 inhibitors that are safe and have a reduced pill burden will be useful additions to current urate lowering options,” Dr. Neogi said.

The recent phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials of the investigational uricase-based infusion therapy SEL-212 in refractory gout have also demonstrated encouraging results, particularly in older patients. In DISSOLVE I, a response rate of 65% was observed in patients 50 years of age and older at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II, a response rate of 47% was reported in older patients.

SEL-212, which is made up of PEGylated uricase (pegadricase) coadministered with sirolimus (Rapamycin), will be submitted for U.S. regulatory approval in the first half of 2024.

In the management of gout flares, interleukin (IL)-1beta and inflammasome inhibitors, both of which target specific inflammatory pathways, could also provide attractive additions to urate-lowering therapies. Other agents commonly used in the treatment of flares, such as NSAIDs, steroids, and colchicine (Colcrys), are not as specific, and have side effects that often limit their usability, Dr. Neogi said.

In the meantime, new research indicates that an inflammasome inhibitor that has already been approved for use in diabetes may provide distinct benefits for the management of gout. An analysis of data from 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes showed that when a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor was added to urate-lowering therapy, the symptoms of gout, including flares, were significantly reduced, resulting in fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

“SGLT-2 inhibitors have anti-inflammatory activity that limits the progression of kidney failure, heart failure, and will also lower the serum uric acid,” said Dr. Terkeltaub. “That’s a major development.”

Dr. Neogi disclosed relationships with Novartis, Pfizer/Lilly, and Regeneron, Dr. Terkeltaub reported relationships with Dyve, Fortress, and Atom, and Dr. Tedeschi reported a relationship with Novartis.

This story was updated on August 14, 2023.

The prevalence of gout is skyrocketing worldwide, and while drugs in the pipeline hold promise for improving the efficacy and safety of treatment, experts warn that “gout remains suboptimally managed.”

“For a really well-understood disease, gout is remarkably undertreated,” said Robert A. Terkeltaub, MD, professor of medicine emeritus at the University of California, San Diego. “This is amazing and depressing because allopurinol has been around for about 60 years or so.”

Randomized, controlled trials show that 80%-90% of patients with gout can be effectively treated to target with existing gout therapies. “Over a year or two, gout flares improve and patients do well,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

By lowering excessive levels of serum urate, current therapies slow the formation of monosodium urate crystals that precipitate within joints and soft tissues, inducing a highly inflammatory local response with superimposed systemic inflammation. These therapies reduce the frequency of excruciatingly painful gout flares.

“Many patients with gout are not taking urate-lowering therapy at all,” Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and head of crystal-induced arthritis diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also in Boston, said in an interview.

“Unfortunately, a common problem in gout is treatment inertia,” said Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center.

On a global scale, only one-third of patients with gout are started on urate-lowering therapy, and more than 50% abandon treatment after 1 year. As a result, the effectiveness of urate-lowering therapies in reality is well below 50%, Dr. Terkeltaub said.

“I think gout has been taken less seriously than it should be for quite some time,” he explained in an interview. Gout’s impact on health and well-being is no trivial matter. A recent study showed that a diagnosis of gout was associated with an increased risk of anxiety and depression, and there is new evidence suggesting that gout flares are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, including fatal myocardial infarction and stroke.

“We need drugs that are not just effective but also safe, and we need to incorporate real-world data into our assessment of treatment effectiveness, especially in the presence of comorbidities,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

The prevalence of what used to be thought of as the “disease of kings” has increased 100% over the last 30 years, outstripping world population growth and life expectancy. In the United States, an estimated 5% of adults, or 12 million, have gout. Globally, the number affected exceeds 50 million.

The patient demographics associated with gout have also expanded. Once seen primarily in fleshy, middle-aged men of privilege, gout affects more women, more adults at either end of the age spectrum, and more people in Third World countries than ever before.
 

Management

In the United States, the optimal management of gout remains the subject of debate, with differences in expert opinion reflected in evidence-based clinical guidelines. “We know that the perception of gout is different between primary care physicians, patients, and rheumatologists,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

The 2017 American College of Physicians guidelines for the management of gout recommend a treat-to-symptom approach to urate-lowering therapy. However, the 2020 American College of Rheumatology guidelines reinforce a standard treat-to-target strategy to a serum urate target of < 6.0 mg/dL.

