Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 European Congress of Rheumatology annual meeting is about to take place in Vienna, Austria. From June 12 to 15, some of the world’s leading researchers and clinicians will convene to present and learn about data on some of the new and innovative treatments for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) as well as to discuss how to use and optimize existing approaches. 

Ahead of the Congress, this news organization asked the Congress Committee’s Scientific Programme Chair Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, and Abstract Chair Christian Dejaco, MD, PhD, MBA, to discuss some of their highlights of this year’s meeting.
 

From Bench to Bedside

“For me, the beauty at EULAR is really that you have the latest on basic research, how this can be translated in clinical trials, and then the last step would be how EULAR recommends it to be used in clinical practice,” Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zurich, said in an interview.  

University Hospital Zurich

“So, if you go to EULAR continuously, you can actually follow the whole story of how novelty comes into clinical practice,” she added. 

In a separate interview, Dr. Dejaco, a consultant rheumatologist and associate professor at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, said: “There are several new drug trials that are going to be presented.” 

One of his highlights on the use of new drugs for the treatment of giant cell arteritis will be the phase 3 SELECT-GCA trial of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (LBA0001).

“It’s a trial that hopefully will lead to the approval of this drug in this indication,” Dr. Dejaco said.

EULAR

Late-Breaking Abstracts

Dr. Ospelt noted: “We had a lot of good late-breaking abstracts this year.” 

Some of these include: 

• Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness of five different classes of drugs used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA; LBA0002) 
• The 16-week results of a phase 2b/3 study with the novel interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor izokibep in people with PsA (LBA0005)
• Data from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial on the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (Taltz) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (LBA0009)
• Phase 2 data on the safety and efficacy of the CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody daratumumab in systemic lupus erythematosus (LBA0007)
• Results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of the anti–neonatal Fc receptor monoclonal antibody nipocalimab in people with primary Sjögren disease (LBA0010) 
• Safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1 study of an active anti–IL-6 immunotherapy in people with knee osteoarthritis (LBA0011)

The latter is “really interesting,” Dr. Ospelt said. As of now, there is no approved treatment for osteoarthritis, and there is no immunotherapy, “so this would be the first.” 

But it’s not just the late-breaker abstracts to look out for. Dr. Dejaco highlighted two abstracts that will be presented during the Abstract Plenary: 

• A phase 3 study of a new selective JAK1 inhibitor, SHR0302, in rheumatoid arthritis (OP0037)
• A multi-omics analysis and targeted gene-editing study in people with , which causes inflammatory and hematologic changes (OP0073)

Of the latter, he said, “this disease is still incompletely understood, and this abstract really helps to better understand the mechanisms underlying this disease.”
 

One to Watch: CAR T-Cell Therapy 

Dr. Ospelt said that the scientific program is about 80% clinical and 20% basic science overall. However, more sessions are being held jointly because data are starting to move from the bench to bedside. 

One of the basic science areas that has had “a real buzz” around it and is now producing results in the clinic is the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. In one of the first, and perhaps aptly titled What Is New, or WIN, sessions of the congress, Georg Schett, MD, vice president of research at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nüremberg in Germany, will discuss the use of CAR T-cell therapy for inflammatory RMDs. There are also multiple abstract presentations on this topic. 

In-depth tissue analysis and prediction of treatment response is another interesting approach, Dr. Ospelt said. “I think that’s the way to go, that we come from the blood, we go into the tissue.” A “very nice” example of this approach will be presented during the Abstract Plenary session on Wednesday, June 12, looking at how synovial tissue macrophages may be able to give information on likely treatment response in treatment-naive rheumatoid arthritis (OP0062). There are also some further findings related to the tissue biopsy–driven treatment trial R4RA that are being presented at the meeting (OP0218, OP0242, and POS0351).
 

EULAR Highlighted Sessions

Among the highlighted sessions on the EULAR 2024 website is one on axial involvement in PsA and spondyloarthritis (SpA). 

“Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis and peripheral involvement in axial spondyloarthritis is quite a hot topic at the moment,” Dr. Ospelt said. There are lots of questions: “How connected are they? How different are they? Do we need different treatment for axial involvement compared to peripheral involvement?” 

Another EULAR highlighted session is the 75th anniversary of glucocorticoid treatment, during which Past President of EULAR and Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology Josef S. Smolen, MD, will overview the “past, present, and future” of glucocorticoids in RMDs. Consultant rheumatologist Frank Buttgereit, MD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin, will discuss the practicalities of using these drugs in clinical practice.

Dr. Dejaco noted: “Glucocorticoids have been one of the most important treatments for a very long time, and they’re still the most important treatment for the acute treatment of systemic inflammatory diseases.”

For a long time, there was no alternative to using steroids, he added, but steroid-sparing options now exist, and there will be data presented on a new type of drug that could potentially be used to control cortisol levels in the body (OP0335).
 

