Psoriatic Arthritis ICYMI

Patients with psoriatic disease are known to be at increased risk of heart failure. A new cohort study suggests that part of the risk may be attributable to the disease itself, not just traditional cardiovascular risk factors like obesity and metabolic abnormalities that are common comorbidities in psoriatic disease. There may also be differences in the risk profiles of patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart failure.

Courtesy Dr. Sahil Koppikar

Previous studies have shown that heart failure risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis is 32% higher than in the general population, and with psoriasis, it is 22%-53% higher. However, those studies were based on administrative databases with no clinical information to back up the accuracy of diagnoses, Sahil Koppikar, MD, from the University of Toronto, said during a presentation of the research at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

The finding that psoriatic disease inflammation may be a direct risk factor for heart failure might be good news for patients. “By controlling inflammation, we may be able to reduce the risk of heart failure in these patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

During a question and answer session, discussant Deepak Jadon, MBChB, PhD, director of the rheumatology research unit and lead for psoriatic arthritis at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England), noted that patients with conditions like lupus and systemic sclerosis may undergo regular echocardiograms, chest CTs, or other surveillance, and asked if Dr. Koppikar could recommend a framework for similar surveillance in psoriatic arthritis.

“With the current data we have, I don’t know if we can make recommendations. What we learned from our study is that patients that have elevated inflammatory disease, with elevated inflammatory markers for a prolonged period of time, were at higher risk than [if they had elevated markers only] just before the event. So poorly controlled patients might be something you should be more aware of, and maybe get cardiology involved. But I don’t think it’s something we should be doing right now for all patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

The researchers analyzed data from a psoriasis cohort at the University of Toronto that began in 2006. Every 6-12 months, they were assessed by a rheumatologist and underwent imaging assessment and laboratory tests. The primary outcome of the study was the first heart failure event, which the researchers identified by linking the cohort database with provincial hospitalization and mortality databases. They verified all events by examining medical records. They also assessed the association between heart failure and disease activity over time rather than just before the event.

The analysis included 1,994 patients. A total of 64 new heart failure events occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (2.85 per 1,000 person-years), including 38 ischemic and 26 nonischemic events. A multivariate analysis found that heart failure was associated with adjusted mean (AM) tender joint count (hazard ratio, 1.51; P = .02), AM swollen joint count (HR, 1.82; P = .04), AM erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 1.26; P = .009), AM C-reactive protein (HR, 1.27; P = .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 1.95; P = .001), and minimum disease activity state (HR, 0.40; P = .04). The multivariate analysis was adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, ischemic heart disease, lipids, and smoking status.

When the researchers separated the analysis into ischemic and nonischemic heart failure, some interesting associations popped out. Nonischemic heart failure was associated with AM tender joint count (HR, 1.83; P = .004), but ischemic heart failure was not. Other factors associated with nonischemic but not ischemic heart failure included AM swollen joint count (HR, 3.56; P = .0003), damaged joint count (HR, 1.29; P = .04), and pain score (HR, 1.22; P = .047). Minimum disease activity had the opposite result: It was associated with only ischemic heart failure (HR, 0.40; P = .04).

The study cohort more closely resembles a rheumatology cohort than a dermatology cohort, and it suggests that patients with psoriatic arthritis have different cardiovascular comorbidities than those with pure psoriasis, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany). “It shows how it important it is to look for comorbidity in the rheumatologic setting,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The study was supported by the Arthritis Society. Dr. Koppikar and Dr. Thaçi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Koppikar S et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Patients with psoriatic disease are known to be at increased risk of heart failure. A new cohort study suggests that part of the risk may be attributable to the disease itself, not just traditional cardiovascular risk factors like obesity and metabolic abnormalities that are common comorbidities in psoriatic disease. There may also be differences in the risk profiles of patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart failure.