In their report, the ACR guidelines’ authors stated that the use of urate-lowering therapy for gout has not increased in the last decade. Research shows that adherence to treatment for gout continues to be the lowest among seven common chronic medical conditions, including hypertension and seizure disorders, they said.

Some physicians don’t recommend urate-lowering medication to their patients with gout, and others don’t up-titrate it sufficiently to meet the recommended serum urate target, said Dr. Tedeschi. The latter “can require increasing the dose of allopurinol well beyond the 300 mg that often seems the landing point for many patients with gout,” she pointed out.

In fact, it can take up to 800 mg a day of allopurinol – less in patients with moderate to severe kidney disease – to reduce the symptom burden in gout. And it can take a year or longer of drug testing and titration to reach the optimal serum urate target. Paradoxically, gout flares usually get worse during this time.

“We need to reduce the time it takes to get the patient to the serum urate target, and simplify regimens with once-a-day dosing,” Dr. Terkeltaub said. “We also need greater precision so that we can get a home run, hitting the serum urate target the first or second visit, with minimal dose titration.”

Clinician education is important, but education alone is not enough, Dr. Neogi emphasized. “Just as clinicians treat-to-target in other conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, or titrate warfarin to maintain a certain level of anticoagulation, gout must be monitored and treatments adjusted accordingly,” she said.

Practice changes, such as partnering with nursing or pharmacy, may help facilitate in-clinic dose titration, “much like a warfarin clinic,” Dr. Neogi suggested.

That’s exactly what Dr. Terkeltaub has done. Overwhelmed by the number of gout consults, Dr. Terkeltaub and his team set up a pharmacist-managed, rheumatology-supervised clinic to care for gout patients remotely. The model has been very successful, he said. Nurses and clinical pharmacists educate the patients and manage their lab testing and prescriptions, all according to ACR guidelines.

The treatment of gout has become more complex, with a greater risk of drug complications and interactions, particularly in older patients with comorbid diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart disease. Many of the patients he sees are already on “10, 15, or 20 other medications,” Dr. Terkeltaub noted.

The steps involved in the titration of urate-lowering therapy also complicate the treatment of gout, making it impractical for many patients and impossible for others whose access to primary care is limited to one or two visits a year. The process of drug titration, with steadily increasing doses, can make patients anxious about the possibility of being overmedicated. Taking a drug every day, even when joints feel “normal,” can also increase the risk of nonadherence.

“In our conversations with patients with gout, it’s extremely important that we counsel them about the need to take urate-lowering therapy on an ongoing basis to reduce the risk of a gout flare,” said Dr. Tedeschi. “Patients need to have prescription refills available and know to contact the doctor before they run out, so that the chances of having a gout flare are reduced.”
 

Current drugs

Although urate-lowering drugs form the cornerstone of gout therapy, there are only three oral medications available in the United States currently, and all have significant limitations. “We need more drugs, basically,” Dr. Terkeltaub said.

• Allopurinol (Zyloprim, Aloprim), an inexpensive xanthine oxidase inhibitor (XOI), is still considered a first-line treatment, but is associated with allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome. In select patients of Asian, African, and Arab descent, this adverse drug reaction can be life-threatening, and is associated with a mortality rate of 20%-25%.
• Febuxostat (Uloric), another XOI, is considered a second-line drug in the treatment of gout, but has carried a boxed warning from the Food and Drug Administration since 2019. It is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death.
• Probenecid (Probalan), a uricosuric agent that increases renal uric acid excretion, is associated with an increased risk of drug interactions and kidney stones, and is rarely used.

Drugs in the pipeline

New drugs in the pipeline offer treatment options that are not only effective but also safe. “This will be important in clinical practice, especially for patients in whom existing medications are contraindicated or there is an increased risk of side effects,” Dr. Neogi said.

Most of these investigational drugs are uricosuric agents that increase the renal excretion of uric acid, reducing serum levels. “The pipeline of new drugs is rich,” Dr. Terkeltaub said. “These drugs are very selective and really work well and they appear to be safe.”

AR882, an inhibitor of selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1), is shaping up to be one of them. In July, results from a phase 2b study of AR882 were presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology in Milan. They showed that in the intent-to-treat population, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy. In the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” said Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, who presented the results.