Recommendations and More

Dr. Ospelt and Dr. Dejaco both pointed out other sessions that are likely to be very popular, such as the first and second EULAR Recommendations sessions, a session on rheumatoid arthritis prevention, as well as the many presentations and sessions on digital health and nonpharmacologic interventions such as exercise. 

With over 5242 submitted abstracts, there is going to be no shortage of data being presented at EULAR 2024. Alongside the traditional abstract submission categories, this year there is a new clinical case reports category. 

“We had about 578 submissions for that category,” Dr. Dejaco said. There were 3315 abstracts submitted for the clinical research category, 812 for the basic and translational research category, 283 from health professionals in rheumatology, 152 from patient groups, and 102 in the field of pediatric rheumatology.
 

Join in On-Site, Watch on Demand 

EULAR 2024 reverts to an on-site–only meeting this year. Some of the more lighthearted yet educational elements of the program for those attending include the second edition of the EMEUNET Rheumatology Quiz and, new for this year, two escape rooms. These rooms will provide an interactive experience where small teams will have to solve rheumatologic conundrums in order to escape the room within the hour, Dr. Dejaco explained. There will also be a morning run on Friday, June 14. “It’s not a race, it’s simply to meet and run together,” Dr. Dejaco said. 

But if you cannot make the congress in person, the EULAR 2024 Livestream will be broadcasting throughout the congress. Anyone registered by June 30 will have on-demand access to the recorded content from June 17 until December 31, 2024. 

Abstracts for the meeting will be published as a supplement to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the official journal of EULAR. 

Dr. Ospelt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dejaco has received consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Sparrow, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 European Congress of Rheumatology annual meeting is about to take place in Vienna, Austria. From June 12 to 15, some of the world’s leading researchers and clinicians will convene to present and learn about data on some of the new and innovative treatments for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) as well as to discuss how to use and optimize existing approaches. 

Ahead of the Congress, this news organization asked the Congress Committee’s Scientific Programme Chair Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, and Abstract Chair Christian Dejaco, MD, PhD, MBA, to discuss some of their highlights of this year’s meeting.
 

From Bench to Bedside

“For me, the beauty at EULAR is really that you have the latest on basic research, how this can be translated in clinical trials, and then the last step would be how EULAR recommends it to be used in clinical practice,” Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zurich, said in an interview.  

University Hospital Zurich

“So, if you go to EULAR continuously, you can actually follow the whole story of how novelty comes into clinical practice,” she added. 

In a separate interview, Dr. Dejaco, a consultant rheumatologist and associate professor at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, said: “There are several new drug trials that are going to be presented.” 

One of his highlights on the use of new drugs for the treatment of giant cell arteritis will be the phase 3 SELECT-GCA trial of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (LBA0001).

“It’s a trial that hopefully will lead to the approval of this drug in this indication,” Dr. Dejaco said.

EULAR

Late-Breaking Abstracts

Dr. Ospelt noted: “We had a lot of good late-breaking abstracts this year.” 

Some of these include: 

• Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness of five different classes of drugs used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA; LBA0002) 
• The 16-week results of a phase 2b/3 study with the novel interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor izokibep in people with PsA (LBA0005)
• Data from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial on the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (Taltz) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (LBA0009)
• Phase 2 data on the safety and efficacy of the CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody daratumumab in systemic lupus erythematosus (LBA0007)
• Results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of the anti–neonatal Fc receptor monoclonal antibody nipocalimab in people with primary Sjögren disease (LBA0010) 
• Safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1 study of an active anti–IL-6 immunotherapy in people with knee osteoarthritis (LBA0011)

The latter is “really interesting,” Dr. Ospelt said. As of now, there is no approved treatment for osteoarthritis, and there is no immunotherapy, “so this would be the first.” 

But it’s not just the late-breaker abstracts to look out for. Dr. Dejaco highlighted two abstracts that will be presented during the Abstract Plenary: 

• A phase 3 study of a new selective JAK1 inhibitor, SHR0302, in rheumatoid arthritis (OP0037)
• A multi-omics analysis and targeted gene-editing study in people with , which causes inflammatory and hematologic changes (OP0073)

Of the latter, he said, “this disease is still incompletely understood, and this abstract really helps to better understand the mechanisms underlying this disease.”
 

One to Watch: CAR T-Cell Therapy 

Dr. Ospelt said that the scientific program is about 80% clinical and 20% basic science overall. However, more sessions are being held jointly because data are starting to move from the bench to bedside. 

One of the basic science areas that has had “a real buzz” around it and is now producing results in the clinic is the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. In one of the first, and perhaps aptly titled What Is New, or WIN, sessions of the congress, Georg Schett, MD, vice president of research at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nüremberg in Germany, will discuss the use of CAR T-cell therapy for inflammatory RMDs. There are also multiple abstract presentations on this topic. 