Courtesy Dr. Sahil Koppikar

Previous studies have shown that heart failure risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis is 32% higher than in the general population, and with psoriasis, it is 22%-53% higher. However, those studies were based on administrative databases with no clinical information to back up the accuracy of diagnoses, Sahil Koppikar, MD, from the University of Toronto, said during a presentation of the research at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

The finding that psoriatic disease inflammation may be a direct risk factor for heart failure might be good news for patients. “By controlling inflammation, we may be able to reduce the risk of heart failure in these patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

During a question and answer session, discussant Deepak Jadon, MBChB, PhD, director of the rheumatology research unit and lead for psoriatic arthritis at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England), noted that patients with conditions like lupus and systemic sclerosis may undergo regular echocardiograms, chest CTs, or other surveillance, and asked if Dr. Koppikar could recommend a framework for similar surveillance in psoriatic arthritis.

“With the current data we have, I don’t know if we can make recommendations. What we learned from our study is that patients that have elevated inflammatory disease, with elevated inflammatory markers for a prolonged period of time, were at higher risk than [if they had elevated markers only] just before the event. So poorly controlled patients might be something you should be more aware of, and maybe get cardiology involved. But I don’t think it’s something we should be doing right now for all patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

The researchers analyzed data from a psoriasis cohort at the University of Toronto that began in 2006. Every 6-12 months, they were assessed by a rheumatologist and underwent imaging assessment and laboratory tests. The primary outcome of the study was the first heart failure event, which the researchers identified by linking the cohort database with provincial hospitalization and mortality databases. They verified all events by examining medical records. They also assessed the association between heart failure and disease activity over time rather than just before the event.

The analysis included 1,994 patients. A total of 64 new heart failure events occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (2.85 per 1,000 person-years), including 38 ischemic and 26 nonischemic events. A multivariate analysis found that heart failure was associated with adjusted mean (AM) tender joint count (hazard ratio, 1.51; P = .02), AM swollen joint count (HR, 1.82; P = .04), AM erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 1.26; P = .009), AM C-reactive protein (HR, 1.27; P = .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 1.95; P = .001), and minimum disease activity state (HR, 0.40; P = .04). The multivariate analysis was adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, ischemic heart disease, lipids, and smoking status.

When the researchers separated the analysis into ischemic and nonischemic heart failure, some interesting associations popped out. Nonischemic heart failure was associated with AM tender joint count (HR, 1.83; P = .004), but ischemic heart failure was not. Other factors associated with nonischemic but not ischemic heart failure included AM swollen joint count (HR, 3.56; P = .0003), damaged joint count (HR, 1.29; P = .04), and pain score (HR, 1.22; P = .047). Minimum disease activity had the opposite result: It was associated with only ischemic heart failure (HR, 0.40; P = .04).

The study cohort more closely resembles a rheumatology cohort than a dermatology cohort, and it suggests that patients with psoriatic arthritis have different cardiovascular comorbidities than those with pure psoriasis, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany). “It shows how it important it is to look for comorbidity in the rheumatologic setting,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The study was supported by the Arthritis Society. Dr. Koppikar and Dr. Thaçi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Koppikar S et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Patients with psoriatic disease are known to be at increased risk of heart failure. A new cohort study suggests that part of the risk may be attributable to the disease itself, not just traditional cardiovascular risk factors like obesity and metabolic abnormalities that are common comorbidities in psoriatic disease. There may also be differences in the risk profiles of patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart failure.

Courtesy Dr. Sahil Koppikar

Previous studies have shown that heart failure risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis is 32% higher than in the general population, and with psoriasis, it is 22%-53% higher. However, those studies were based on administrative databases with no clinical information to back up the accuracy of diagnoses, Sahil Koppikar, MD, from the University of Toronto, said during a presentation of the research at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

The finding that psoriatic disease inflammation may be a direct risk factor for heart failure might be good news for patients. “By controlling inflammation, we may be able to reduce the risk of heart failure in these patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

During a question and answer session, discussant Deepak Jadon, MBChB, PhD, director of the rheumatology research unit and lead for psoriatic arthritis at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England), noted that patients with conditions like lupus and systemic sclerosis may undergo regular echocardiograms, chest CTs, or other surveillance, and asked if Dr. Koppikar could recommend a framework for similar surveillance in psoriatic arthritis.

“With the current data we have, I don’t know if we can make recommendations. What we learned from our study is that patients that have elevated inflammatory disease, with elevated inflammatory markers for a prolonged period of time, were at higher risk than [if they had elevated markers only] just before the event. So poorly controlled patients might be something you should be more aware of, and maybe get cardiology involved. But I don’t think it’s something we should be doing right now for all patients,” Dr. Koppikar said.