“More efficacious URAT1 inhibitors that are safe and have a reduced pill burden will be useful additions to current urate lowering options,” Dr. Neogi said.

The recent phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials of the investigational uricase-based infusion therapy SEL-212 in refractory gout have also demonstrated encouraging results, particularly in older patients. In DISSOLVE I, a response rate of 65% was observed in patients 50 years of age and older at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II, a response rate of 47% was reported in older patients.

SEL-212, which is made up of PEGylated uricase (pegadricase) coadministered with sirolimus (Rapamycin), will be submitted for U.S. regulatory approval in the first half of 2024.

In the management of gout flares, interleukin (IL)-1beta and inflammasome inhibitors, both of which target specific inflammatory pathways, could also provide attractive additions to urate-lowering therapies. Other agents commonly used in the treatment of flares, such as NSAIDs, steroids, and colchicine (Colcrys), are not as specific, and have side effects that often limit their usability, Dr. Neogi said.

In the meantime, new research indicates that an inflammasome inhibitor that has already been approved for use in diabetes may provide distinct benefits for the management of gout. An analysis of data from 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes showed that when a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor was added to urate-lowering therapy, the symptoms of gout, including flares, were significantly reduced, resulting in fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

“SGLT-2 inhibitors have anti-inflammatory activity that limits the progression of kidney failure, heart failure, and will also lower the serum uric acid,” said Dr. Terkeltaub. “That’s a major development.”

Dr. Neogi disclosed relationships with Novartis, Pfizer/Lilly, and Regeneron, Dr. Terkeltaub reported relationships with Dyve, Fortress, and Atom, and Dr. Tedeschi reported a relationship with Novartis.

This story was updated on August 14, 2023.

Antigephyrin autoantibodies have been tied to lower gastrointestinal dysfunction, such as severe constipation and distention, in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), new research suggests. Researchers also found that gephyrin is expressed in the patient’s enteric nervous system (ENS), which regulates gut motility.

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

“While there are many antibodies that are helpful in identifying patients at risk for extraintestinal complications of this disease, markers that identify patients at higher risk for gastrointestinal complications are limited. Furthermore, the biological mechanisms that cause and perpetuate the progression of gastrointestinal disease in scleroderma are not well understood, making it challenging to distinguish between patients whose gastrointestinal disease will progress from those whose GI disease will remain stable/mild,” Zsuzsanna H. McMahan, MD, MHS, told this news organization in an email. Dr. McMahan is co–first author on the study along with Subhash Kulkarni, PhD. They conducted the research with colleagues when they both worked at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md.

Hospital for Special Surgery

When asked for comment, Kimberly Lakin, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, called the study “interesting and novel.”

“Not only did [antigephyrin antibodies] correlate with the presence of lower GI symptoms, but also higher levels of antibodies correlated with worse lower GI symptoms. This suggests that not only could this antibody be used to predict who may have constipation and potentially need more aggressive GI interventions, but it may also be useful in quantifying GI severity in systemic sclerosis, although more research is still needed,” said Dr. Lakin, who was not involved with the research.

The study was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In the cross-sectional study, researchers identified gephyrin as an autoantigen in sera from a single patient with SSc by isolating it from immunoprecipitations performed with murine myenteric plexus neuron lysates, and then characterizing it by mass spectrometry and validating it in further assays. That patient had GI dysfunction but no defined SSc-associated autoantibodies.

Dr. McMahan and colleagues then investigated the prevalence of the autoantibody by screening the sera of 188 patients with SSc who presented consecutively to the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center between April 2016 and August 2017, as well as 40 controls, and compared GI symptom severity between antibody-positive and antibody-negative patients with SSc.

A total of 16 (8.5%) of the 188 patients with SSc had antigephyrin antibodies, compared with none of the controls. Of these 16 patients, 4 had no other defined SSc antibodies. In the SSc cohort, severe constipation was more common in antigephyrin antibody–positive patients, compared with antibody-negative patients (46% vs. 15%). Antibody-positive patients also had higher constipation scores, and severe distension and bloating occurred in the antibody-positive group more than twice as often (54% vs. 25%).