In-depth tissue analysis and prediction of treatment response is another interesting approach, Dr. Ospelt said. “I think that’s the way to go, that we come from the blood, we go into the tissue.” A “very nice” example of this approach will be presented during the Abstract Plenary session on Wednesday, June 12, looking at how synovial tissue macrophages may be able to give information on likely treatment response in treatment-naive rheumatoid arthritis (OP0062). There are also some further findings related to the tissue biopsy–driven treatment trial R4RA that are being presented at the meeting (OP0218, OP0242, and POS0351).
 

EULAR Highlighted Sessions

Among the highlighted sessions on the EULAR 2024 website is one on axial involvement in PsA and spondyloarthritis (SpA). 

“Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis and peripheral involvement in axial spondyloarthritis is quite a hot topic at the moment,” Dr. Ospelt said. There are lots of questions: “How connected are they? How different are they? Do we need different treatment for axial involvement compared to peripheral involvement?” 

Another EULAR highlighted session is the 75th anniversary of glucocorticoid treatment, during which Past President of EULAR and Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology Josef S. Smolen, MD, will overview the “past, present, and future” of glucocorticoids in RMDs. Consultant rheumatologist Frank Buttgereit, MD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin, will discuss the practicalities of using these drugs in clinical practice.

Dr. Dejaco noted: “Glucocorticoids have been one of the most important treatments for a very long time, and they’re still the most important treatment for the acute treatment of systemic inflammatory diseases.”

For a long time, there was no alternative to using steroids, he added, but steroid-sparing options now exist, and there will be data presented on a new type of drug that could potentially be used to control cortisol levels in the body (OP0335).
 

Recommendations and More

Dr. Ospelt and Dr. Dejaco both pointed out other sessions that are likely to be very popular, such as the first and second EULAR Recommendations sessions, a session on rheumatoid arthritis prevention, as well as the many presentations and sessions on digital health and nonpharmacologic interventions such as exercise. 

With over 5242 submitted abstracts, there is going to be no shortage of data being presented at EULAR 2024. Alongside the traditional abstract submission categories, this year there is a new clinical case reports category. 

“We had about 578 submissions for that category,” Dr. Dejaco said. There were 3315 abstracts submitted for the clinical research category, 812 for the basic and translational research category, 283 from health professionals in rheumatology, 152 from patient groups, and 102 in the field of pediatric rheumatology.
 

Join in On-Site, Watch on Demand 

EULAR 2024 reverts to an on-site–only meeting this year. Some of the more lighthearted yet educational elements of the program for those attending include the second edition of the EMEUNET Rheumatology Quiz and, new for this year, two escape rooms. These rooms will provide an interactive experience where small teams will have to solve rheumatologic conundrums in order to escape the room within the hour, Dr. Dejaco explained. There will also be a morning run on Friday, June 14. “It’s not a race, it’s simply to meet and run together,” Dr. Dejaco said. 

But if you cannot make the congress in person, the EULAR 2024 Livestream will be broadcasting throughout the congress. Anyone registered by June 30 will have on-demand access to the recorded content from June 17 until December 31, 2024. 

Abstracts for the meeting will be published as a supplement to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the official journal of EULAR. 

Dr. Ospelt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dejaco has received consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Sparrow, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 European Congress of Rheumatology annual meeting is about to take place in Vienna, Austria. From June 12 to 15, some of the world’s leading researchers and clinicians will convene to present and learn about data on some of the new and innovative treatments for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) as well as to discuss how to use and optimize existing approaches. 

Ahead of the Congress, this news organization asked the Congress Committee’s Scientific Programme Chair Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, and Abstract Chair Christian Dejaco, MD, PhD, MBA, to discuss some of their highlights of this year’s meeting.
 

From Bench to Bedside

“For me, the beauty at EULAR is really that you have the latest on basic research, how this can be translated in clinical trials, and then the last step would be how EULAR recommends it to be used in clinical practice,” Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zurich, said in an interview.  

University Hospital Zurich

“So, if you go to EULAR continuously, you can actually follow the whole story of how novelty comes into clinical practice,” she added. 

In a separate interview, Dr. Dejaco, a consultant rheumatologist and associate professor at the Medical University of Graz in Austria, said: “There are several new drug trials that are going to be presented.” 

One of his highlights on the use of new drugs for the treatment of giant cell arteritis will be the phase 3 SELECT-GCA trial of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (LBA0001).

“It’s a trial that hopefully will lead to the approval of this drug in this indication,” Dr. Dejaco said.

EULAR

Late-Breaking Abstracts

Dr. Ospelt noted: “We had a lot of good late-breaking abstracts this year.” 

Some of these include: 

• Real-world data on the comparative effectiveness of five different classes of drugs used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA; LBA0002) 
• The 16-week results of a phase 2b/3 study with the novel interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor izokibep in people with PsA (LBA0005)
• Data from the COSPIRIT-JIA trial on the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (Taltz) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (LBA0009)
• Phase 2 data on the safety and efficacy of the CD38-targeting monoclonal antibody daratumumab in systemic lupus erythematosus (LBA0007)
• Results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of the anti–neonatal Fc receptor monoclonal antibody nipocalimab in people with primary Sjögren disease (LBA0010) 
• Safety and immunogenicity data from a phase 1 study of an active anti–IL-6 immunotherapy in people with knee osteoarthritis (LBA0011)

The latter is “really interesting,” Dr. Ospelt said. As of now, there is no approved treatment for osteoarthritis, and there is no immunotherapy, “so this would be the first.” 