The researchers analyzed data from a psoriasis cohort at the University of Toronto that began in 2006. Every 6-12 months, they were assessed by a rheumatologist and underwent imaging assessment and laboratory tests. The primary outcome of the study was the first heart failure event, which the researchers identified by linking the cohort database with provincial hospitalization and mortality databases. They verified all events by examining medical records. They also assessed the association between heart failure and disease activity over time rather than just before the event.

The analysis included 1,994 patients. A total of 64 new heart failure events occurred during a mean follow-up of 11.3 years (2.85 per 1,000 person-years), including 38 ischemic and 26 nonischemic events. A multivariate analysis found that heart failure was associated with adjusted mean (AM) tender joint count (hazard ratio, 1.51; P = .02), AM swollen joint count (HR, 1.82; P = .04), AM erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 1.26; P = .009), AM C-reactive protein (HR, 1.27; P = .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 1.95; P = .001), and minimum disease activity state (HR, 0.40; P = .04). The multivariate analysis was adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body mass index, ischemic heart disease, lipids, and smoking status.

When the researchers separated the analysis into ischemic and nonischemic heart failure, some interesting associations popped out. Nonischemic heart failure was associated with AM tender joint count (HR, 1.83; P = .004), but ischemic heart failure was not. Other factors associated with nonischemic but not ischemic heart failure included AM swollen joint count (HR, 3.56; P = .0003), damaged joint count (HR, 1.29; P = .04), and pain score (HR, 1.22; P = .047). Minimum disease activity had the opposite result: It was associated with only ischemic heart failure (HR, 0.40; P = .04).

The study cohort more closely resembles a rheumatology cohort than a dermatology cohort, and it suggests that patients with psoriatic arthritis have different cardiovascular comorbidities than those with pure psoriasis, according to Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany). “It shows how it important it is to look for comorbidity in the rheumatologic setting,” Dr. Thaçi said in an interview.

The study was supported by the Arthritis Society. Dr. Koppikar and Dr. Thaçi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Koppikar S et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

COVID-19 has posed serious questions for patients with psoriatic disease and the clinicians who treat them. Both have serious concerns over whether psoriasis or the medications used to treat it pose additional risk for contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes with illness.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, experts gathered to discuss these concerns and what is known about the special risk factors for psoriatic disease patients.

Studies from a few registries have been done already among patients with autoimmune disease, and the results so far suggest that patients may be able to breathe a little easier. “I don’t see any data that suggests that use of immunosuppressives or having autoimmune disease increases your risk of acquiring it. I think most of the risk is driven by risk of exposure,” said Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a professor of public health, infectious diseases, ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, during a presentation.

That assertion was reinforced by data presented by Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at New York University Langone Health. Her group created the Web-Based Assessment of Autoimmune, Immune-Mediated, and Rheumatic Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (WARCOV) cohort study to address the question of whether patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease, should discontinue or modify their immunotherapy regimens in the face of potential exposure to COVID-19.

To date, the study has data on 1,122 patients; 604 with inflammatory arthritis, 128 of whom have tested positive for COVID-19. The team established a cohort using the first 86 IMID patients confirmed to have contracted COVID-19. The hospitalization rate was 16% overall, and use of corticosteroids was associated with increased hospitalization risk. A follow-up analysis looking at the first 103 inflammatory arthritis patients who contracted COVID-19 showed a hospitalization rate of 26% and a mortality of 4%. That hospitalization rate is similar to the general hospitalization rate estimated by the New York Department of Health, Dr. Haberman said in her presentation.

Risk factors associated with hospitalization included being older and having asthma or COPD, which is similar to the general population. Use of oral glucocorticoids was linked to a big increase in risk for hospitalization, even with doses less than 10 mg prednisone daily (odds ratio, 14.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-57.70). There were no links between use of any cytokine therapy and risk, but use of TNF inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.97), while use of JAK inhibitors was associated with greater risk (OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 1.68-23.69). The latter result is tentative because of a small sample size, and it was driven largely by the experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Another study, run by the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, looked at 600 patients with rheumatic disease from 40 countries, and “found no smoking gun,” said Leonard Calabrese, DO, who leads the Cleveland Clinic’s section of clinical immunology, during his presentation. “People can develop this when they’re on hydroxychloroquine. They seem to do not remarkably bad or remarkably good. There is no adverse signal for biologics, but being on prednisone [at a dose of] more than 10 mg is not great,” said Dr. Calabrese, who also noted that other publications have supported these conclusions.