Patients with severe constipation, distention, and bloating had higher antigephyrin antibody levels. After adjusting for confounders such as disease duration, patients with severe constipation were nearly five times as likely (odds ratio, 4.74; P = .010) to be antigephyrin antibody–positive, and patients with severe distention and bloating were nearly four times as likely (OR, 3.71; P = .027) to be antibody-positive.

Last, the authors showed via immunohistochemistry that gephyrin is expressed in the myenteric ganglia of human GI tissue.

“Gastrointestinal function is highly regulated by the ENS, so it is interesting that antibodies that target a protein expressed by ENS cells (gephyrin) were identified in patients with scleroderma who have severe lower bowel dysfunction,” said Dr. McMahan, who is associate professor in the division of rheumatology and codirector of the scleroderma program at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. “Gephyrin is a key mediator of normal communications between nerves in the gut, so it is tantalizing to speculate that autoimmune-mediated disruption (e.g., an inhibitory or blocking antibody) in neural (ENS) communications in the gut might lead to impaired bowel transit and prominent constipation.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and other NIH grants, as well as the Scleroderma Research Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Jerome L. Greene Foundation, Martha McCrory Professorship, and Chresanthe Stauraluakis Memorial Discovery Fund. The study authors and Dr. Lakin report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Antigephyrin autoantibodies have been tied to lower gastrointestinal dysfunction, such as severe constipation and distention, in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), new research suggests. Researchers also found that gephyrin is expressed in the patient’s enteric nervous system (ENS), which regulates gut motility.

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

“While there are many antibodies that are helpful in identifying patients at risk for extraintestinal complications of this disease, markers that identify patients at higher risk for gastrointestinal complications are limited. Furthermore, the biological mechanisms that cause and perpetuate the progression of gastrointestinal disease in scleroderma are not well understood, making it challenging to distinguish between patients whose gastrointestinal disease will progress from those whose GI disease will remain stable/mild,” Zsuzsanna H. McMahan, MD, MHS, told this news organization in an email. Dr. McMahan is co–first author on the study along with Subhash Kulkarni, PhD. They conducted the research with colleagues when they both worked at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md.

Hospital for Special Surgery

When asked for comment, Kimberly Lakin, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, called the study “interesting and novel.”

“Not only did [antigephyrin antibodies] correlate with the presence of lower GI symptoms, but also higher levels of antibodies correlated with worse lower GI symptoms. This suggests that not only could this antibody be used to predict who may have constipation and potentially need more aggressive GI interventions, but it may also be useful in quantifying GI severity in systemic sclerosis, although more research is still needed,” said Dr. Lakin, who was not involved with the research.

The study was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In the cross-sectional study, researchers identified gephyrin as an autoantigen in sera from a single patient with SSc by isolating it from immunoprecipitations performed with murine myenteric plexus neuron lysates, and then characterizing it by mass spectrometry and validating it in further assays. That patient had GI dysfunction but no defined SSc-associated autoantibodies.

Dr. McMahan and colleagues then investigated the prevalence of the autoantibody by screening the sera of 188 patients with SSc who presented consecutively to the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center between April 2016 and August 2017, as well as 40 controls, and compared GI symptom severity between antibody-positive and antibody-negative patients with SSc.

A total of 16 (8.5%) of the 188 patients with SSc had antigephyrin antibodies, compared with none of the controls. Of these 16 patients, 4 had no other defined SSc antibodies. In the SSc cohort, severe constipation was more common in antigephyrin antibody–positive patients, compared with antibody-negative patients (46% vs. 15%). Antibody-positive patients also had higher constipation scores, and severe distension and bloating occurred in the antibody-positive group more than twice as often (54% vs. 25%).

Patients with severe constipation, distention, and bloating had higher antigephyrin antibody levels. After adjusting for confounders such as disease duration, patients with severe constipation were nearly five times as likely (odds ratio, 4.74; P = .010) to be antigephyrin antibody–positive, and patients with severe distention and bloating were nearly four times as likely (OR, 3.71; P = .027) to be antibody-positive.

Last, the authors showed via immunohistochemistry that gephyrin is expressed in the myenteric ganglia of human GI tissue.