But it’s not just the late-breaker abstracts to look out for. Dr. Dejaco highlighted two abstracts that will be presented during the Abstract Plenary: 

• A phase 3 study of a new selective JAK1 inhibitor, SHR0302, in rheumatoid arthritis (OP0037)
• A multi-omics analysis and targeted gene-editing study in people with , which causes inflammatory and hematologic changes (OP0073)

Of the latter, he said, “this disease is still incompletely understood, and this abstract really helps to better understand the mechanisms underlying this disease.”
 

One to Watch: CAR T-Cell Therapy 

Dr. Ospelt said that the scientific program is about 80% clinical and 20% basic science overall. However, more sessions are being held jointly because data are starting to move from the bench to bedside. 

One of the basic science areas that has had “a real buzz” around it and is now producing results in the clinic is the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. In one of the first, and perhaps aptly titled What Is New, or WIN, sessions of the congress, Georg Schett, MD, vice president of research at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nüremberg in Germany, will discuss the use of CAR T-cell therapy for inflammatory RMDs. There are also multiple abstract presentations on this topic. 

In-depth tissue analysis and prediction of treatment response is another interesting approach, Dr. Ospelt said. “I think that’s the way to go, that we come from the blood, we go into the tissue.” A “very nice” example of this approach will be presented during the Abstract Plenary session on Wednesday, June 12, looking at how synovial tissue macrophages may be able to give information on likely treatment response in treatment-naive rheumatoid arthritis (OP0062). There are also some further findings related to the tissue biopsy–driven treatment trial R4RA that are being presented at the meeting (OP0218, OP0242, and POS0351).
 

EULAR Highlighted Sessions

Among the highlighted sessions on the EULAR 2024 website is one on axial involvement in PsA and spondyloarthritis (SpA). 

“Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis and peripheral involvement in axial spondyloarthritis is quite a hot topic at the moment,” Dr. Ospelt said. There are lots of questions: “How connected are they? How different are they? Do we need different treatment for axial involvement compared to peripheral involvement?” 

Another EULAR highlighted session is the 75th anniversary of glucocorticoid treatment, during which Past President of EULAR and Emeritus Professor of Rheumatology Josef S. Smolen, MD, will overview the “past, present, and future” of glucocorticoids in RMDs. Consultant rheumatologist Frank Buttgereit, MD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin, will discuss the practicalities of using these drugs in clinical practice.

Dr. Dejaco noted: “Glucocorticoids have been one of the most important treatments for a very long time, and they’re still the most important treatment for the acute treatment of systemic inflammatory diseases.”

For a long time, there was no alternative to using steroids, he added, but steroid-sparing options now exist, and there will be data presented on a new type of drug that could potentially be used to control cortisol levels in the body (OP0335).
 

Recommendations and More

Dr. Ospelt and Dr. Dejaco both pointed out other sessions that are likely to be very popular, such as the first and second EULAR Recommendations sessions, a session on rheumatoid arthritis prevention, as well as the many presentations and sessions on digital health and nonpharmacologic interventions such as exercise. 

With over 5242 submitted abstracts, there is going to be no shortage of data being presented at EULAR 2024. Alongside the traditional abstract submission categories, this year there is a new clinical case reports category. 

“We had about 578 submissions for that category,” Dr. Dejaco said. There were 3315 abstracts submitted for the clinical research category, 812 for the basic and translational research category, 283 from health professionals in rheumatology, 152 from patient groups, and 102 in the field of pediatric rheumatology.
 

Join in On-Site, Watch on Demand 

EULAR 2024 reverts to an on-site–only meeting this year. Some of the more lighthearted yet educational elements of the program for those attending include the second edition of the EMEUNET Rheumatology Quiz and, new for this year, two escape rooms. These rooms will provide an interactive experience where small teams will have to solve rheumatologic conundrums in order to escape the room within the hour, Dr. Dejaco explained. There will also be a morning run on Friday, June 14. “It’s not a race, it’s simply to meet and run together,” Dr. Dejaco said. 

But if you cannot make the congress in person, the EULAR 2024 Livestream will be broadcasting throughout the congress. Anyone registered by June 30 will have on-demand access to the recorded content from June 17 until December 31, 2024. 

Abstracts for the meeting will be published as a supplement to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the official journal of EULAR. 

