User login
Quality standards aim to improve worldwide spondyloarthritis care
MADRID – Referral, treatment, and rapid access to care are three of nine new quality standards developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) with the aim of improving the management of adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The other quality standards look at how to improve patient education and self-management and call for annual review, Uta Kiltz, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Several unmet needs such as delayed diagnosis and restricted access to treatment have been described in patients with axSpA worldwide,” Dr. Kiltz observed in an interview. Results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77[3]:405-11), for example, highlighted inequity in the prescription of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs across the globe.
“The variation in quality of care is noted across rheumatologic diseases,” said Dr. Kiltz, of Ruhr University Bochum and Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet in Herne, Germany. “Assessing the quality of care provided to patients with axSpA is important not only to patients and physicians, but also to providers and purchasers of health care.”
A major goal of ASAS is to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with axSpA. To address the many gaps in current care, the society set out to develop quality standards to optimize patients’ access to care and their overall treatment.
“A quality standard consists of a quality statement accompanied by a measure. The measure can be used to assess the quality of care or service provision specified in the treatment,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Quality standards are very different from recommendations or guidelines, she stressed. While the latter imply evidence-based actions that should be done to optimally diagnose and treat the disease, quality standards identify resources or processes that need to be optimized in high-priority areas for quality improvement.
The nine ASAS quality standards cover key areas for quality improvement relating to the care of adults with axSpA that need improvement worldwide. The statements were carefully phrased following a consensus, and the tools by which they could be measured agreed.
The first three standards concern the time to referral from primary to specialist care and state that people with a suspicion of axSpA are referred to a rheumatologist within 3 working days, assessed by a rheumatologist within 3 weeks after referral, and have their diagnostic work up completed within 2 months.
The next two quality standards concern pharmacologic management: Disease activity of people with axSpA is monitored under the supervision of a rheumatologist with validated composite scores at least twice a year, and in people with axSpA and active disease despite conventional therapy, treatment escalation to biologics is discussed.
Nonpharmacologic treatment is also covered, with the sixth quality standard stating: “People with axial SpA are informed about the benefits of regular exercise.”
Quality standard 7 states: “People with axSpA are offered education on the disease including self-management within 2 months of diagnosis,” Dr. Kiltz said. Rapid access to care is the focus of quality statement 8: “People with axSpA and disease flare or possible drug-related side effects receive advice within 2 working days of contacting the rheumatologist.”
The ninth and last quality standard states that people with axSpA should have a comprehensive annual review by a rheumatologist.
“These are the first quality standards applicable worldwide for the improvement of health care for adult patients with axSpA,” Dr. Kiltz said. “The ASAS quality standards are all measurable and achievable and are intended to minimize variation in quality of care.”
Dr. Kiltz had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kiltz U. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1-2. Abstract SP0004, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8514.
MADRID – Referral, treatment, and rapid access to care are three of nine new quality standards developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) with the aim of improving the management of adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The other quality standards look at how to improve patient education and self-management and call for annual review, Uta Kiltz, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Several unmet needs such as delayed diagnosis and restricted access to treatment have been described in patients with axSpA worldwide,” Dr. Kiltz observed in an interview. Results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77[3]:405-11), for example, highlighted inequity in the prescription of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs across the globe.
“The variation in quality of care is noted across rheumatologic diseases,” said Dr. Kiltz, of Ruhr University Bochum and Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet in Herne, Germany. “Assessing the quality of care provided to patients with axSpA is important not only to patients and physicians, but also to providers and purchasers of health care.”
A major goal of ASAS is to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with axSpA. To address the many gaps in current care, the society set out to develop quality standards to optimize patients’ access to care and their overall treatment.
“A quality standard consists of a quality statement accompanied by a measure. The measure can be used to assess the quality of care or service provision specified in the treatment,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Quality standards are very different from recommendations or guidelines, she stressed. While the latter imply evidence-based actions that should be done to optimally diagnose and treat the disease, quality standards identify resources or processes that need to be optimized in high-priority areas for quality improvement.
The nine ASAS quality standards cover key areas for quality improvement relating to the care of adults with axSpA that need improvement worldwide. The statements were carefully phrased following a consensus, and the tools by which they could be measured agreed.
The first three standards concern the time to referral from primary to specialist care and state that people with a suspicion of axSpA are referred to a rheumatologist within 3 working days, assessed by a rheumatologist within 3 weeks after referral, and have their diagnostic work up completed within 2 months.
The next two quality standards concern pharmacologic management: Disease activity of people with axSpA is monitored under the supervision of a rheumatologist with validated composite scores at least twice a year, and in people with axSpA and active disease despite conventional therapy, treatment escalation to biologics is discussed.
Nonpharmacologic treatment is also covered, with the sixth quality standard stating: “People with axial SpA are informed about the benefits of regular exercise.”
Quality standard 7 states: “People with axSpA are offered education on the disease including self-management within 2 months of diagnosis,” Dr. Kiltz said. Rapid access to care is the focus of quality statement 8: “People with axSpA and disease flare or possible drug-related side effects receive advice within 2 working days of contacting the rheumatologist.”
The ninth and last quality standard states that people with axSpA should have a comprehensive annual review by a rheumatologist.
“These are the first quality standards applicable worldwide for the improvement of health care for adult patients with axSpA,” Dr. Kiltz said. “The ASAS quality standards are all measurable and achievable and are intended to minimize variation in quality of care.”
Dr. Kiltz had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kiltz U. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1-2. Abstract SP0004, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8514.
MADRID – Referral, treatment, and rapid access to care are three of nine new quality standards developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) with the aim of improving the management of adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The other quality standards look at how to improve patient education and self-management and call for annual review, Uta Kiltz, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Several unmet needs such as delayed diagnosis and restricted access to treatment have been described in patients with axSpA worldwide,” Dr. Kiltz observed in an interview. Results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77[3]:405-11), for example, highlighted inequity in the prescription of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs across the globe.
“The variation in quality of care is noted across rheumatologic diseases,” said Dr. Kiltz, of Ruhr University Bochum and Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet in Herne, Germany. “Assessing the quality of care provided to patients with axSpA is important not only to patients and physicians, but also to providers and purchasers of health care.”
A major goal of ASAS is to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with axSpA. To address the many gaps in current care, the society set out to develop quality standards to optimize patients’ access to care and their overall treatment.
“A quality standard consists of a quality statement accompanied by a measure. The measure can be used to assess the quality of care or service provision specified in the treatment,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Quality standards are very different from recommendations or guidelines, she stressed. While the latter imply evidence-based actions that should be done to optimally diagnose and treat the disease, quality standards identify resources or processes that need to be optimized in high-priority areas for quality improvement.
The nine ASAS quality standards cover key areas for quality improvement relating to the care of adults with axSpA that need improvement worldwide. The statements were carefully phrased following a consensus, and the tools by which they could be measured agreed.
The first three standards concern the time to referral from primary to specialist care and state that people with a suspicion of axSpA are referred to a rheumatologist within 3 working days, assessed by a rheumatologist within 3 weeks after referral, and have their diagnostic work up completed within 2 months.
The next two quality standards concern pharmacologic management: Disease activity of people with axSpA is monitored under the supervision of a rheumatologist with validated composite scores at least twice a year, and in people with axSpA and active disease despite conventional therapy, treatment escalation to biologics is discussed.
Nonpharmacologic treatment is also covered, with the sixth quality standard stating: “People with axial SpA are informed about the benefits of regular exercise.”
Quality standard 7 states: “People with axSpA are offered education on the disease including self-management within 2 months of diagnosis,” Dr. Kiltz said. Rapid access to care is the focus of quality statement 8: “People with axSpA and disease flare or possible drug-related side effects receive advice within 2 working days of contacting the rheumatologist.”
The ninth and last quality standard states that people with axSpA should have a comprehensive annual review by a rheumatologist.
“These are the first quality standards applicable worldwide for the improvement of health care for adult patients with axSpA,” Dr. Kiltz said. “The ASAS quality standards are all measurable and achievable and are intended to minimize variation in quality of care.”
Dr. Kiltz had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kiltz U. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1-2. Abstract SP0004, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8514.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Despite advances, imaging of axSpA remains an adjunctive tool
MADRID – Evidence for always using imaging in an adjunctive role to clinical findings in the diagnosis and assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) continues to grow, two experts agreed in a scientific session at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Imaging has to be understood in the context of other findings. With the patient history, the physical examination, and the laboratory results, the value of imaging improves substantially. Therefore, before an image is ordered it is important to ask how likely is it that a patient has axial spondylitis,” said Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
As one of the experts who participated in the scientific session, Dr. van Gaalen focused specifically on the value of x-ray and MRI in the diagnosis of axSpA, emphasizing their limited value if interpreted without clinical context. He explained that even highly experienced radiologists are fooled, particularly at early stages of disease.
Although the quality of imaging has been increasing steadily, “there is no cookbook approach with which you can guarantee a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis. Imaging can be valuable, but there is a risk of false positives because features on imaging, such as bone marrow edema, are shared with other sources of back pain,” Dr. van Gaalen said.
Considering the importance of context, Dr. van Gaalen advised clinicians against reading the radiology report without evaluating the images themselves. He said the features on imaging make more sense when they are considered at the same time as the patient’s history, symptoms, and laboratory reports.
Order imaging relevant to treatment decisions
Assigned to discuss the value of imaging for assessing progression, Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical researcher at Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany, offered the same message.
“It is important to consider all of the clinical information available, not just the features on imaging,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Often, MRI findings provide corroboration for other objective measures of disease status, but Dr. Baraliakos advised that imaging should be ordered only when it has the potential to alter therapy.
“What we can learn from imaging might be interesting, but the question to ask is whether it is useful,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Rather than incurring the costs of imaging for reassurance, Dr. Baraliakos recommended ordering these studies with specific objectives relevant to treatment decisions.
Neither Dr. van Gaalen nor Dr. Baraliakos denied the value of imaging, particularly MRI, to increase confidence in the diagnosis of axSpA or to guide therapy. Rather, their point was that imaging should not be considered a reliable stand-alone axSpA assessment strategy.
Clinical and imaging findings better then imaging alone
Data from a blinded radiology study presented during the same scientific session reinforced this conclusion. Led by Dr. Baraliakos and presented separately from his discussion about the adjunctive nature of imaging data in axSpA, the study showed that rheumatologists with access to both clinical and imaging data can detect a greater proportion of axSpA than radiologists working from imaging data alone.
In this study, 300 consecutive patients suspected of axSpA were enrolled. All had chronic back pain of more than 3 months’ duration. While highly experienced radiologists were asked to diagnose or rule out a diagnosis of axSpA on the basis of the MRI blinded to other clinical information, experienced rheumatologists evaluated the patients with access to all clinical, laboratory, and imaging data.
A diagnosis of axSpA was reached in 131 patients by the rheumatologists. The remaining 169 were determined not to have axSpA. Although the radiologists agreed on those with or without axSpA in 86.3% of cases, there were 31 cases (28.1%) in which rheumatologists diagnosed axSpA but radiologists did not.
In an analysis of which MRI features were considered critical by radiologists when there was agreement, they identified bone marrow edema in seven cases (7.2%). In 30 cases (30.9%), the radiologists considered the presence of chronic lesions to be critical to their diagnosis. In the remaining 69.9% of cases, radiologists were confident in their diagnosis only when both bone edema and chronic lesions were present.