“Gastrointestinal function is highly regulated by the ENS, so it is interesting that antibodies that target a protein expressed by ENS cells (gephyrin) were identified in patients with scleroderma who have severe lower bowel dysfunction,” said Dr. McMahan, who is associate professor in the division of rheumatology and codirector of the scleroderma program at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. “Gephyrin is a key mediator of normal communications between nerves in the gut, so it is tantalizing to speculate that autoimmune-mediated disruption (e.g., an inhibitory or blocking antibody) in neural (ENS) communications in the gut might lead to impaired bowel transit and prominent constipation.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and other NIH grants, as well as the Scleroderma Research Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Jerome L. Greene Foundation, Martha McCrory Professorship, and Chresanthe Stauraluakis Memorial Discovery Fund. The study authors and Dr. Lakin report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Antigephyrin autoantibodies have been tied to lower gastrointestinal dysfunction, such as severe constipation and distention, in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), new research suggests. Researchers also found that gephyrin is expressed in the patient’s enteric nervous system (ENS), which regulates gut motility.

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

“While there are many antibodies that are helpful in identifying patients at risk for extraintestinal complications of this disease, markers that identify patients at higher risk for gastrointestinal complications are limited. Furthermore, the biological mechanisms that cause and perpetuate the progression of gastrointestinal disease in scleroderma are not well understood, making it challenging to distinguish between patients whose gastrointestinal disease will progress from those whose GI disease will remain stable/mild,” Zsuzsanna H. McMahan, MD, MHS, told this news organization in an email. Dr. McMahan is co–first author on the study along with Subhash Kulkarni, PhD. They conducted the research with colleagues when they both worked at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md.

Hospital for Special Surgery

When asked for comment, Kimberly Lakin, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, called the study “interesting and novel.”

“Not only did [antigephyrin antibodies] correlate with the presence of lower GI symptoms, but also higher levels of antibodies correlated with worse lower GI symptoms. This suggests that not only could this antibody be used to predict who may have constipation and potentially need more aggressive GI interventions, but it may also be useful in quantifying GI severity in systemic sclerosis, although more research is still needed,” said Dr. Lakin, who was not involved with the research.

The study was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

In the cross-sectional study, researchers identified gephyrin as an autoantigen in sera from a single patient with SSc by isolating it from immunoprecipitations performed with murine myenteric plexus neuron lysates, and then characterizing it by mass spectrometry and validating it in further assays. That patient had GI dysfunction but no defined SSc-associated autoantibodies.

Dr. McMahan and colleagues then investigated the prevalence of the autoantibody by screening the sera of 188 patients with SSc who presented consecutively to the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center between April 2016 and August 2017, as well as 40 controls, and compared GI symptom severity between antibody-positive and antibody-negative patients with SSc.

A total of 16 (8.5%) of the 188 patients with SSc had antigephyrin antibodies, compared with none of the controls. Of these 16 patients, 4 had no other defined SSc antibodies. In the SSc cohort, severe constipation was more common in antigephyrin antibody–positive patients, compared with antibody-negative patients (46% vs. 15%). Antibody-positive patients also had higher constipation scores, and severe distension and bloating occurred in the antibody-positive group more than twice as often (54% vs. 25%).

Patients with severe constipation, distention, and bloating had higher antigephyrin antibody levels. After adjusting for confounders such as disease duration, patients with severe constipation were nearly five times as likely (odds ratio, 4.74; P = .010) to be antigephyrin antibody–positive, and patients with severe distention and bloating were nearly four times as likely (OR, 3.71; P = .027) to be antibody-positive.

Last, the authors showed via immunohistochemistry that gephyrin is expressed in the myenteric ganglia of human GI tissue.

“Gastrointestinal function is highly regulated by the ENS, so it is interesting that antibodies that target a protein expressed by ENS cells (gephyrin) were identified in patients with scleroderma who have severe lower bowel dysfunction,” said Dr. McMahan, who is associate professor in the division of rheumatology and codirector of the scleroderma program at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. “Gephyrin is a key mediator of normal communications between nerves in the gut, so it is tantalizing to speculate that autoimmune-mediated disruption (e.g., an inhibitory or blocking antibody) in neural (ENS) communications in the gut might lead to impaired bowel transit and prominent constipation.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and other NIH grants, as well as the Scleroderma Research Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, Jerome L. Greene Foundation, Martha McCrory Professorship, and Chresanthe Stauraluakis Memorial Discovery Fund. The study authors and Dr. Lakin report no relevant financial relationships.
 

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