So given these findings, how should clinicians address patient concerns? In the absence of probable exposure, “we say it’s better to have a well-controlled IMID on therapy than a poorly-controlled IMID on submaximal therapy. We say stick to therapy and try to wean the prednisone down as low as possible,” Dr. Calabrese said.

More controversially, what should patients do if they have had a significant exposure, such as a close proximity, prolonged exposure encounter with an individual with documented COVID-19, or at high-risk of disease? Dr. Calabrese noted that the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines recommend that low-level immunomodulation can be continued, “with an asterisk if it’s hydroxychloroquine, and it is in most of our minds now that we know that it is not effective, and the toxicity in the COVID setting is still being worked out,” he said.

With respect to other immunosuppressants, the ACR recommends stopping them temporarily, although IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances. Resumption of the therapeutics can resume after a negative COVID test or completion of a 2-week observation period.

When patients contract COVID-19, antimalarial medications can be continued because they have been studied. “But medium-level immunomodulators, in particular methotrexate, I have grave concerns about because it can inhibit the adaptive immune response and antibody formation,” he said. COVID-19 is a serious infection, and all serious biologics have a package insert saying to stop them in a serious infection. Again, IL-6 inhibitors may be considered an exception in the right circumstances. When to resume these medications remains unknown. “I think that’s a work in progress. Test-based versus clinic-based strategies are a matter of controversy,” Dr. Calabrese said.

Ultimately, the question of what to do with immunosuppressive therapies in this population will continue to be a challenge. “The only good answer is to follow the rules of social distancing and to wear a mask,” said Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, a cochair of the department of dermatology and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

COVID-19 has posed serious questions for patients with psoriatic disease and the clinicians who treat them. Both have serious concerns over whether psoriasis or the medications used to treat it pose additional risk for contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes with illness.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, experts gathered to discuss these concerns and what is known about the special risk factors for psoriatic disease patients.

Studies from a few registries have been done already among patients with autoimmune disease, and the results so far suggest that patients may be able to breathe a little easier. “I don’t see any data that suggests that use of immunosuppressives or having autoimmune disease increases your risk of acquiring it. I think most of the risk is driven by risk of exposure,” said Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a professor of public health, infectious diseases, ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, during a presentation.

That assertion was reinforced by data presented by Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at New York University Langone Health. Her group created the Web-Based Assessment of Autoimmune, Immune-Mediated, and Rheumatic Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (WARCOV) cohort study to address the question of whether patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease, should discontinue or modify their immunotherapy regimens in the face of potential exposure to COVID-19.

To date, the study has data on 1,122 patients; 604 with inflammatory arthritis, 128 of whom have tested positive for COVID-19. The team established a cohort using the first 86 IMID patients confirmed to have contracted COVID-19. The hospitalization rate was 16% overall, and use of corticosteroids was associated with increased hospitalization risk. A follow-up analysis looking at the first 103 inflammatory arthritis patients who contracted COVID-19 showed a hospitalization rate of 26% and a mortality of 4%. That hospitalization rate is similar to the general hospitalization rate estimated by the New York Department of Health, Dr. Haberman said in her presentation.

Risk factors associated with hospitalization included being older and having asthma or COPD, which is similar to the general population. Use of oral glucocorticoids was linked to a big increase in risk for hospitalization, even with doses less than 10 mg prednisone daily (odds ratio, 14.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-57.70). There were no links between use of any cytokine therapy and risk, but use of TNF inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.97), while use of JAK inhibitors was associated with greater risk (OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 1.68-23.69). The latter result is tentative because of a small sample size, and it was driven largely by the experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Another study, run by the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, looked at 600 patients with rheumatic disease from 40 countries, and “found no smoking gun,” said Leonard Calabrese, DO, who leads the Cleveland Clinic’s section of clinical immunology, during his presentation. “People can develop this when they’re on hydroxychloroquine. They seem to do not remarkably bad or remarkably good. There is no adverse signal for biologics, but being on prednisone [at a dose of] more than 10 mg is not great,” said Dr. Calabrese, who also noted that other publications have supported these conclusions.