Not surprisingly, the presence of chronic lesions and more pronounced bone marrow edema permitted both radiologists and rheumatologists to increase their confidence when discriminating between axSpA and non-axSpA patients.
“The combination of structural changes and bone marrow edema as assessed by MRI performed best in the process of diagnosing or ruling out axSpA in this real-life setting at our center,” Dr. Baraliakos said.
However, when only one or two features are considered, trade-offs of lower sensitivity for higher specificity or higher sensitivity for lower specificity occur. For example, although the specificity for a diagnosis of axSpA reached 99.4% when both bone marrow edema and ankylosis are present, the sensitivity of this finding was only 5.3%, according to data provided by Dr. Baraliakos. Conversely, the presence of sclerosis had a sensitivity of 81.7% but a specificity of only 43.2%.
One lesson from this analysis is that there is “increasing insecurity of only including bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joint as the major criterion for diagnosing axSpA,” Dr. Baraliakos said. However, the larger point in the context of the earlier expert comments is that MRI findings should be considered important but insufficient for the evaluation of axSpA.
SOURCE: Baraliakos X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):255-6. Abstract OPO344, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5027
MADRID – Evidence for always using imaging in an adjunctive role to clinical findings in the diagnosis and assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) continues to grow, two experts agreed in a scientific session at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Imaging has to be understood in the context of other findings. With the patient history, the physical examination, and the laboratory results, the value of imaging improves substantially. Therefore, before an image is ordered it is important to ask how likely is it that a patient has axial spondylitis,” said Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
As one of the experts who participated in the scientific session, Dr. van Gaalen focused specifically on the value of x-ray and MRI in the diagnosis of axSpA, emphasizing their limited value if interpreted without clinical context. He explained that even highly experienced radiologists are fooled, particularly at early stages of disease.
Although the quality of imaging has been increasing steadily, “there is no cookbook approach with which you can guarantee a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis. Imaging can be valuable, but there is a risk of false positives because features on imaging, such as bone marrow edema, are shared with other sources of back pain,” Dr. van Gaalen said.
Considering the importance of context, Dr. van Gaalen advised clinicians against reading the radiology report without evaluating the images themselves. He said the features on imaging make more sense when they are considered at the same time as the patient’s history, symptoms, and laboratory reports.
Order imaging relevant to treatment decisions
Assigned to discuss the value of imaging for assessing progression, Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical researcher at Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany, offered the same message.
“It is important to consider all of the clinical information available, not just the features on imaging,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Often, MRI findings provide corroboration for other objective measures of disease status, but Dr. Baraliakos advised that imaging should be ordered only when it has the potential to alter therapy.
“What we can learn from imaging might be interesting, but the question to ask is whether it is useful,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Rather than incurring the costs of imaging for reassurance, Dr. Baraliakos recommended ordering these studies with specific objectives relevant to treatment decisions.
Neither Dr. van Gaalen nor Dr. Baraliakos denied the value of imaging, particularly MRI, to increase confidence in the diagnosis of axSpA or to guide therapy. Rather, their point was that imaging should not be considered a reliable stand-alone axSpA assessment strategy.
Clinical and imaging findings better then imaging alone
Data from a blinded radiology study presented during the same scientific session reinforced this conclusion. Led by Dr. Baraliakos and presented separately from his discussion about the adjunctive nature of imaging data in axSpA, the study showed that rheumatologists with access to both clinical and imaging data can detect a greater proportion of axSpA than radiologists working from imaging data alone.
In this study, 300 consecutive patients suspected of axSpA were enrolled. All had chronic back pain of more than 3 months’ duration. While highly experienced radiologists were asked to diagnose or rule out a diagnosis of axSpA on the basis of the MRI blinded to other clinical information, experienced rheumatologists evaluated the patients with access to all clinical, laboratory, and imaging data.
A diagnosis of axSpA was reached in 131 patients by the rheumatologists. The remaining 169 were determined not to have axSpA. Although the radiologists agreed on those with or without axSpA in 86.3% of cases, there were 31 cases (28.1%) in which rheumatologists diagnosed axSpA but radiologists did not.
In an analysis of which MRI features were considered critical by radiologists when there was agreement, they identified bone marrow edema in seven cases (7.2%). In 30 cases (30.9%), the radiologists considered the presence of chronic lesions to be critical to their diagnosis. In the remaining 69.9% of cases, radiologists were confident in their diagnosis only when both bone edema and chronic lesions were present.
Not surprisingly, the presence of chronic lesions and more pronounced bone marrow edema permitted both radiologists and rheumatologists to increase their confidence when discriminating between axSpA and non-axSpA patients.
“The combination of structural changes and bone marrow edema as assessed by MRI performed best in the process of diagnosing or ruling out axSpA in this real-life setting at our center,” Dr. Baraliakos said.
However, when only one or two features are considered, trade-offs of lower sensitivity for higher specificity or higher sensitivity for lower specificity occur. For example, although the specificity for a diagnosis of axSpA reached 99.4% when both bone marrow edema and ankylosis are present, the sensitivity of this finding was only 5.3%, according to data provided by Dr. Baraliakos. Conversely, the presence of sclerosis had a sensitivity of 81.7% but a specificity of only 43.2%.
One lesson from this analysis is that there is “increasing insecurity of only including bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joint as the major criterion for diagnosing axSpA,” Dr. Baraliakos said. However, the larger point in the context of the earlier expert comments is that MRI findings should be considered important but insufficient for the evaluation of axSpA.
SOURCE: Baraliakos X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):255-6. Abstract OPO344, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5027
MADRID – Evidence for always using imaging in an adjunctive role to clinical findings in the diagnosis and assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) continues to grow, two experts agreed in a scientific session at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Imaging has to be understood in the context of other findings. With the patient history, the physical examination, and the laboratory results, the value of imaging improves substantially. Therefore, before an image is ordered it is important to ask how likely is it that a patient has axial spondylitis,” said Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
As one of the experts who participated in the scientific session, Dr. van Gaalen focused specifically on the value of x-ray and MRI in the diagnosis of axSpA, emphasizing their limited value if interpreted without clinical context. He explained that even highly experienced radiologists are fooled, particularly at early stages of disease.
Although the quality of imaging has been increasing steadily, “there is no cookbook approach with which you can guarantee a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis. Imaging can be valuable, but there is a risk of false positives because features on imaging, such as bone marrow edema, are shared with other sources of back pain,” Dr. van Gaalen said.
Considering the importance of context, Dr. van Gaalen advised clinicians against reading the radiology report without evaluating the images themselves. He said the features on imaging make more sense when they are considered at the same time as the patient’s history, symptoms, and laboratory reports.
Order imaging relevant to treatment decisions
Assigned to discuss the value of imaging for assessing progression, Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical researcher at Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany, offered the same message.
“It is important to consider all of the clinical information available, not just the features on imaging,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Often, MRI findings provide corroboration for other objective measures of disease status, but Dr. Baraliakos advised that imaging should be ordered only when it has the potential to alter therapy.
“What we can learn from imaging might be interesting, but the question to ask is whether it is useful,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Rather than incurring the costs of imaging for reassurance, Dr. Baraliakos recommended ordering these studies with specific objectives relevant to treatment decisions.
Neither Dr. van Gaalen nor Dr. Baraliakos denied the value of imaging, particularly MRI, to increase confidence in the diagnosis of axSpA or to guide therapy. Rather, their point was that imaging should not be considered a reliable stand-alone axSpA assessment strategy.
Clinical and imaging findings better then imaging alone
Data from a blinded radiology study presented during the same scientific session reinforced this conclusion. Led by Dr. Baraliakos and presented separately from his discussion about the adjunctive nature of imaging data in axSpA, the study showed that rheumatologists with access to both clinical and imaging data can detect a greater proportion of axSpA than radiologists working from imaging data alone.
In this study, 300 consecutive patients suspected of axSpA were enrolled. All had chronic back pain of more than 3 months’ duration. While highly experienced radiologists were asked to diagnose or rule out a diagnosis of axSpA on the basis of the MRI blinded to other clinical information, experienced rheumatologists evaluated the patients with access to all clinical, laboratory, and imaging data.
A diagnosis of axSpA was reached in 131 patients by the rheumatologists. The remaining 169 were determined not to have axSpA. Although the radiologists agreed on those with or without axSpA in 86.3% of cases, there were 31 cases (28.1%) in which rheumatologists diagnosed axSpA but radiologists did not.
In an analysis of which MRI features were considered critical by radiologists when there was agreement, they identified bone marrow edema in seven cases (7.2%). In 30 cases (30.9%), the radiologists considered the presence of chronic lesions to be critical to their diagnosis. In the remaining 69.9% of cases, radiologists were confident in their diagnosis only when both bone edema and chronic lesions were present.
Not surprisingly, the presence of chronic lesions and more pronounced bone marrow edema permitted both radiologists and rheumatologists to increase their confidence when discriminating between axSpA and non-axSpA patients.
“The combination of structural changes and bone marrow edema as assessed by MRI performed best in the process of diagnosing or ruling out axSpA in this real-life setting at our center,” Dr. Baraliakos said.
However, when only one or two features are considered, trade-offs of lower sensitivity for higher specificity or higher sensitivity for lower specificity occur. For example, although the specificity for a diagnosis of axSpA reached 99.4% when both bone marrow edema and ankylosis are present, the sensitivity of this finding was only 5.3%, according to data provided by Dr. Baraliakos. Conversely, the presence of sclerosis had a sensitivity of 81.7% but a specificity of only 43.2%.
One lesson from this analysis is that there is “increasing insecurity of only including bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joint as the major criterion for diagnosing axSpA,” Dr. Baraliakos said. However, the larger point in the context of the earlier expert comments is that MRI findings should be considered important but insufficient for the evaluation of axSpA.
SOURCE: Baraliakos X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):255-6. Abstract OPO344, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5027
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Retention rates comparable for biosimilars, original drug in spondyloarthritis
MADRID – judging from data drawn from registries in five Scandinavian countries in a study that evaluated retention rates after 1 year of therapy.
Bente Glintborg, MD, PhD, from the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark, explains in a video interview that the indication provided to biosimilars for spondyloarthritis was extended from comparisons conducted in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
In the absence of a randomized trial in spondyloarthritis, she suggested that this comparison might be the best opportunity to evaluate whether biosimilars perform as well as their biologic originator. This is an important aim based on the theoretical possibility that equivalence in RA does not translate into equivalence in other rheumatic conditions where biologics are indicated.
As she explains, 1,015 biologic-naïve patients initiating etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, or a biosimilar were assessed at baseline and at the end of 1 year of therapy. The patients were enrolled in biologic registries maintained in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, or Sweden.
Retention rates at 1 year were numerically lower on etanercept than the biosimilars, but the difference was not significant (66% vs. 73%; P = 0.18). There also were no significant differences between the biosimilars and etanercept when disease activity was compared at 6 months.
Retention rates are a reasonable surrogate for both efficacy and tolerability based on the expectation that more patients would switch or discontinue agents in the event of lack of efficacy or unacceptable side effects, Dr. Glintborg said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
In this interview, she notes that a similar study from the Nordic registries led by a coinvestigator also showed equivalent retention rates among spondyloarthritis patients when biosimilars and infliximab were compared at 2 years.