Dr. Ospelt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dejaco has received consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Sparrow, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Inebilizumab-cdon, a monoclonal antibody that depletes B cells, reduces the risk for flares without showing any new safety signals in patients with immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) who have multiorgan disease and are on glucocorticoid therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated, fibroinflammatory condition that affects multiple organs, causing irreversible organ damage. MITIGATE is the first multinational, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with IgG4-RD.
• Researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in 135 adult patients at risk for flares due to a history of multiorgan disease and active disease requiring treatment with glucocorticoids.
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive 300-mg intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on day 1, day 15, and week 26.
• The primary endpoint was the time to the first treated and adjudicated IgG4-RD flare within 52 weeks.
• The secondary endpoints included the annualized flare rate, flare-free and treatment-free complete remission, and flare-free and corticosteroid-free complete remission.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the placebo, inebilizumab reduced the risk for IgG4-RD flares by 87% during the 52-week trial period (hazard ratio, 0.13; P < .0001).
• All the secondary endpoints showed improvement following treatment with inebilizumab.
• The most common adverse reactions with inebilizumab, as observed in a previous trial for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, were urinary tract infection and arthralgia.
• There were no new safety signals in the MITIGATE trial.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data mark a major milestone for the IgG4-RD community and provide substantial insight into not only how inebilizumab can help manage IgG4-RD but also key insights into the nature of this condition,” John Stone, MD, MPH, principal investigator, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Dr. Stone, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Edward A. Fox Chair in Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led this study.

LIMITATIONS:

This press release did not discuss any limitations of the current study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Hansoh Pharma and sponsored by Amgen. The author disclosures were not available.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inebilizumab-cdon, a monoclonal antibody that depletes B cells, reduces the risk for flares without showing any new safety signals in patients with immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) who have multiorgan disease and are on glucocorticoid therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated, fibroinflammatory condition that affects multiple organs, causing irreversible organ damage. MITIGATE is the first multinational, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with IgG4-RD.
• Researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in 135 adult patients at risk for flares due to a history of multiorgan disease and active disease requiring treatment with glucocorticoids.
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive 300-mg intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on day 1, day 15, and week 26.
• The primary endpoint was the time to the first treated and adjudicated IgG4-RD flare within 52 weeks.
• The secondary endpoints included the annualized flare rate, flare-free and treatment-free complete remission, and flare-free and corticosteroid-free complete remission.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the placebo, inebilizumab reduced the risk for IgG4-RD flares by 87% during the 52-week trial period (hazard ratio, 0.13; P < .0001).
• All the secondary endpoints showed improvement following treatment with inebilizumab.
• The most common adverse reactions with inebilizumab, as observed in a previous trial for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, were urinary tract infection and arthralgia.
• There were no new safety signals in the MITIGATE trial.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data mark a major milestone for the IgG4-RD community and provide substantial insight into not only how inebilizumab can help manage IgG4-RD but also key insights into the nature of this condition,” John Stone, MD, MPH, principal investigator, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Dr. Stone, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Edward A. Fox Chair in Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led this study.

LIMITATIONS:

This press release did not discuss any limitations of the current study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Hansoh Pharma and sponsored by Amgen. The author disclosures were not available.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inebilizumab-cdon, a monoclonal antibody that depletes B cells, reduces the risk for flares without showing any new safety signals in patients with immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) who have multiorgan disease and are on glucocorticoid therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated, fibroinflammatory condition that affects multiple organs, causing irreversible organ damage. MITIGATE is the first multinational, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with IgG4-RD.
• Researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in 135 adult patients at risk for flares due to a history of multiorgan disease and active disease requiring treatment with glucocorticoids.
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive 300-mg intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on day 1, day 15, and week 26.
• The primary endpoint was the time to the first treated and adjudicated IgG4-RD flare within 52 weeks.
• The secondary endpoints included the annualized flare rate, flare-free and treatment-free complete remission, and flare-free and corticosteroid-free complete remission.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the placebo, inebilizumab reduced the risk for IgG4-RD flares by 87% during the 52-week trial period (hazard ratio, 0.13; P < .0001).
• All the secondary endpoints showed improvement following treatment with inebilizumab.
• The most common adverse reactions with inebilizumab, as observed in a previous trial for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, were urinary tract infection and arthralgia.
• There were no new safety signals in the MITIGATE trial.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data mark a major milestone for the IgG4-RD community and provide substantial insight into not only how inebilizumab can help manage IgG4-RD but also key insights into the nature of this condition,” John Stone, MD, MPH, principal investigator, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Dr. Stone, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Edward A. Fox Chair in Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led this study.

LIMITATIONS:

This press release did not discuss any limitations of the current study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Hansoh Pharma and sponsored by Amgen. The author disclosures were not available.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms, including nightmares and hallucinatory “daymares,” may be a more important aspect of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than formerly recognized, according to a qualitative mixed methods study published in The Lancet Discovery Science’s eClinicalMedicine. The findings suggested these neuropsychiatric symptoms can sometimes present as prodromal and other times act as an early warning system for a forthcoming flare.