So given these findings, how should clinicians address patient concerns? In the absence of probable exposure, “we say it’s better to have a well-controlled IMID on therapy than a poorly-controlled IMID on submaximal therapy. We say stick to therapy and try to wean the prednisone down as low as possible,” Dr. Calabrese said.

More controversially, what should patients do if they have had a significant exposure, such as a close proximity, prolonged exposure encounter with an individual with documented COVID-19, or at high-risk of disease? Dr. Calabrese noted that the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines recommend that low-level immunomodulation can be continued, “with an asterisk if it’s hydroxychloroquine, and it is in most of our minds now that we know that it is not effective, and the toxicity in the COVID setting is still being worked out,” he said.

With respect to other immunosuppressants, the ACR recommends stopping them temporarily, although IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances. Resumption of the therapeutics can resume after a negative COVID test or completion of a 2-week observation period.

When patients contract COVID-19, antimalarial medications can be continued because they have been studied. “But medium-level immunomodulators, in particular methotrexate, I have grave concerns about because it can inhibit the adaptive immune response and antibody formation,” he said. COVID-19 is a serious infection, and all serious biologics have a package insert saying to stop them in a serious infection. Again, IL-6 inhibitors may be considered an exception in the right circumstances. When to resume these medications remains unknown. “I think that’s a work in progress. Test-based versus clinic-based strategies are a matter of controversy,” Dr. Calabrese said.

Ultimately, the question of what to do with immunosuppressive therapies in this population will continue to be a challenge. “The only good answer is to follow the rules of social distancing and to wear a mask,” said Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, a cochair of the department of dermatology and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

COVID-19 has posed serious questions for patients with psoriatic disease and the clinicians who treat them. Both have serious concerns over whether psoriasis or the medications used to treat it pose additional risk for contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes with illness.

At the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, experts gathered to discuss these concerns and what is known about the special risk factors for psoriatic disease patients.

Studies from a few registries have been done already among patients with autoimmune disease, and the results so far suggest that patients may be able to breathe a little easier. “I don’t see any data that suggests that use of immunosuppressives or having autoimmune disease increases your risk of acquiring it. I think most of the risk is driven by risk of exposure,” said Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a professor of public health, infectious diseases, ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, during a presentation.

That assertion was reinforced by data presented by Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at New York University Langone Health. Her group created the Web-Based Assessment of Autoimmune, Immune-Mediated, and Rheumatic Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (WARCOV) cohort study to address the question of whether patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease, should discontinue or modify their immunotherapy regimens in the face of potential exposure to COVID-19.

To date, the study has data on 1,122 patients; 604 with inflammatory arthritis, 128 of whom have tested positive for COVID-19. The team established a cohort using the first 86 IMID patients confirmed to have contracted COVID-19. The hospitalization rate was 16% overall, and use of corticosteroids was associated with increased hospitalization risk. A follow-up analysis looking at the first 103 inflammatory arthritis patients who contracted COVID-19 showed a hospitalization rate of 26% and a mortality of 4%. That hospitalization rate is similar to the general hospitalization rate estimated by the New York Department of Health, Dr. Haberman said in her presentation.

Risk factors associated with hospitalization included being older and having asthma or COPD, which is similar to the general population. Use of oral glucocorticoids was linked to a big increase in risk for hospitalization, even with doses less than 10 mg prednisone daily (odds ratio, 14.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-57.70). There were no links between use of any cytokine therapy and risk, but use of TNF inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.97), while use of JAK inhibitors was associated with greater risk (OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 1.68-23.69). The latter result is tentative because of a small sample size, and it was driven largely by the experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Another study, run by the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, looked at 600 patients with rheumatic disease from 40 countries, and “found no smoking gun,” said Leonard Calabrese, DO, who leads the Cleveland Clinic’s section of clinical immunology, during his presentation. “People can develop this when they’re on hydroxychloroquine. They seem to do not remarkably bad or remarkably good. There is no adverse signal for biologics, but being on prednisone [at a dose of] more than 10 mg is not great,” said Dr. Calabrese, who also noted that other publications have supported these conclusions.