Dr. Glintborg received research support from Biogen, Pfizer, and Abbievie.
MADRID – judging from data drawn from registries in five Scandinavian countries in a study that evaluated retention rates after 1 year of therapy.
Bente Glintborg, MD, PhD, from the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark, explains in a video interview that the indication provided to biosimilars for spondyloarthritis was extended from comparisons conducted in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
In the absence of a randomized trial in spondyloarthritis, she suggested that this comparison might be the best opportunity to evaluate whether biosimilars perform as well as their biologic originator. This is an important aim based on the theoretical possibility that equivalence in RA does not translate into equivalence in other rheumatic conditions where biologics are indicated.
As she explains, 1,015 biologic-naïve patients initiating etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, or a biosimilar were assessed at baseline and at the end of 1 year of therapy. The patients were enrolled in biologic registries maintained in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, or Sweden.
Retention rates at 1 year were numerically lower on etanercept than the biosimilars, but the difference was not significant (66% vs. 73%; P = 0.18). There also were no significant differences between the biosimilars and etanercept when disease activity was compared at 6 months.
Retention rates are a reasonable surrogate for both efficacy and tolerability based on the expectation that more patients would switch or discontinue agents in the event of lack of efficacy or unacceptable side effects, Dr. Glintborg said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
In this interview, she notes that a similar study from the Nordic registries led by a coinvestigator also showed equivalent retention rates among spondyloarthritis patients when biosimilars and infliximab were compared at 2 years.
Dr. Glintborg received research support from Biogen, Pfizer, and Abbievie.
MADRID – judging from data drawn from registries in five Scandinavian countries in a study that evaluated retention rates after 1 year of therapy.
Bente Glintborg, MD, PhD, from the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark, explains in a video interview that the indication provided to biosimilars for spondyloarthritis was extended from comparisons conducted in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
In the absence of a randomized trial in spondyloarthritis, she suggested that this comparison might be the best opportunity to evaluate whether biosimilars perform as well as their biologic originator. This is an important aim based on the theoretical possibility that equivalence in RA does not translate into equivalence in other rheumatic conditions where biologics are indicated.
As she explains, 1,015 biologic-naïve patients initiating etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, or a biosimilar were assessed at baseline and at the end of 1 year of therapy. The patients were enrolled in biologic registries maintained in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, or Sweden.
Retention rates at 1 year were numerically lower on etanercept than the biosimilars, but the difference was not significant (66% vs. 73%; P = 0.18). There also were no significant differences between the biosimilars and etanercept when disease activity was compared at 6 months.
Retention rates are a reasonable surrogate for both efficacy and tolerability based on the expectation that more patients would switch or discontinue agents in the event of lack of efficacy or unacceptable side effects, Dr. Glintborg said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
In this interview, she notes that a similar study from the Nordic registries led by a coinvestigator also showed equivalent retention rates among spondyloarthritis patients when biosimilars and infliximab were compared at 2 years.
Dr. Glintborg received research support from Biogen, Pfizer, and Abbievie.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 Congress
Treat-to-target slowly emerging in axial spondyloarthritis
MADRID – Treating patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) until a specific target is reached is an emerging concept that has gained a lot of traction in the past few years, Pedro Machado, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The availability of biologic therapies has improved the clinical outcomes for our patients with axial spondyloarthritis and targeting clinical remission or inactive disease is now an achievable treatment goal in clinical practice,” he observed. “This has trigged the question: Is there a role for ‘treat-to-target’ in axial spondyloarthritis?”
Dr. Machado, an honorary consultant in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College Hospital and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, took a critical look at the treat-to-target approach during a clinical science session at the meeting, organized by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).
The concept of treat-to-target is not new, he acknowledged, having been imported from other chronic conditions where there is a very specific target to achieve – such as lowering glycated hemoglobin in diabetes or hypertension or hyperlipidemia in cardiovascular disease.
“The concept involves changing or escalating therapy according to a predefined target under the assumption that this may lead to a better outcome compared to what we call ‘routine care,’ ” Dr. Machado explained.
Treat-to-target is not only well established in nonrheumatic diseases but also has proved to work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis with evidence from the TICORA (Tight Control of Rheumatoid Arthritis) and TICOPA (Tight Control in Psoriatic Arthritis) trials.
Whether the approach can also work in axSpA is open to debate, and one of the main arguments against using a treat-to-target in axSpA asks, what exactly is the target? While there is no firm agreement yet, Dr. Machado observed that achieving either clinical remission or inactive disease would be the most likely target.
It could be argued this is already being done to some degree, but “we need to be more ambitious,” Dr. Machado said. Indeed, current Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society/EULAR recommendations for the treatment of axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[6]:978–91) note when patients with high disease activity despite sufficient standard treatment should be escalated to treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD). High disease activity was defined as an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of 2.1 or more or a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more.
Another argument against using the approach concerns the evidence base. There are no prospective, randomized trials supporting the use of treat-to-target over routine care. However, there is a lot of observational evidence, Dr. Machado said in an interview. Such studies have shown that achieving inactive disease may improve structural outcomes and stop the development of radiographic damage of the spine. Importantly, these observational studies also show that achieving inactive disease may also help to improve patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life.
Evidence backing a treat-to-target approach in axSpA from a randomized, controlled trial may currently be lacking, but the TiCOSPA (Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis) trial is in progress and should help change that, Dr. Machado said.
“The missing bit is a randomized trial, but I would say that the observational evidence is almost enough to advocate a treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis.” This was also the view of an international task force that recently published recommendations and overarching principles for a treat-target strategy in spondyloarthritis, including axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:3-17).
Of course, a treat-to-target approach may not be without its pitfalls. There are a limited number of drugs currently that could be used to “hit the target” of disease activity, Dr. Machado said in his presentation. The approach might also lead to ‘overtreatment,’ and more treatment is not always better as it could not only lead to more adverse events, but it also may mean the approach is not cost-effective.
Depending on the TiCOSPA study results, which are expected next year, Dr. Machado said that “the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such a strategy in clinical practice also needs to be tested.”
MADRID – Treating patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) until a specific target is reached is an emerging concept that has gained a lot of traction in the past few years, Pedro Machado, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The availability of biologic therapies has improved the clinical outcomes for our patients with axial spondyloarthritis and targeting clinical remission or inactive disease is now an achievable treatment goal in clinical practice,” he observed. “This has trigged the question: Is there a role for ‘treat-to-target’ in axial spondyloarthritis?”
Dr. Machado, an honorary consultant in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College Hospital and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, took a critical look at the treat-to-target approach during a clinical science session at the meeting, organized by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).
The concept of treat-to-target is not new, he acknowledged, having been imported from other chronic conditions where there is a very specific target to achieve – such as lowering glycated hemoglobin in diabetes or hypertension or hyperlipidemia in cardiovascular disease.
“The concept involves changing or escalating therapy according to a predefined target under the assumption that this may lead to a better outcome compared to what we call ‘routine care,’ ” Dr. Machado explained.
Treat-to-target is not only well established in nonrheumatic diseases but also has proved to work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis with evidence from the TICORA (Tight Control of Rheumatoid Arthritis) and TICOPA (Tight Control in Psoriatic Arthritis) trials.
Whether the approach can also work in axSpA is open to debate, and one of the main arguments against using a treat-to-target in axSpA asks, what exactly is the target? While there is no firm agreement yet, Dr. Machado observed that achieving either clinical remission or inactive disease would be the most likely target.
It could be argued this is already being done to some degree, but “we need to be more ambitious,” Dr. Machado said. Indeed, current Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society/EULAR recommendations for the treatment of axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[6]:978–91) note when patients with high disease activity despite sufficient standard treatment should be escalated to treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD). High disease activity was defined as an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of 2.1 or more or a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more.
Another argument against using the approach concerns the evidence base. There are no prospective, randomized trials supporting the use of treat-to-target over routine care. However, there is a lot of observational evidence, Dr. Machado said in an interview. Such studies have shown that achieving inactive disease may improve structural outcomes and stop the development of radiographic damage of the spine. Importantly, these observational studies also show that achieving inactive disease may also help to improve patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life.
Evidence backing a treat-to-target approach in axSpA from a randomized, controlled trial may currently be lacking, but the TiCOSPA (Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis) trial is in progress and should help change that, Dr. Machado said.
“The missing bit is a randomized trial, but I would say that the observational evidence is almost enough to advocate a treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis.” This was also the view of an international task force that recently published recommendations and overarching principles for a treat-target strategy in spondyloarthritis, including axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:3-17).
Of course, a treat-to-target approach may not be without its pitfalls. There are a limited number of drugs currently that could be used to “hit the target” of disease activity, Dr. Machado said in his presentation. The approach might also lead to ‘overtreatment,’ and more treatment is not always better as it could not only lead to more adverse events, but it also may mean the approach is not cost-effective.
Depending on the TiCOSPA study results, which are expected next year, Dr. Machado said that “the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such a strategy in clinical practice also needs to be tested.”
MADRID – Treating patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) until a specific target is reached is an emerging concept that has gained a lot of traction in the past few years, Pedro Machado, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The availability of biologic therapies has improved the clinical outcomes for our patients with axial spondyloarthritis and targeting clinical remission or inactive disease is now an achievable treatment goal in clinical practice,” he observed. “This has trigged the question: Is there a role for ‘treat-to-target’ in axial spondyloarthritis?”
Dr. Machado, an honorary consultant in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College Hospital and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, took a critical look at the treat-to-target approach during a clinical science session at the meeting, organized by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).
The concept of treat-to-target is not new, he acknowledged, having been imported from other chronic conditions where there is a very specific target to achieve – such as lowering glycated hemoglobin in diabetes or hypertension or hyperlipidemia in cardiovascular disease.
“The concept involves changing or escalating therapy according to a predefined target under the assumption that this may lead to a better outcome compared to what we call ‘routine care,’ ” Dr. Machado explained.
Treat-to-target is not only well established in nonrheumatic diseases but also has proved to work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis with evidence from the TICORA (Tight Control of Rheumatoid Arthritis) and TICOPA (Tight Control in Psoriatic Arthritis) trials.
Whether the approach can also work in axSpA is open to debate, and one of the main arguments against using a treat-to-target in axSpA asks, what exactly is the target? While there is no firm agreement yet, Dr. Machado observed that achieving either clinical remission or inactive disease would be the most likely target.
It could be argued this is already being done to some degree, but “we need to be more ambitious,” Dr. Machado said. Indeed, current Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society/EULAR recommendations for the treatment of axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[6]:978–91) note when patients with high disease activity despite sufficient standard treatment should be escalated to treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD). High disease activity was defined as an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of 2.1 or more or a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more.
Another argument against using the approach concerns the evidence base. There are no prospective, randomized trials supporting the use of treat-to-target over routine care. However, there is a lot of observational evidence, Dr. Machado said in an interview. Such studies have shown that achieving inactive disease may improve structural outcomes and stop the development of radiographic damage of the spine. Importantly, these observational studies also show that achieving inactive disease may also help to improve patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life.
Evidence backing a treat-to-target approach in axSpA from a randomized, controlled trial may currently be lacking, but the TiCOSPA (Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis) trial is in progress and should help change that, Dr. Machado said.