“For clinicians, the key point is to be aware that neurological and psychiatric symptoms are much more common in patients with lupus and other autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases than previously thought,” lead author Melanie Sloan, PhD, of the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Cambridge in England, told this news organization.

“If clinicians — and some do already — could all ask about and document these symptoms for each patient, the usual progression of symptoms in a flare can then be monitored, and patients could be supported and treated at an earlier stage,” Dr. Sloan said. “Another key point is to consider systemic autoimmune diseases at an early stage if a patient presents with multiple seemingly unconnected symptoms, which often include both physical and mental health symptoms.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, noted the difficulty of determining what neuropsychiatric symptoms may be linked to lupus vs those occurring independently or as part of a different condition.

Dr. Kim

Study Details

In planning for the study, the researchers first searched the existing literature for studies involving neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). “The literature indicated frequent underreporting and misattributions of neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE and other SARD patients, and clinician-patient discordance in neuropsychiatric symptom attribution,” the authors reported.

During 2022-2023, the researchers conducted two surveys, one with 676 adult patients with SLE and one with 400 clinicians, recruited through social media, online patient support groups, and professional networks. All patients self-reported an SLE diagnosis that the researchers did not independently confirm. The patients were predominantly White (80%) and female (94%), ranging in age from 18 to over 70, with most falling between ages 40 and 69. Most patients lived in the United Kingdom (76%) or Europe (15%).

The clinicians included 51% rheumatologists, 24% psychiatrists, 13% neurologists, 5% rheumatology nurses, 3% primary care physicians, and 7% other clinicians. Nearly half of the clinicians (45%) were from the United Kingdom, with others from the United States or Canada (16%), Europe (17%), Asia (9%), Latin America (8%), Australia or New Zealand (3%), or elsewhere (3%).

The patient surveys asked whether they had experienced any of the 29 neuropsychiatric symptoms. For the symptoms that patients had experienced at least three times in their lives, the survey asked when they first experienced the symptom in relation to their SLE onset or other SLE symptoms: Over a year before, within a year of (on either side), 1-4 years after, or more than 5 years after onset/other symptoms. “Other quantitative data included timings of disrupted dreaming sleep in relation to hallucinations for those patients reporting experiencing these,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also conducted video conference interviews with 50 clinicians, including 20 rheumatologists, and 69 interviews with patients who had a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, including 27 patients with SLE. Other conditions among those interviewed included inflammatory arthritis, vasculitis, Sjögren disease, systemic sclerosis, myositis, undifferentiated and mixed connective tissue diseases, and polymyalgia rheumatica. During interviews, the term “daymare” was used to discuss possible hallucinations.
 

Linking Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Disease

Four themes emerged from the analysis of the surveys and interviews. First, despite many rheumatologists stating that it was an “established theory” that most neuropsychiatric symptoms related to SLE would initially present around the time of diagnosis or disease onset, the findings from patients and interviews with psychiatrists did not align with this theory. The first presentation of each neuropsychiatric symptom only occurred around the onset of other SLE symptoms, about one fifth to one third of the time. In fact, more than half of the patients with SLE who had experienced hallucinations or delusions/paranoia said they occurred more than a year after they first experienced their other SLE symptoms.

Patient experiences differed in terms of whether they believed their neuropsychiatric symptoms were directly related to their SLE or other rheumatic disease. Some did attribute the symptoms, such as hypomania, to their rheumatic illness, while others, such as a patient with major depression, did not see the two as linked.

A second theme focused on pattern recognition of neuropsychiatric symptoms and the onset of a disease flare. “For example, several patients described how they felt that some types of depressive symptoms were directly attributable to active inflammation due to its time of onset and differences in type and intensity compared to their more ‘reactive’ low mood that could be more attributable to a consequence of psychological distress,” the authors wrote. Another common report from patients was experiencing a sudden, intense fatigue that coincided with a flare and differed from other types of fatigue.

Some patients could recognize that a flare was coming because of familiar neuropsychiatric symptoms that acted like an “early warning system.” Often, however, these symptoms “were absent from current diagnostic guidelines and only rarely identified by clinician interviewees as related to SLE/NPSLE,” the authors found. “These neuropsychiatric prodromal symptoms were reported as sometimes preceding the more widely recognized SLE and other SARD symptoms such as joint pain, rashes, and other organ involvement.” These symptoms included sudden changes in mood (usually a lowering but sometimes mania), increased nightmares, a “feeling of unreality,” or increased sensory symptoms.

Other patients, on the other hand, had not considered a link between neuropsychiatric symptoms and their rheumatic disease until the interview, and many of the clinicians, aside from psychiatrists and nurses, said they had little time in clinic to gather information about symptom progression.
 

Nightmares and Daymares

A third theme centered on disrupted dreaming sleep, nightmares, and “daymares” as a prodromal symptom in particular. Some patients had already drawn a connection between an oncoming flare of their disease and these dreaming-related symptoms, while others had not considered a link until the interviews.