So given these findings, how should clinicians address patient concerns? In the absence of probable exposure, “we say it’s better to have a well-controlled IMID on therapy than a poorly-controlled IMID on submaximal therapy. We say stick to therapy and try to wean the prednisone down as low as possible,” Dr. Calabrese said.

More controversially, what should patients do if they have had a significant exposure, such as a close proximity, prolonged exposure encounter with an individual with documented COVID-19, or at high-risk of disease? Dr. Calabrese noted that the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines recommend that low-level immunomodulation can be continued, “with an asterisk if it’s hydroxychloroquine, and it is in most of our minds now that we know that it is not effective, and the toxicity in the COVID setting is still being worked out,” he said.

With respect to other immunosuppressants, the ACR recommends stopping them temporarily, although IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances. Resumption of the therapeutics can resume after a negative COVID test or completion of a 2-week observation period.

When patients contract COVID-19, antimalarial medications can be continued because they have been studied. “But medium-level immunomodulators, in particular methotrexate, I have grave concerns about because it can inhibit the adaptive immune response and antibody formation,” he said. COVID-19 is a serious infection, and all serious biologics have a package insert saying to stop them in a serious infection. Again, IL-6 inhibitors may be considered an exception in the right circumstances. When to resume these medications remains unknown. “I think that’s a work in progress. Test-based versus clinic-based strategies are a matter of controversy,” Dr. Calabrese said.

Ultimately, the question of what to do with immunosuppressive therapies in this population will continue to be a challenge. “The only good answer is to follow the rules of social distancing and to wear a mask,” said Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, a cochair of the department of dermatology and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Guselkumab is now the second interleukin (IL)–23 inhibitor to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.

The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.

Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.

Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.

Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.

In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.

jevans@mdedge.com

Guselkumab is now the second interleukin (IL)–23 inhibitor to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.

The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.

Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.

Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.

Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.

In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.

jevans@mdedge.com

Guselkumab is now the second interleukin (IL)–23 inhibitor to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.

The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.

Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.

Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.

Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.

In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.

jevans@mdedge.com

Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.

Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.

Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.

DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.

With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.

To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.

About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).

Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.

The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.

Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.

Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.

DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.

With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.

To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.

About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).

Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.

The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.

Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.

Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.

DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.

With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.

To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.

About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).

Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.

The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor risankizumab was decisively more effective than the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab at 52 weeks in a multinational randomized head-to-head trial in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Risankizumab was better tolerated, with a significantly lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events and a lower study dropout rate, Richard B. Warren, MBChB, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In addition, the dosing schedule for risankizumab (Skyrizi) is more convenient, with maintenance dosing by subcutaneous injection once every 12 weeks, compared with monthly for secukinumab (Cosentyx), a biologic for psoriasis considered state-of-the-art not long ago, noted Dr. Warren, a dermatologist at the Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust and the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Center as well as professor of dermatology at the University of Manchester.

The phase 3 IMMERGE trial included 327 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis randomized to risankizumab or secukinumab for 52 weeks at their approved dosing. The trial, conducted mainly in the United States, Canada, and Europe, was open label, but evaluator blinded.

The coprimary endpoints were a 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 90) at weeks 16 and 52. The week 52 PASI 90 response rates were 87% in the risankizumab group and 57% with secukinumab, for a highly significant absolute 30% difference. The week 16 result was a prespecified noninferiority analysis, and here again risankizumab met its mark, with a PASI 90 rate of 74%, statistically noninferior to the 66% rate with secukinumab, even though at that point patients had received only two doses of risankizumab, versus seven doses of secukinumab.

The PASI 100 response rate at 52 weeks, a key secondary endpoint, was 66% with risankizumab and 40% with secukinumab. Another secondary endpoint was achievement of a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – at week 52; the rates were 88% with risankizumab, 58% with secukinumab.

Ninety-two percent of participants randomized to risankizumab completed the full 52-week study, as did 82.8% of the secukinumab group. The nearly 10% absolute lower completion rate in the secukinumab group was driven by a higher rate of lack of efficacy – 4.3%, compared to 0.6% for risankizumab – and a greater incidence of adverse events. Indeed, treatment-emergent adverse events were fourfold more common in the secukinumab arm, with a rate of 4.9%, versus 1.2% with risankizumab, according to Dr. Warren.

He reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to the study sponsor, AbbVie, as well as roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor risankizumab was decisively more effective than the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab at 52 weeks in a multinational randomized head-to-head trial in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Risankizumab was better tolerated, with a significantly lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events and a lower study dropout rate, Richard B. Warren, MBChB, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In addition, the dosing schedule for risankizumab (Skyrizi) is more convenient, with maintenance dosing by subcutaneous injection once every 12 weeks, compared with monthly for secukinumab (Cosentyx), a biologic for psoriasis considered state-of-the-art not long ago, noted Dr. Warren, a dermatologist at the Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust and the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Center as well as professor of dermatology at the University of Manchester.

The phase 3 IMMERGE trial included 327 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis randomized to risankizumab or secukinumab for 52 weeks at their approved dosing. The trial, conducted mainly in the United States, Canada, and Europe, was open label, but evaluator blinded.

The coprimary endpoints were a 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 90) at weeks 16 and 52. The week 52 PASI 90 response rates were 87% in the risankizumab group and 57% with secukinumab, for a highly significant absolute 30% difference. The week 16 result was a prespecified noninferiority analysis, and here again risankizumab met its mark, with a PASI 90 rate of 74%, statistically noninferior to the 66% rate with secukinumab, even though at that point patients had received only two doses of risankizumab, versus seven doses of secukinumab.

The PASI 100 response rate at 52 weeks, a key secondary endpoint, was 66% with risankizumab and 40% with secukinumab. Another secondary endpoint was achievement of a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – at week 52; the rates were 88% with risankizumab, 58% with secukinumab.

Ninety-two percent of participants randomized to risankizumab completed the full 52-week study, as did 82.8% of the secukinumab group. The nearly 10% absolute lower completion rate in the secukinumab group was driven by a higher rate of lack of efficacy – 4.3%, compared to 0.6% for risankizumab – and a greater incidence of adverse events. Indeed, treatment-emergent adverse events were fourfold more common in the secukinumab arm, with a rate of 4.9%, versus 1.2% with risankizumab, according to Dr. Warren.

He reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to the study sponsor, AbbVie, as well as roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor risankizumab was decisively more effective than the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab at 52 weeks in a multinational randomized head-to-head trial in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Risankizumab was better tolerated, with a significantly lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events and a lower study dropout rate, Richard B. Warren, MBChB, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In addition, the dosing schedule for risankizumab (Skyrizi) is more convenient, with maintenance dosing by subcutaneous injection once every 12 weeks, compared with monthly for secukinumab (Cosentyx), a biologic for psoriasis considered state-of-the-art not long ago, noted Dr. Warren, a dermatologist at the Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust and the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Center as well as professor of dermatology at the University of Manchester.

The phase 3 IMMERGE trial included 327 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis randomized to risankizumab or secukinumab for 52 weeks at their approved dosing. The trial, conducted mainly in the United States, Canada, and Europe, was open label, but evaluator blinded.

The coprimary endpoints were a 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 90) at weeks 16 and 52. The week 52 PASI 90 response rates were 87% in the risankizumab group and 57% with secukinumab, for a highly significant absolute 30% difference. The week 16 result was a prespecified noninferiority analysis, and here again risankizumab met its mark, with a PASI 90 rate of 74%, statistically noninferior to the 66% rate with secukinumab, even though at that point patients had received only two doses of risankizumab, versus seven doses of secukinumab.

The PASI 100 response rate at 52 weeks, a key secondary endpoint, was 66% with risankizumab and 40% with secukinumab. Another secondary endpoint was achievement of a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – at week 52; the rates were 88% with risankizumab, 58% with secukinumab.

Ninety-two percent of participants randomized to risankizumab completed the full 52-week study, as did 82.8% of the secukinumab group. The nearly 10% absolute lower completion rate in the secukinumab group was driven by a higher rate of lack of efficacy – 4.3%, compared to 0.6% for risankizumab – and a greater incidence of adverse events. Indeed, treatment-emergent adverse events were fourfold more common in the secukinumab arm, with a rate of 4.9%, versus 1.2% with risankizumab, according to Dr. Warren.

He reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to the study sponsor, AbbVie, as well as roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.