“The missing bit is a randomized trial, but I would say that the observational evidence is almost enough to advocate a treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis.” This was also the view of an international task force that recently published recommendations and overarching principles for a treat-target strategy in spondyloarthritis, including axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:3-17).
Of course, a treat-to-target approach may not be without its pitfalls. There are a limited number of drugs currently that could be used to “hit the target” of disease activity, Dr. Machado said in his presentation. The approach might also lead to ‘overtreatment,’ and more treatment is not always better as it could not only lead to more adverse events, but it also may mean the approach is not cost-effective.
Depending on the TiCOSPA study results, which are expected next year, Dr. Machado said that “the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such a strategy in clinical practice also needs to be tested.”
EXPERT analysis FROM THE EULAR 2019 Congress
Chronic opioid use may be common in patients with ankylosing spondylitis
About a quarter of all patients with ankylosing spondylitis, and more than half of those patients who were on Medicaid, received at least a 90-day supply of opioids in a year, based on an analysis of U.S. commercial claims data.
The findings were noted in 2012-2017 data from a cohort of 11,945 patients in the Truven Health MarketScan Research database. Of those patients given the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code 720.0, which is specific for ankylosing spondylitis, 23.5% of patients chronically used opioids. In the broader 720.x commercial claims cohort of 79,190 patients, the proportion who chronically used opioids was 27.3%.
More than 60% of the patients who chronically used opioids had a cumulative drug supply of 270 days or more.
“Patients with ankylosing spondylitis receive opioids with disturbing frequency,” said study author Victor S. Sloan, MD, and research colleagues in the June issue of the Journal of Rheumatology. Ankylosing spondylitis treatment guidelines “specify use of an NSAID as initial pharmacotherapy, with anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in cases of NSAID inefficacy or intolerance. However, for many patients, prescription opioids – while not addressing the underlying inflammation – may offer an inexpensive and rapid means of achieving symptomatic relief.”
Patients who chronically used opioids were more likely to have depression (25.4% vs. 12.5%) and anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.7%) during the baseline period of the study. Patients with chronic opioid use also were more likely to receive muscle relaxants (54.4% vs. 20.2%) and oral corticosteroids (18.4% vs. 9.6%), compared with patients without chronic opioid use, reported Dr. Sloan, vice president and immunology development strategy lead for UCB Pharma and of the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J., and colleagues.
Claims for anti-TNF therapies, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and NSAIDs were similar for patients with and without chronic opioid use.
The patients in the study had claims with the specified diagnosis codes during Jan. 1, 2013–March 31, 2016 and were enrolled in medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months before and after the first qualifying ICD code. The study excluded patients with a history of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer. Opioid claims within 7 days of a hospitalization or 2 days of an emergency department or urgent care visit were not included.
The investigators assessed patients’ demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and prior treatments during a 12-month baseline period prior to the index date. They examined opioid use and exposure to other treatments during a 12-month follow-up period after the index date. They defined chronic opioid use as at least 90 cumulative days of opioid use based on the supply value on opioid pharmacy claims. They summed the days’ supply for all opioid claims during the follow-up period.
Chronic use of opioids was most pronounced in the 917 patients with Medicaid claims with 720.0 diagnosis codes; 57.1% chronically used opioids during follow-up. Among 14,041 patients with Medicaid claims with 720.x codes, 76.7% chronically used opioids.
The data suggest that some patients may receive opioids before they receive recommended therapies. “If this is the case, there may be an opportunity to prevent chronic opioid use by intervening with recommended therapies earlier in the patient’s treatment course,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Sloan and colleagues noted that they had limited information about the timing of opioid use relative to ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis, opioid potency and dose, and the indication for which opioids were prescribed.
UCB Pharma funded the study. The authors are employees of UCB Pharma.
SOURCE: Sloan VS et al. J Rheumatol. 2019 Jan 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.180972.
About a quarter of all patients with ankylosing spondylitis, and more than half of those patients who were on Medicaid, received at least a 90-day supply of opioids in a year, based on an analysis of U.S. commercial claims data.
The findings were noted in 2012-2017 data from a cohort of 11,945 patients in the Truven Health MarketScan Research database. Of those patients given the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code 720.0, which is specific for ankylosing spondylitis, 23.5% of patients chronically used opioids. In the broader 720.x commercial claims cohort of 79,190 patients, the proportion who chronically used opioids was 27.3%.
More than 60% of the patients who chronically used opioids had a cumulative drug supply of 270 days or more.
“Patients with ankylosing spondylitis receive opioids with disturbing frequency,” said study author Victor S. Sloan, MD, and research colleagues in the June issue of the Journal of Rheumatology. Ankylosing spondylitis treatment guidelines “specify use of an NSAID as initial pharmacotherapy, with anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in cases of NSAID inefficacy or intolerance. However, for many patients, prescription opioids – while not addressing the underlying inflammation – may offer an inexpensive and rapid means of achieving symptomatic relief.”
Patients who chronically used opioids were more likely to have depression (25.4% vs. 12.5%) and anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.7%) during the baseline period of the study. Patients with chronic opioid use also were more likely to receive muscle relaxants (54.4% vs. 20.2%) and oral corticosteroids (18.4% vs. 9.6%), compared with patients without chronic opioid use, reported Dr. Sloan, vice president and immunology development strategy lead for UCB Pharma and of the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J., and colleagues.
Claims for anti-TNF therapies, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and NSAIDs were similar for patients with and without chronic opioid use.
The patients in the study had claims with the specified diagnosis codes during Jan. 1, 2013–March 31, 2016 and were enrolled in medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months before and after the first qualifying ICD code. The study excluded patients with a history of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer. Opioid claims within 7 days of a hospitalization or 2 days of an emergency department or urgent care visit were not included.
The investigators assessed patients’ demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and prior treatments during a 12-month baseline period prior to the index date. They examined opioid use and exposure to other treatments during a 12-month follow-up period after the index date. They defined chronic opioid use as at least 90 cumulative days of opioid use based on the supply value on opioid pharmacy claims. They summed the days’ supply for all opioid claims during the follow-up period.
Chronic use of opioids was most pronounced in the 917 patients with Medicaid claims with 720.0 diagnosis codes; 57.1% chronically used opioids during follow-up. Among 14,041 patients with Medicaid claims with 720.x codes, 76.7% chronically used opioids.
The data suggest that some patients may receive opioids before they receive recommended therapies. “If this is the case, there may be an opportunity to prevent chronic opioid use by intervening with recommended therapies earlier in the patient’s treatment course,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Sloan and colleagues noted that they had limited information about the timing of opioid use relative to ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis, opioid potency and dose, and the indication for which opioids were prescribed.
UCB Pharma funded the study. The authors are employees of UCB Pharma.
SOURCE: Sloan VS et al. J Rheumatol. 2019 Jan 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.180972.
About a quarter of all patients with ankylosing spondylitis, and more than half of those patients who were on Medicaid, received at least a 90-day supply of opioids in a year, based on an analysis of U.S. commercial claims data.
The findings were noted in 2012-2017 data from a cohort of 11,945 patients in the Truven Health MarketScan Research database. Of those patients given the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code 720.0, which is specific for ankylosing spondylitis, 23.5% of patients chronically used opioids. In the broader 720.x commercial claims cohort of 79,190 patients, the proportion who chronically used opioids was 27.3%.
More than 60% of the patients who chronically used opioids had a cumulative drug supply of 270 days or more.
“Patients with ankylosing spondylitis receive opioids with disturbing frequency,” said study author Victor S. Sloan, MD, and research colleagues in the June issue of the Journal of Rheumatology. Ankylosing spondylitis treatment guidelines “specify use of an NSAID as initial pharmacotherapy, with anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in cases of NSAID inefficacy or intolerance. However, for many patients, prescription opioids – while not addressing the underlying inflammation – may offer an inexpensive and rapid means of achieving symptomatic relief.”
Patients who chronically used opioids were more likely to have depression (25.4% vs. 12.5%) and anxiety (20.9% vs. 11.7%) during the baseline period of the study. Patients with chronic opioid use also were more likely to receive muscle relaxants (54.4% vs. 20.2%) and oral corticosteroids (18.4% vs. 9.6%), compared with patients without chronic opioid use, reported Dr. Sloan, vice president and immunology development strategy lead for UCB Pharma and of the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J., and colleagues.
Claims for anti-TNF therapies, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and NSAIDs were similar for patients with and without chronic opioid use.
The patients in the study had claims with the specified diagnosis codes during Jan. 1, 2013–March 31, 2016 and were enrolled in medical and pharmacy benefits for 12 months before and after the first qualifying ICD code. The study excluded patients with a history of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer. Opioid claims within 7 days of a hospitalization or 2 days of an emergency department or urgent care visit were not included.
The investigators assessed patients’ demographics, clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and prior treatments during a 12-month baseline period prior to the index date. They examined opioid use and exposure to other treatments during a 12-month follow-up period after the index date. They defined chronic opioid use as at least 90 cumulative days of opioid use based on the supply value on opioid pharmacy claims. They summed the days’ supply for all opioid claims during the follow-up period.
Chronic use of opioids was most pronounced in the 917 patients with Medicaid claims with 720.0 diagnosis codes; 57.1% chronically used opioids during follow-up. Among 14,041 patients with Medicaid claims with 720.x codes, 76.7% chronically used opioids.
The data suggest that some patients may receive opioids before they receive recommended therapies. “If this is the case, there may be an opportunity to prevent chronic opioid use by intervening with recommended therapies earlier in the patient’s treatment course,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Sloan and colleagues noted that they had limited information about the timing of opioid use relative to ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis, opioid potency and dose, and the indication for which opioids were prescribed.
UCB Pharma funded the study. The authors are employees of UCB Pharma.
SOURCE: Sloan VS et al. J Rheumatol. 2019 Jan 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.180972.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
High multimorbidity in axial spondyloarthritis
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND – Almost two-thirds of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have more than one medical condition, and these may cluster together, the results of a single-center, cross-sectional study have shown.
Of 419 patients, 61% had multiple conditions, with a median of at least one other condition in addition to axSpA, but some patients had as many as five. The most common other conditions in patients with axSpA were hypertension (19% of patients), depression (16%), and dyspepsia (11%).
In all, 15 clusters of conditions were found, each dominated by one or two conditions in addition to axSpA. The three largest clusters were hypertension and cardiovascular disease (n = 88), anxiety and depression (n = 50), and dyspepsia (n = 31). In the cohort, 69% of the patients were male; the mean age was 45 years.
“Multimorbidity and comorbidity both essentially mean the same thing but from different perspectives,” Sizheng Steven Zhao, MD, said at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“Many of us will be familiar with comorbidity and this is a concept that has one index disease at the center and we consider all other conditions to be coexisting. This is a model you typically see in hospital settings, so you go to see your rheumatologist for your axSpA and your cardiologist for your cardiovascular disease,” he explained.
“From a patient’s perspective, that’s probably a little less helpful to go from specialist to specialist, each only interested in one condition so, quite rightly, there’s been a push towards providing more holistic care with the patient at the center, and this is really encapsulated by the concept of multimorbidity, which is just defined as the coexistence of any two conditions.” The multimorbidity model is particularly suited to a primary care setting rather than a hospital setting, he added.