“Several SLE patients recounted flares consistently involving the segueing of increasingly vivid and distressing nightmares into distorted reality and daytime hallucinations,” the authors reported. Flare-related nightmares in particular “often involved being attacked, trapped, crushed, or falling.” Patients tended to be more forthcoming about hallucinatory experiences when the term “daymare” was used to describe them, and they often related to the idea of feeling “in-between asleep and awake.”

Only one of the rheumatologists interviewed had considered nightmares as potentially related to SLE flares, and several appeared skeptical about a link but planned to ask their patients about it. Most of the specialists interviewed, meanwhile, said they often discussed sleep disruption with patients.

“There was agreement that recognizing and eliciting these early flare symptoms may improve care and even reduce clinic times by averting flares at any earlier stage, although some rheumatologists were clear that limited appointment times meant that these symptoms would not be prioritized for discussion,” the authors wrote.

Though Dr. Kim acknowledged the possibility of nightmares as prodromal, he noted other ways in which nightmares may be indirectly linked to lupus. “Trauma is a major risk factor for lupus,” Dr. Kim said, with multiple studies showing childhood traumatic experiences and even posttraumatic stress disorder to be risk factors for lupus. “Whether nightmares represent a traumatic event or prior traumatic events is not clear to me, but one could hypothesize that this may be a manifestation of trauma,” Dr. Kim said.

In addition, nightmares represent a sleep disorder that can substantially reduce sleep quality, Dr. Kim said, and poor sleep is also associated with lupus. “One has to wonder whether disruptive dreaming sleep is one of several specific manifestations of poor sleep quality, which then increases the risk of lupus in those patients,” Dr. Kim said.
 

Misattribution of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms

The final theme to emerge from the findings was patients had been misdiagnosed with psychiatric or psychosomatic conditions shortly before getting their rheumatic disease diagnosis. One patient, for example, reported being diagnosed with borderline personality disorder just 6 months before the lupus diagnosis at age 19 and noticed that the symptoms of one “got under control” when the symptoms of the other did.

“Early misattributions of SARD symptoms to primary psychiatric or psychosomatic conditions were frequently reported to have delayed SARD diagnosis and led to future misattributions,” the authors reported. “Whilst some of these misdiagnoses likely reflect the widespread lack of knowledge and limited definitive tests for SLE, it is plausible that some early SLE neurological and/or psychiatric symptoms may represent a neuropsychiatric prodrome for SLE itself.”

Dr. Kim agreed that misattribution of symptoms to other diagnoses is common with lupus and a common reason for delays in diagnosis, even with symptoms that are not neuropsychiatric. The findings in this study broaden “the type of symptoms we need to put on our radar pre-diagnosis,” Dr. Kim said. “We just also have to be aware that these prodromal symptoms are not diagnostic for lupus, though.”

Dr. Sloan cited earlier work in recommending an “ABC” approach to improving clinician-patient relationships: “Availability is being accessible when patients need them, Belief is demonstrating belief and validating patient self-reports of symptoms, and Continuity is when the same clinician sees the same patient each clinic visit to build up a trusting relationship.” She noted the importance of asking about and normalizing the existence of these symptoms with rheumatic diseases.

The research was funded by The Lupus Trust. Three authors reported consultancy, speaker, or advisory fees from Alumis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MGP, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Vifor, and/or Werfen Group. The other authors, including Dr. Sloan, had no industry-related disclosures. Dr. Kim reported research support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; speaking fees from Exagen Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Atara Bio, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Cargo Therapeutics, Exagen Diagnostics, Hinge Bio, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotec, Synthekine, and Tectonic Therapeutic.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms, including nightmares and hallucinatory “daymares,” may be a more important aspect of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than formerly recognized, according to a qualitative mixed methods study published in The Lancet Discovery Science’s eClinicalMedicine. The findings suggested these neuropsychiatric symptoms can sometimes present as prodromal and other times act as an early warning system for a forthcoming flare.

“For clinicians, the key point is to be aware that neurological and psychiatric symptoms are much more common in patients with lupus and other autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases than previously thought,” lead author Melanie Sloan, PhD, of the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Cambridge in England, told this news organization.

“If clinicians — and some do already — could all ask about and document these symptoms for each patient, the usual progression of symptoms in a flare can then be monitored, and patients could be supported and treated at an earlier stage,” Dr. Sloan said. “Another key point is to consider systemic autoimmune diseases at an early stage if a patient presents with multiple seemingly unconnected symptoms, which often include both physical and mental health symptoms.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, noted the difficulty of determining what neuropsychiatric symptoms may be linked to lupus vs those occurring independently or as part of a different condition.

Dr. Kim

Study Details

In planning for the study, the researchers first searched the existing literature for studies involving neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). “The literature indicated frequent underreporting and misattributions of neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE and other SARD patients, and clinician-patient discordance in neuropsychiatric symptom attribution,” the authors reported.