“Whatever you want to call it, it’s becoming more of a problem,” Dr. Zhao said. There is increasing multimorbidity as people age, and it’s a common problem in those with rheumatic diseases because of shared risk factors, the consequences of systemic inflammation, and how patients are treated.
Prior studies of multimorbidity in axSpA have either been of individual comorbid diseases or counts. Dr. Zhao, a clinical research fellow at Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, and his associates looked at how coexisting conditions might cluster together to provide insight into how these might be better managed collectively in patients with axSpA.
The investigators used an adapted form of the Radner index for determining multimorbidity in patients consecutively seen at the Aintree University Hospital’s rheumatology clinic between 2010 and 2017. The Radner index was adapted to consider 40 chronic conditions, including fibromyalgia and osteoporosis but excluding rheumatic diseases and their extra-articular manifestations.
Dr. Zhao and his colleagues used regression models adjusted for age, gender, symptom duration, smoking status, body mass index, social deprivation, and NSAID use to see what, if any, effect having one of these clusters of multimorbid conditions might have on quality of life, general health, disease activity, and functional impairment measures. Patients with certain clusters of conditions had worse scores, particularly those with coexisting depression and/or anxiety and those with fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, or both in addition to axSpA.
“These are important conditions to be aware of in the management of axSpA patients,” Dr. Zhao said.
These data are consistent with what has already been published, with between 50% and 60% of patients having other conditions, particularly depression, said consultant rheumatologist Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, who chaired the session. “These are really important numbers for us to remember in the clinic,” she said.
None of the investigators reported having relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhao S et al., Rheumatology 2019;58(suppl 3), Abstract 035.
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND – Almost two-thirds of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have more than one medical condition, and these may cluster together, the results of a single-center, cross-sectional study have shown.
Of 419 patients, 61% had multiple conditions, with a median of at least one other condition in addition to axSpA, but some patients had as many as five. The most common other conditions in patients with axSpA were hypertension (19% of patients), depression (16%), and dyspepsia (11%).
In all, 15 clusters of conditions were found, each dominated by one or two conditions in addition to axSpA. The three largest clusters were hypertension and cardiovascular disease (n = 88), anxiety and depression (n = 50), and dyspepsia (n = 31). In the cohort, 69% of the patients were male; the mean age was 45 years.
“Multimorbidity and comorbidity both essentially mean the same thing but from different perspectives,” Sizheng Steven Zhao, MD, said at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“Many of us will be familiar with comorbidity and this is a concept that has one index disease at the center and we consider all other conditions to be coexisting. This is a model you typically see in hospital settings, so you go to see your rheumatologist for your axSpA and your cardiologist for your cardiovascular disease,” he explained.
“From a patient’s perspective, that’s probably a little less helpful to go from specialist to specialist, each only interested in one condition so, quite rightly, there’s been a push towards providing more holistic care with the patient at the center, and this is really encapsulated by the concept of multimorbidity, which is just defined as the coexistence of any two conditions.” The multimorbidity model is particularly suited to a primary care setting rather than a hospital setting, he added.
“Whatever you want to call it, it’s becoming more of a problem,” Dr. Zhao said. There is increasing multimorbidity as people age, and it’s a common problem in those with rheumatic diseases because of shared risk factors, the consequences of systemic inflammation, and how patients are treated.
Prior studies of multimorbidity in axSpA have either been of individual comorbid diseases or counts. Dr. Zhao, a clinical research fellow at Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, and his associates looked at how coexisting conditions might cluster together to provide insight into how these might be better managed collectively in patients with axSpA.
The investigators used an adapted form of the Radner index for determining multimorbidity in patients consecutively seen at the Aintree University Hospital’s rheumatology clinic between 2010 and 2017. The Radner index was adapted to consider 40 chronic conditions, including fibromyalgia and osteoporosis but excluding rheumatic diseases and their extra-articular manifestations.
Dr. Zhao and his colleagues used regression models adjusted for age, gender, symptom duration, smoking status, body mass index, social deprivation, and NSAID use to see what, if any, effect having one of these clusters of multimorbid conditions might have on quality of life, general health, disease activity, and functional impairment measures. Patients with certain clusters of conditions had worse scores, particularly those with coexisting depression and/or anxiety and those with fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, or both in addition to axSpA.
“These are important conditions to be aware of in the management of axSpA patients,” Dr. Zhao said.
These data are consistent with what has already been published, with between 50% and 60% of patients having other conditions, particularly depression, said consultant rheumatologist Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, who chaired the session. “These are really important numbers for us to remember in the clinic,” she said.
None of the investigators reported having relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhao S et al., Rheumatology 2019;58(suppl 3), Abstract 035.
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND – Almost two-thirds of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have more than one medical condition, and these may cluster together, the results of a single-center, cross-sectional study have shown.
Of 419 patients, 61% had multiple conditions, with a median of at least one other condition in addition to axSpA, but some patients had as many as five. The most common other conditions in patients with axSpA were hypertension (19% of patients), depression (16%), and dyspepsia (11%).
In all, 15 clusters of conditions were found, each dominated by one or two conditions in addition to axSpA. The three largest clusters were hypertension and cardiovascular disease (n = 88), anxiety and depression (n = 50), and dyspepsia (n = 31). In the cohort, 69% of the patients were male; the mean age was 45 years.
“Multimorbidity and comorbidity both essentially mean the same thing but from different perspectives,” Sizheng Steven Zhao, MD, said at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“Many of us will be familiar with comorbidity and this is a concept that has one index disease at the center and we consider all other conditions to be coexisting. This is a model you typically see in hospital settings, so you go to see your rheumatologist for your axSpA and your cardiologist for your cardiovascular disease,” he explained.
“From a patient’s perspective, that’s probably a little less helpful to go from specialist to specialist, each only interested in one condition so, quite rightly, there’s been a push towards providing more holistic care with the patient at the center, and this is really encapsulated by the concept of multimorbidity, which is just defined as the coexistence of any two conditions.” The multimorbidity model is particularly suited to a primary care setting rather than a hospital setting, he added.
“Whatever you want to call it, it’s becoming more of a problem,” Dr. Zhao said. There is increasing multimorbidity as people age, and it’s a common problem in those with rheumatic diseases because of shared risk factors, the consequences of systemic inflammation, and how patients are treated.
Prior studies of multimorbidity in axSpA have either been of individual comorbid diseases or counts. Dr. Zhao, a clinical research fellow at Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, and his associates looked at how coexisting conditions might cluster together to provide insight into how these might be better managed collectively in patients with axSpA.
The investigators used an adapted form of the Radner index for determining multimorbidity in patients consecutively seen at the Aintree University Hospital’s rheumatology clinic between 2010 and 2017. The Radner index was adapted to consider 40 chronic conditions, including fibromyalgia and osteoporosis but excluding rheumatic diseases and their extra-articular manifestations.
Dr. Zhao and his colleagues used regression models adjusted for age, gender, symptom duration, smoking status, body mass index, social deprivation, and NSAID use to see what, if any, effect having one of these clusters of multimorbid conditions might have on quality of life, general health, disease activity, and functional impairment measures. Patients with certain clusters of conditions had worse scores, particularly those with coexisting depression and/or anxiety and those with fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, or both in addition to axSpA.
“These are important conditions to be aware of in the management of axSpA patients,” Dr. Zhao said.
These data are consistent with what has already been published, with between 50% and 60% of patients having other conditions, particularly depression, said consultant rheumatologist Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, of Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, who chaired the session. “These are really important numbers for us to remember in the clinic,” she said.
None of the investigators reported having relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhao S et al., Rheumatology 2019;58(suppl 3), Abstract 035.
REPORTING FROM BSR 2019
Low-dose CT has a place in spondyloarthritis imaging toolbox
MADISON, WISC. – said Robert Lambert, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
“Low-dose CT of the SI [sacroiliac] joints is probably underutilized,” said Dr. Lambert, chair of the department of radiology and diagnostic imaging at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. “Subtle bony changes are demonstrated very well, and it can be an excellent test for resolving equivocal findings on x-ray or MRI.”
An important first step in making imaging decisions is to put concerns about radiation exposure in context, said Dr. Lambert. “Today, almost all CT effective exposure doses are considered low risk.”
Older studies have shown that a conventional two-view chest radiograph delivers a dose of 0.1 mSv – the equivalent of 10 days of background radiation – whereas the highest radiation dose is delivered by a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast. This examination delivers an effective dose of 20 mSv, the equivalent of 7 years of background radiation. Dr. Lambert pointed out what the “moderate” additional lifetime risk of malignancy – 1:500 – associated with this scan looks like in real-world numbers: “So the lifetime risk of cancer would increase from 20% to 20.2%.”
Recently, measurements of effective doses delivered in low-dose CT (ldCT) have shown that “most doses are significantly lower than previously quoted,” said Dr. Lambert. For example, ldCT of the SI joints delivers just 0.42 mSv, a radiation dose that’s in the same minimal risk category as a chest radiograph. In fact, for patients with high body mass, the radiation dose from ldCT of the SI joints can be less than that from a conventional radiograph.
“Could low-dose CT of the spine better detect new bone formation, compared to x-ray?” Dr. Lambert asked. A recent study attempted to answer the question, looking at 40 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received ldCT at baseline and 2 years later (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:371-7). In developing a CT syndesmophyte score (CTSS), two independent readers, blinded to the time order in which images were obtained, assessed vertebral syndesmophytes in the coronal and sagittal planes for each patient. The conclusion was that “new bone formation in the spine of patients with ankylosing spondylitis can be assessed reliably,” Dr. Lambert said.
A related study directly compared the new CTSS system with the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score, used for conventional radiographs. Both studies used data from the Sensitive Imaging in Ankylosing Spondylitis cohort.
In this latter study, whole spine ldCT tracked progression better than conventional radiographs because it detected more new and growing syndesmophytes, Dr. Lambert said. One important reason for this was that conventional radiography only has utility in the cervical and lumbar spine and the pelvis, while most progression was seen in the thoracic spine with ldCT (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:293-9).
The radiation dose for ldCT of the spine – approximately 4 mSv – is about 10 times that for ldCT of the SI joints, but still one-half to three-quarters of the dose for a whole-spine CT, Dr. Lambert said. Put another way, the ldCT whole-spine dose is nearly equivalent to the dose for the three radiographic studies required to image the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine.
Another imaging approach using CT zooms in on the thoracolumbar spine, imaging vertebrae T10-L4. Through sophisticated computational reconstruction techniques, the researchers were able to quantify syndesmophyte height circumferentially around each vertebra (J Rheumatol. 2015;42[3]:472-8).
The study, which imaged 33 patients at baseline and then at year 1 and year 2, found that the circumferential syndesmophyte height correlated well with spinal flexibility. Variation was low between two scans performed on the same day, at 0.893% per patient. Despite these advantages of high reliability and good sensitivity to change, one consideration for clinical consideration is the radiation dose, estimated about 8 mSv, Dr. Lambert noted.
Though MRI is a keystone for diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis, Dr. Lambert pointed out that it’s more expensive than CT and still not routinely available everywhere. He also noted that reimbursement and prior authorizations may be easier to obtain for CT.
“Low-dose CT has tremendous research potential, especially in the thoracic spine,” said Dr. Lambert. “But it’s not ready for routine clinical use. First, the dose is not trivial, at about 4 mSv.” Also, it’s time consuming to interpret and not all CT scanners are compatible with ldCT techniques. “Lower dose can mean lower imaging quality,” and syndesmophytes can be harder to detect in larger individuals.
Dr. Lambert reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
MADISON, WISC. – said Robert Lambert, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
“Low-dose CT of the SI [sacroiliac] joints is probably underutilized,” said Dr. Lambert, chair of the department of radiology and diagnostic imaging at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. “Subtle bony changes are demonstrated very well, and it can be an excellent test for resolving equivocal findings on x-ray or MRI.”
An important first step in making imaging decisions is to put concerns about radiation exposure in context, said Dr. Lambert. “Today, almost all CT effective exposure doses are considered low risk.”
Older studies have shown that a conventional two-view chest radiograph delivers a dose of 0.1 mSv – the equivalent of 10 days of background radiation – whereas the highest radiation dose is delivered by a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast. This examination delivers an effective dose of 20 mSv, the equivalent of 7 years of background radiation. Dr. Lambert pointed out what the “moderate” additional lifetime risk of malignancy – 1:500 – associated with this scan looks like in real-world numbers: “So the lifetime risk of cancer would increase from 20% to 20.2%.”
Recently, measurements of effective doses delivered in low-dose CT (ldCT) have shown that “most doses are significantly lower than previously quoted,” said Dr. Lambert. For example, ldCT of the SI joints delivers just 0.42 mSv, a radiation dose that’s in the same minimal risk category as a chest radiograph. In fact, for patients with high body mass, the radiation dose from ldCT of the SI joints can be less than that from a conventional radiograph.
“Could low-dose CT of the spine better detect new bone formation, compared to x-ray?” Dr. Lambert asked. A recent study attempted to answer the question, looking at 40 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received ldCT at baseline and 2 years later (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:371-7). In developing a CT syndesmophyte score (CTSS), two independent readers, blinded to the time order in which images were obtained, assessed vertebral syndesmophytes in the coronal and sagittal planes for each patient. The conclusion was that “new bone formation in the spine of patients with ankylosing spondylitis can be assessed reliably,” Dr. Lambert said.
A related study directly compared the new CTSS system with the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score, used for conventional radiographs. Both studies used data from the Sensitive Imaging in Ankylosing Spondylitis cohort.
In this latter study, whole spine ldCT tracked progression better than conventional radiographs because it detected more new and growing syndesmophytes, Dr. Lambert said. One important reason for this was that conventional radiography only has utility in the cervical and lumbar spine and the pelvis, while most progression was seen in the thoracic spine with ldCT (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:293-9).
The radiation dose for ldCT of the spine – approximately 4 mSv – is about 10 times that for ldCT of the SI joints, but still one-half to three-quarters of the dose for a whole-spine CT, Dr. Lambert said. Put another way, the ldCT whole-spine dose is nearly equivalent to the dose for the three radiographic studies required to image the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine.
Another imaging approach using CT zooms in on the thoracolumbar spine, imaging vertebrae T10-L4. Through sophisticated computational reconstruction techniques, the researchers were able to quantify syndesmophyte height circumferentially around each vertebra (J Rheumatol. 2015;42[3]:472-8).
The study, which imaged 33 patients at baseline and then at year 1 and year 2, found that the circumferential syndesmophyte height correlated well with spinal flexibility. Variation was low between two scans performed on the same day, at 0.893% per patient. Despite these advantages of high reliability and good sensitivity to change, one consideration for clinical consideration is the radiation dose, estimated about 8 mSv, Dr. Lambert noted.
Though MRI is a keystone for diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis, Dr. Lambert pointed out that it’s more expensive than CT and still not routinely available everywhere. He also noted that reimbursement and prior authorizations may be easier to obtain for CT.
“Low-dose CT has tremendous research potential, especially in the thoracic spine,” said Dr. Lambert. “But it’s not ready for routine clinical use. First, the dose is not trivial, at about 4 mSv.” Also, it’s time consuming to interpret and not all CT scanners are compatible with ldCT techniques. “Lower dose can mean lower imaging quality,” and syndesmophytes can be harder to detect in larger individuals.
Dr. Lambert reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
MADISON, WISC. – said Robert Lambert, MD, speaking at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
“Low-dose CT of the SI [sacroiliac] joints is probably underutilized,” said Dr. Lambert, chair of the department of radiology and diagnostic imaging at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. “Subtle bony changes are demonstrated very well, and it can be an excellent test for resolving equivocal findings on x-ray or MRI.”
An important first step in making imaging decisions is to put concerns about radiation exposure in context, said Dr. Lambert. “Today, almost all CT effective exposure doses are considered low risk.”
Older studies have shown that a conventional two-view chest radiograph delivers a dose of 0.1 mSv – the equivalent of 10 days of background radiation – whereas the highest radiation dose is delivered by a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis with and without contrast. This examination delivers an effective dose of 20 mSv, the equivalent of 7 years of background radiation. Dr. Lambert pointed out what the “moderate” additional lifetime risk of malignancy – 1:500 – associated with this scan looks like in real-world numbers: “So the lifetime risk of cancer would increase from 20% to 20.2%.”
Recently, measurements of effective doses delivered in low-dose CT (ldCT) have shown that “most doses are significantly lower than previously quoted,” said Dr. Lambert. For example, ldCT of the SI joints delivers just 0.42 mSv, a radiation dose that’s in the same minimal risk category as a chest radiograph. In fact, for patients with high body mass, the radiation dose from ldCT of the SI joints can be less than that from a conventional radiograph.
“Could low-dose CT of the spine better detect new bone formation, compared to x-ray?” Dr. Lambert asked. A recent study attempted to answer the question, looking at 40 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received ldCT at baseline and 2 years later (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:371-7). In developing a CT syndesmophyte score (CTSS), two independent readers, blinded to the time order in which images were obtained, assessed vertebral syndesmophytes in the coronal and sagittal planes for each patient. The conclusion was that “new bone formation in the spine of patients with ankylosing spondylitis can be assessed reliably,” Dr. Lambert said.
A related study directly compared the new CTSS system with the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score, used for conventional radiographs. Both studies used data from the Sensitive Imaging in Ankylosing Spondylitis cohort.
In this latter study, whole spine ldCT tracked progression better than conventional radiographs because it detected more new and growing syndesmophytes, Dr. Lambert said. One important reason for this was that conventional radiography only has utility in the cervical and lumbar spine and the pelvis, while most progression was seen in the thoracic spine with ldCT (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:293-9).
The radiation dose for ldCT of the spine – approximately 4 mSv – is about 10 times that for ldCT of the SI joints, but still one-half to three-quarters of the dose for a whole-spine CT, Dr. Lambert said. Put another way, the ldCT whole-spine dose is nearly equivalent to the dose for the three radiographic studies required to image the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine.
Another imaging approach using CT zooms in on the thoracolumbar spine, imaging vertebrae T10-L4. Through sophisticated computational reconstruction techniques, the researchers were able to quantify syndesmophyte height circumferentially around each vertebra (J Rheumatol. 2015;42[3]:472-8).
The study, which imaged 33 patients at baseline and then at year 1 and year 2, found that the circumferential syndesmophyte height correlated well with spinal flexibility. Variation was low between two scans performed on the same day, at 0.893% per patient. Despite these advantages of high reliability and good sensitivity to change, one consideration for clinical consideration is the radiation dose, estimated about 8 mSv, Dr. Lambert noted.
Though MRI is a keystone for diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis, Dr. Lambert pointed out that it’s more expensive than CT and still not routinely available everywhere. He also noted that reimbursement and prior authorizations may be easier to obtain for CT.
“Low-dose CT has tremendous research potential, especially in the thoracic spine,” said Dr. Lambert. “But it’s not ready for routine clinical use. First, the dose is not trivial, at about 4 mSv.” Also, it’s time consuming to interpret and not all CT scanners are compatible with ldCT techniques. “Lower dose can mean lower imaging quality,” and syndesmophytes can be harder to detect in larger individuals.
Dr. Lambert reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SPARTAN 2019
Active psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis linked to increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes
Women with psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis generally have favorable pregnancy outcomes, but high disease activity during pregnancy could increase the risk of adverse labor and delivery outcomes, according to 2004-2018 data from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Disease Project.
Corticosteroid use further increased risk for preterm delivery among women with ankylosing spondylitis.
While more research is needed, these findings suggest that better obstetric outcomes might be achieved via better disease control and minimal use of corticosteroids, according to Chelsey J. F. Smith, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
“Future studies are needed to confirm the novel findings seen in our study, as well as to continue to analyze the effect of different disease activity measures and medication use on pregnancy outcomes in these two chronic conditions,” Dr. Smith and coauthors said in a report on the study in Arthritis Care and Research.
Many women affected by psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis are of child-bearing age and consider planning a family, according to the researchers. Data on pregnancy outcomes are lacking, they said, “often making it difficult for rheumatologists and obstetricians to counsel their patients effectively.”
The study from Dr. Smith and coinvestigators comprised 963 women who enrolled in the OTIS prospective cohort study within 20 weeks of gestation and delivered at least one live-born infant. Of that cohort, 129 had ankylosing spondylitis, 117 had psoriatic arthritis, and the remaining 717 served as a control group.
Psoriatic arthritis conferred an 81% increased risk for moderate preterm delivery at 32-36 weeks gestation, compared with healthier women, 13.7% and 7.7% respectively. Risk was increased among women with psoriatic arthritis for preterm labor, 16.2% and 8.4% (adjusted risk ratio, 2.05, 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.48), caesarean delivery, 48.7% and 26.2% (aRR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.26-2.12), and oligohydramnios, 25% and 11% (aRR, 3.79, 95% CI, 1.34-10.74). Women with psoriatic arthritis were 2 years older on average and their average body mass index was 27 kg/m2 vs. 24.5 kg/m2 in the control group.
In women with ankylosing spondylitis, risk of infant hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit was increased by 67%, 17.2% vs. 11.9% in the control group.
Active disease measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) was linked to increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes in some cases, the investigators said.
For example, risk of preterm delivery was increased in women with psoriatic arthritis who had active disease at 32 weeks as measured by HAQ (27 women) and RAPID3 (28 women) scores, while in ankylosing spondylitis, active disease measured at intake by RAPID3 (46 women) was associated with increased risk of caesarean delivery.
Medication use in women with psoriatic arthritis was not associated with increased preterm delivery risk. However, women with ankylosing spondylitis who used corticosteroids in the second trimester had an increased risk of preterm delivery.
The rate of corticosteroid use was “surprisingly high” at 38% among the women with ankylosing spondylitis, Dr. Smith and coinvestigators said.
“The 2016 American College of Rheumatology guidelines in fact recommend against the use of systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, with the exception of short-term treatment with rapid tapering in circumstances such as flares during pregnancy, flares of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, or flare of peripheral arthritis,” they said in their report.
Dr. Smith and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest. The OTIS Collaborative Research Group has received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Smith CJF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 May 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.23924.
Women with psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis generally have favorable pregnancy outcomes, but high disease activity during pregnancy could increase the risk of adverse labor and delivery outcomes, according to 2004-2018 data from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Disease Project.
Corticosteroid use further increased risk for preterm delivery among women with ankylosing spondylitis.
While more research is needed, these findings suggest that better obstetric outcomes might be achieved via better disease control and minimal use of corticosteroids, according to Chelsey J. F. Smith, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
“Future studies are needed to confirm the novel findings seen in our study, as well as to continue to analyze the effect of different disease activity measures and medication use on pregnancy outcomes in these two chronic conditions,” Dr. Smith and coauthors said in a report on the study in Arthritis Care and Research.
Many women affected by psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis are of child-bearing age and consider planning a family, according to the researchers. Data on pregnancy outcomes are lacking, they said, “often making it difficult for rheumatologists and obstetricians to counsel their patients effectively.”
The study from Dr. Smith and coinvestigators comprised 963 women who enrolled in the OTIS prospective cohort study within 20 weeks of gestation and delivered at least one live-born infant. Of that cohort, 129 had ankylosing spondylitis, 117 had psoriatic arthritis, and the remaining 717 served as a control group.
Psoriatic arthritis conferred an 81% increased risk for moderate preterm delivery at 32-36 weeks gestation, compared with healthier women, 13.7% and 7.7% respectively. Risk was increased among women with psoriatic arthritis for preterm labor, 16.2% and 8.4% (adjusted risk ratio, 2.05, 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.48), caesarean delivery, 48.7% and 26.2% (aRR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.26-2.12), and oligohydramnios, 25% and 11% (aRR, 3.79, 95% CI, 1.34-10.74). Women with psoriatic arthritis were 2 years older on average and their average body mass index was 27 kg/m2 vs. 24.5 kg/m2 in the control group.
In women with ankylosing spondylitis, risk of infant hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit was increased by 67%, 17.2% vs. 11.9% in the control group.
Active disease measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) was linked to increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes in some cases, the investigators said.
For example, risk of preterm delivery was increased in women with psoriatic arthritis who had active disease at 32 weeks as measured by HAQ (27 women) and RAPID3 (28 women) scores, while in ankylosing spondylitis, active disease measured at intake by RAPID3 (46 women) was associated with increased risk of caesarean delivery.
Medication use in women with psoriatic arthritis was not associated with increased preterm delivery risk. However, women with ankylosing spondylitis who used corticosteroids in the second trimester had an increased risk of preterm delivery.
The rate of corticosteroid use was “surprisingly high” at 38% among the women with ankylosing spondylitis, Dr. Smith and coinvestigators said.
“The 2016 American College of Rheumatology guidelines in fact recommend against the use of systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, with the exception of short-term treatment with rapid tapering in circumstances such as flares during pregnancy, flares of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, or flare of peripheral arthritis,” they said in their report.
Dr. Smith and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest. The OTIS Collaborative Research Group has received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Smith CJF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 May 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.23924.
Women with psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis generally have favorable pregnancy outcomes, but high disease activity during pregnancy could increase the risk of adverse labor and delivery outcomes, according to 2004-2018 data from the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Disease Project.
Corticosteroid use further increased risk for preterm delivery among women with ankylosing spondylitis.
While more research is needed, these findings suggest that better obstetric outcomes might be achieved via better disease control and minimal use of corticosteroids, according to Chelsey J. F. Smith, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
“Future studies are needed to confirm the novel findings seen in our study, as well as to continue to analyze the effect of different disease activity measures and medication use on pregnancy outcomes in these two chronic conditions,” Dr. Smith and coauthors said in a report on the study in Arthritis Care and Research.
Many women affected by psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis are of child-bearing age and consider planning a family, according to the researchers. Data on pregnancy outcomes are lacking, they said, “often making it difficult for rheumatologists and obstetricians to counsel their patients effectively.”
The study from Dr. Smith and coinvestigators comprised 963 women who enrolled in the OTIS prospective cohort study within 20 weeks of gestation and delivered at least one live-born infant. Of that cohort, 129 had ankylosing spondylitis, 117 had psoriatic arthritis, and the remaining 717 served as a control group.
Psoriatic arthritis conferred an 81% increased risk for moderate preterm delivery at 32-36 weeks gestation, compared with healthier women, 13.7% and 7.7% respectively. Risk was increased among women with psoriatic arthritis for preterm labor, 16.2% and 8.4% (adjusted risk ratio, 2.05, 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.48), caesarean delivery, 48.7% and 26.2% (aRR, 1.63, 95% CI, 1.26-2.12), and oligohydramnios, 25% and 11% (aRR, 3.79, 95% CI, 1.34-10.74). Women with psoriatic arthritis were 2 years older on average and their average body mass index was 27 kg/m2 vs. 24.5 kg/m2 in the control group.
In women with ankylosing spondylitis, risk of infant hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit was increased by 67%, 17.2% vs. 11.9% in the control group.
Active disease measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) was linked to increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes in some cases, the investigators said.
For example, risk of preterm delivery was increased in women with psoriatic arthritis who had active disease at 32 weeks as measured by HAQ (27 women) and RAPID3 (28 women) scores, while in ankylosing spondylitis, active disease measured at intake by RAPID3 (46 women) was associated with increased risk of caesarean delivery.
Medication use in women with psoriatic arthritis was not associated with increased preterm delivery risk. However, women with ankylosing spondylitis who used corticosteroids in the second trimester had an increased risk of preterm delivery.
The rate of corticosteroid use was “surprisingly high” at 38% among the women with ankylosing spondylitis, Dr. Smith and coinvestigators said.
“The 2016 American College of Rheumatology guidelines in fact recommend against the use of systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, with the exception of short-term treatment with rapid tapering in circumstances such as flares during pregnancy, flares of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, or flare of peripheral arthritis,” they said in their report.
Dr. Smith and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest. The OTIS Collaborative Research Group has received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Smith CJF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 May 10. doi: 10.1002/acr.23924.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
VA system lags in getting DMARDs to veterans with inflammatory arthritis
MADISON, WISC. – Only half of United States veterans with inflammatory arthritis received disease-modifying medication within 90 days of diagnosis if they received care within the Veterans Health Administration, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
Over the study period, 58.2% of all inflammatory arthritis patients began a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) within 12 months of diagnosis. Rates of DMARD initiation were similar for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 57.7%) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA, 64.3%), said the first author of the poster presentation, Sogol S. Amjadi, DO, a resident physician at Bingham Memorial Hospital, Blackfoot, Idaho.
However, at 12 months after diagnosis, only 29.6% of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients had not been started on a DMARD. “The ankylosing spondylitis group really had the lowest DMARD initiation over time,” said Dr. Amjadi in an interview.
The study used diagnosis codes and natural language processing to look for incident cases of the three inflammatory arthritides (IAs) among patients receiving care within the Veterans Health Administration from 2007 through 2015.
In all, 12,118 patients with incident IA were identified. Of these, 9,711 had RA, 1,472 had PsA, and 935 had AS. Patients were mostly (91.3%) male, with a mean age of 63.7 years.
Over the study period, 41.2% of IA patients were dispensed a DMARD within 30 days of diagnosis, and 50% received a DMARD within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients with PsA or RA had similar rates of DMARD prescription within 30 days of diagnosis (about 42% and 43%, respectively).
The investigators discovered in their analysis that another factor in prompt treatment was access to specialty care.“Timely access to a rheumatology provider is likely important for early DMARD treatment,” wrote Dr. Amjadi and her coauthors in the poster accompanying the presentation. Of patients who did receive a DMARD, 82.7% had received rheumatology specialty care before nonbiologic DMARD dispensing, as had 90.0% of patients receiving biologic DMARDs. Over the entire study period, about 10% of all IA patients had biologic DMARD exposure.
There was a trend over time for increased DMARD dispensing, said the investigators. “The percentage of IA patients with DMARD exposure during the 12-month follow-up period increased from 48.8% in 2008 to 66.4% in 2015.”
For AS patients, early DMARD prescribing rates rose from about 20% in 2007 to nearly 30% in 2015. “DMARD treatment rates during the initial 12 months after diagnosis increased between 2007 and 2015, but nontreatment remained common, particularly in patients with AS,” wrote the investigators. “Delays in treatment for inflammatory arthritis are associated with unfavorable outcomes, including impaired quality of life, irreversible joint damage, and disability.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
MADISON, WISC. – Only half of United States veterans with inflammatory arthritis received disease-modifying medication within 90 days of diagnosis if they received care within the Veterans Health Administration, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
Over the study period, 58.2% of all inflammatory arthritis patients began a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) within 12 months of diagnosis. Rates of DMARD initiation were similar for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 57.7%) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA, 64.3%), said the first author of the poster presentation, Sogol S. Amjadi, DO, a resident physician at Bingham Memorial Hospital, Blackfoot, Idaho.
However, at 12 months after diagnosis, only 29.6% of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients had not been started on a DMARD. “The ankylosing spondylitis group really had the lowest DMARD initiation over time,” said Dr. Amjadi in an interview.
The study used diagnosis codes and natural language processing to look for incident cases of the three inflammatory arthritides (IAs) among patients receiving care within the Veterans Health Administration from 2007 through 2015.
In all, 12,118 patients with incident IA were identified. Of these, 9,711 had RA, 1,472 had PsA, and 935 had AS. Patients were mostly (91.3%) male, with a mean age of 63.7 years.
Over the study period, 41.2% of IA patients were dispensed a DMARD within 30 days of diagnosis, and 50% received a DMARD within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients with PsA or RA had similar rates of DMARD prescription within 30 days of diagnosis (about 42% and 43%, respectively).
The investigators discovered in their analysis that another factor in prompt treatment was access to specialty care.“Timely access to a rheumatology provider is likely important for early DMARD treatment,” wrote Dr. Amjadi and her coauthors in the poster accompanying the presentation. Of patients who did receive a DMARD, 82.7% had received rheumatology specialty care before nonbiologic DMARD dispensing, as had 90.0% of patients receiving biologic DMARDs. Over the entire study period, about 10% of all IA patients had biologic DMARD exposure.
There was a trend over time for increased DMARD dispensing, said the investigators. “The percentage of IA patients with DMARD exposure during the 12-month follow-up period increased from 48.8% in 2008 to 66.4% in 2015.”
For AS patients, early DMARD prescribing rates rose from about 20% in 2007 to nearly 30% in 2015. “DMARD treatment rates during the initial 12 months after diagnosis increased between 2007 and 2015, but nontreatment remained common, particularly in patients with AS,” wrote the investigators. “Delays in treatment for inflammatory arthritis are associated with unfavorable outcomes, including impaired quality of life, irreversible joint damage, and disability.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
MADISON, WISC. – Only half of United States veterans with inflammatory arthritis received disease-modifying medication within 90 days of diagnosis if they received care within the Veterans Health Administration, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
Over the study period, 58.2% of all inflammatory arthritis patients began a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) within 12 months of diagnosis. Rates of DMARD initiation were similar for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, 57.7%) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA, 64.3%), said the first author of the poster presentation, Sogol S. Amjadi, DO, a resident physician at Bingham Memorial Hospital, Blackfoot, Idaho.
However, at 12 months after diagnosis, only 29.6% of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients had not been started on a DMARD. “The ankylosing spondylitis group really had the lowest DMARD initiation over time,” said Dr. Amjadi in an interview.
The study used diagnosis codes and natural language processing to look for incident cases of the three inflammatory arthritides (IAs) among patients receiving care within the Veterans Health Administration from 2007 through 2015.
In all, 12,118 patients with incident IA were identified. Of these, 9,711 had RA, 1,472 had PsA, and 935 had AS. Patients were mostly (91.3%) male, with a mean age of 63.7 years.
Over the study period, 41.2% of IA patients were dispensed a DMARD within 30 days of diagnosis, and 50% received a DMARD within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients with PsA or RA had similar rates of DMARD prescription within 30 days of diagnosis (about 42% and 43%, respectively).
The investigators discovered in their analysis that another factor in prompt treatment was access to specialty care.“Timely access to a rheumatology provider is likely important for early DMARD treatment,” wrote Dr. Amjadi and her coauthors in the poster accompanying the presentation. Of patients who did receive a DMARD, 82.7% had received rheumatology specialty care before nonbiologic DMARD dispensing, as had 90.0% of patients receiving biologic DMARDs. Over the entire study period, about 10% of all IA patients had biologic DMARD exposure.
There was a trend over time for increased DMARD dispensing, said the investigators. “The percentage of IA patients with DMARD exposure during the 12-month follow-up period increased from 48.8% in 2008 to 66.4% in 2015.”
For AS patients, early DMARD prescribing rates rose from about 20% in 2007 to nearly 30% in 2015. “DMARD treatment rates during the initial 12 months after diagnosis increased between 2007 and 2015, but nontreatment remained common, particularly in patients with AS,” wrote the investigators. “Delays in treatment for inflammatory arthritis are associated with unfavorable outcomes, including impaired quality of life, irreversible joint damage, and disability.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
REPORTING FROM SPARTAN 2019
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Overall, 58.2% of inflammatory arthritis patients received a DMARD within the first year of diagnosis.
Study details: Retrospective review of 12,118 incident cases of inflammatory arthritis in the Veterans Health Administration during the period from 2007 through 2015.
Disclosures: The authors reported no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
Source: Amjadi SS et al. SPARTAN 2019.
Ankylosing spondylitis patients taking COX-2 inhibitors may see fewer cardiovascular events
MADISON, WISC. – Patients with ankylosing spondylitis had a small but significant reduction in risk for cardiovascular events if they were taking cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
The reduced risk observed in this analysis (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.70) contrasts with the increased risk for cardiovascular events seen with COX-2 inhibitor use in the general population, said Paras Karmacharya, MBBS, speaking in an interview at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN). The overall effect was highly statistically significant (P = .0001), and the finding provides “reassuring” data for a population that’s known to have an elevated risk for cardiovascular events, he said.
“[W]e found in the subgroup analysis that COX-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events as a whole,” an association also seen when looking just at ischemic stroke, Dr. Karmacharya said. “So that was sort of surprising; in the general population, there are some concerns about using COX-2 inhibitors.”
Looking at data for the nine studies that met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, Dr. Karmacharya, a rheumatology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his collaborators calculated risk ratios for a composite outcome of all cardiovascular events (CVE) for all individuals taking NSAIDs, compared with individuals with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who were not taking NSAIDs. Here, they found a relative risk of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.50-1.75; P = .84).
Next, the investigators calculated a relative risk of 0.78 for the composite CVE outcome just for those taking nonselective NSAIDs (95% CI, 0.44-1.38; P = .40).
Along with NSAIDs, Dr. Karmacharya and his coauthors also looked at the relationship between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFIs) and cardiovascular events. They found a significantly increased risk for the composite endpoint among AS patients taking TNFIs (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.41; P = .03), but the comparison was limited to only one study.
In their analysis, the investigators also broke out risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS)/ischemic heart disease. “The only place where we found some increased risk was ACS and ischemic heart disease, and that was with nonselective NSAIDS,” Dr. Karmacharya said (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39; P = .005). No significant changes in relative risk for ACS and ischemic heart disease were seen for the total group of NSAID users, for the subgroups taking COX-2 inhibitors, or for those taking TNFIs.
Finally, the investigators found a relative risk of 0.58 for stroke among the full group of NSAID users and a relative risk of 0.59 for those taking COX-2 inhibitors, but no reduced risk for the subgroup taking nonselective NSAIDs (P = .02, .04, and .37, respectively).
“While NSAIDs are known to be associated with an increased risk of CVE in the general population, whether the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs reduce or modify the CVE risk in AS is controversial,” Dr. Karmacharya and his collaborators wrote. In this context, the meta-analysis provides a useful perspective for rheumatologists who care for AS patients, Dr. Karmacharya said: “I think it’s important, because most of these patients are on NSAIDs long-term.”
However, all of the studies included in the meta-analysis were observational, with no randomized, controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Also, some analyses presented in the poster involved as few as two studies, so findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. “We don’t have a lot of studies included in the analysis. ... so we need more data for sure, but I think what data we have so far look reassuring.”
Dr. Karmacharya reported that he had no conflicts of interest, and reported no outside sources of funding.
MADISON, WISC. – Patients with ankylosing spondylitis had a small but significant reduction in risk for cardiovascular events if they were taking cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
The reduced risk observed in this analysis (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.70) contrasts with the increased risk for cardiovascular events seen with COX-2 inhibitor use in the general population, said Paras Karmacharya, MBBS, speaking in an interview at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN). The overall effect was highly statistically significant (P = .0001), and the finding provides “reassuring” data for a population that’s known to have an elevated risk for cardiovascular events, he said.
“[W]e found in the subgroup analysis that COX-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events as a whole,” an association also seen when looking just at ischemic stroke, Dr. Karmacharya said. “So that was sort of surprising; in the general population, there are some concerns about using COX-2 inhibitors.”
Looking at data for the nine studies that met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, Dr. Karmacharya, a rheumatology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his collaborators calculated risk ratios for a composite outcome of all cardiovascular events (CVE) for all individuals taking NSAIDs, compared with individuals with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who were not taking NSAIDs. Here, they found a relative risk of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.50-1.75; P = .84).
Next, the investigators calculated a relative risk of 0.78 for the composite CVE outcome just for those taking nonselective NSAIDs (95% CI, 0.44-1.38; P = .40).
Along with NSAIDs, Dr. Karmacharya and his coauthors also looked at the relationship between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFIs) and cardiovascular events. They found a significantly increased risk for the composite endpoint among AS patients taking TNFIs (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.41; P = .03), but the comparison was limited to only one study.
In their analysis, the investigators also broke out risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS)/ischemic heart disease. “The only place where we found some increased risk was ACS and ischemic heart disease, and that was with nonselective NSAIDS,” Dr. Karmacharya said (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39; P = .005). No significant changes in relative risk for ACS and ischemic heart disease were seen for the total group of NSAID users, for the subgroups taking COX-2 inhibitors, or for those taking TNFIs.
Finally, the investigators found a relative risk of 0.58 for stroke among the full group of NSAID users and a relative risk of 0.59 for those taking COX-2 inhibitors, but no reduced risk for the subgroup taking nonselective NSAIDs (P = .02, .04, and .37, respectively).
“While NSAIDs are known to be associated with an increased risk of CVE in the general population, whether the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs reduce or modify the CVE risk in AS is controversial,” Dr. Karmacharya and his collaborators wrote. In this context, the meta-analysis provides a useful perspective for rheumatologists who care for AS patients, Dr. Karmacharya said: “I think it’s important, because most of these patients are on NSAIDs long-term.”
However, all of the studies included in the meta-analysis were observational, with no randomized, controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Also, some analyses presented in the poster involved as few as two studies, so findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. “We don’t have a lot of studies included in the analysis. ... so we need more data for sure, but I think what data we have so far look reassuring.”
Dr. Karmacharya reported that he had no conflicts of interest, and reported no outside sources of funding.
MADISON, WISC. – Patients with ankylosing spondylitis had a small but significant reduction in risk for cardiovascular events if they were taking cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
The reduced risk observed in this analysis (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.70) contrasts with the increased risk for cardiovascular events seen with COX-2 inhibitor use in the general population, said Paras Karmacharya, MBBS, speaking in an interview at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN). The overall effect was highly statistically significant (P = .0001), and the finding provides “reassuring” data for a population that’s known to have an elevated risk for cardiovascular events, he said.
“[W]e found in the subgroup analysis that COX-2 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events as a whole,” an association also seen when looking just at ischemic stroke, Dr. Karmacharya said. “So that was sort of surprising; in the general population, there are some concerns about using COX-2 inhibitors.”
Looking at data for the nine studies that met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, Dr. Karmacharya, a rheumatology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and his collaborators calculated risk ratios for a composite outcome of all cardiovascular events (CVE) for all individuals taking NSAIDs, compared with individuals with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who were not taking NSAIDs. Here, they found a relative risk of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.50-1.75; P = .84).
Next, the investigators calculated a relative risk of 0.78 for the composite CVE outcome just for those taking nonselective NSAIDs (95% CI, 0.44-1.38; P = .40).
Along with NSAIDs, Dr. Karmacharya and his coauthors also looked at the relationship between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFIs) and cardiovascular events. They found a significantly increased risk for the composite endpoint among AS patients taking TNFIs (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.05-2.41; P = .03), but the comparison was limited to only one study.
In their analysis, the investigators also broke out risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS)/ischemic heart disease. “The only place where we found some increased risk was ACS and ischemic heart disease, and that was with nonselective NSAIDS,” Dr. Karmacharya said (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39; P = .005). No significant changes in relative risk for ACS and ischemic heart disease were seen for the total group of NSAID users, for the subgroups taking COX-2 inhibitors, or for those taking TNFIs.
Finally, the investigators found a relative risk of 0.58 for stroke among the full group of NSAID users and a relative risk of 0.59 for those taking COX-2 inhibitors, but no reduced risk for the subgroup taking nonselective NSAIDs (P = .02, .04, and .37, respectively).
“While NSAIDs are known to be associated with an increased risk of CVE in the general population, whether the anti-inflammatory effects of NSAIDs reduce or modify the CVE risk in AS is controversial,” Dr. Karmacharya and his collaborators wrote. In this context, the meta-analysis provides a useful perspective for rheumatologists who care for AS patients, Dr. Karmacharya said: “I think it’s important, because most of these patients are on NSAIDs long-term.”
However, all of the studies included in the meta-analysis were observational, with no randomized, controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Also, some analyses presented in the poster involved as few as two studies, so findings should be interpreted with caution, he added. “We don’t have a lot of studies included in the analysis. ... so we need more data for sure, but I think what data we have so far look reassuring.”
Dr. Karmacharya reported that he had no conflicts of interest, and reported no outside sources of funding.
REPORTING FROM SPARTAN 2019
Key clinical point: Individuals with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who took cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors had a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, compared with AS patients who were not using COX-2 inhibitors.
Major finding: Individuals with AS taking COX-2 inhibitors had a risk ratio of 0.48 for cardiovascular events (95% CI, 0.33-0.70; P = .001).
Study details: Systematic review and meta-analysis of nine observational studies that variably examined the association between NSAID use and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use and cardiovascular events among individuals with AS.
Disclosures: The authors reported no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.
Source: Karmacharya P. et al. SPARTAN 2019.