During 2022-2023, the researchers conducted two surveys, one with 676 adult patients with SLE and one with 400 clinicians, recruited through social media, online patient support groups, and professional networks. All patients self-reported an SLE diagnosis that the researchers did not independently confirm. The patients were predominantly White (80%) and female (94%), ranging in age from 18 to over 70, with most falling between ages 40 and 69. Most patients lived in the United Kingdom (76%) or Europe (15%).

The clinicians included 51% rheumatologists, 24% psychiatrists, 13% neurologists, 5% rheumatology nurses, 3% primary care physicians, and 7% other clinicians. Nearly half of the clinicians (45%) were from the United Kingdom, with others from the United States or Canada (16%), Europe (17%), Asia (9%), Latin America (8%), Australia or New Zealand (3%), or elsewhere (3%).

The patient surveys asked whether they had experienced any of the 29 neuropsychiatric symptoms. For the symptoms that patients had experienced at least three times in their lives, the survey asked when they first experienced the symptom in relation to their SLE onset or other SLE symptoms: Over a year before, within a year of (on either side), 1-4 years after, or more than 5 years after onset/other symptoms. “Other quantitative data included timings of disrupted dreaming sleep in relation to hallucinations for those patients reporting experiencing these,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also conducted video conference interviews with 50 clinicians, including 20 rheumatologists, and 69 interviews with patients who had a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, including 27 patients with SLE. Other conditions among those interviewed included inflammatory arthritis, vasculitis, Sjögren disease, systemic sclerosis, myositis, undifferentiated and mixed connective tissue diseases, and polymyalgia rheumatica. During interviews, the term “daymare” was used to discuss possible hallucinations.
 

Linking Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Disease

Four themes emerged from the analysis of the surveys and interviews. First, despite many rheumatologists stating that it was an “established theory” that most neuropsychiatric symptoms related to SLE would initially present around the time of diagnosis or disease onset, the findings from patients and interviews with psychiatrists did not align with this theory. The first presentation of each neuropsychiatric symptom only occurred around the onset of other SLE symptoms, about one fifth to one third of the time. In fact, more than half of the patients with SLE who had experienced hallucinations or delusions/paranoia said they occurred more than a year after they first experienced their other SLE symptoms.

Patient experiences differed in terms of whether they believed their neuropsychiatric symptoms were directly related to their SLE or other rheumatic disease. Some did attribute the symptoms, such as hypomania, to their rheumatic illness, while others, such as a patient with major depression, did not see the two as linked.

A second theme focused on pattern recognition of neuropsychiatric symptoms and the onset of a disease flare. “For example, several patients described how they felt that some types of depressive symptoms were directly attributable to active inflammation due to its time of onset and differences in type and intensity compared to their more ‘reactive’ low mood that could be more attributable to a consequence of psychological distress,” the authors wrote. Another common report from patients was experiencing a sudden, intense fatigue that coincided with a flare and differed from other types of fatigue.

Some patients could recognize that a flare was coming because of familiar neuropsychiatric symptoms that acted like an “early warning system.” Often, however, these symptoms “were absent from current diagnostic guidelines and only rarely identified by clinician interviewees as related to SLE/NPSLE,” the authors found. “These neuropsychiatric prodromal symptoms were reported as sometimes preceding the more widely recognized SLE and other SARD symptoms such as joint pain, rashes, and other organ involvement.” These symptoms included sudden changes in mood (usually a lowering but sometimes mania), increased nightmares, a “feeling of unreality,” or increased sensory symptoms.

Other patients, on the other hand, had not considered a link between neuropsychiatric symptoms and their rheumatic disease until the interview, and many of the clinicians, aside from psychiatrists and nurses, said they had little time in clinic to gather information about symptom progression.
 

Nightmares and Daymares

A third theme centered on disrupted dreaming sleep, nightmares, and “daymares” as a prodromal symptom in particular. Some patients had already drawn a connection between an oncoming flare of their disease and these dreaming-related symptoms, while others had not considered a link until the interviews.

“Several SLE patients recounted flares consistently involving the segueing of increasingly vivid and distressing nightmares into distorted reality and daytime hallucinations,” the authors reported. Flare-related nightmares in particular “often involved being attacked, trapped, crushed, or falling.” Patients tended to be more forthcoming about hallucinatory experiences when the term “daymare” was used to describe them, and they often related to the idea of feeling “in-between asleep and awake.”

Only one of the rheumatologists interviewed had considered nightmares as potentially related to SLE flares, and several appeared skeptical about a link but planned to ask their patients about it. Most of the specialists interviewed, meanwhile, said they often discussed sleep disruption with patients.

“There was agreement that recognizing and eliciting these early flare symptoms may improve care and even reduce clinic times by averting flares at any earlier stage, although some rheumatologists were clear that limited appointment times meant that these symptoms would not be prioritized for discussion,” the authors wrote.

Though Dr. Kim acknowledged the possibility of nightmares as prodromal, he noted other ways in which nightmares may be indirectly linked to lupus. “Trauma is a major risk factor for lupus,” Dr. Kim said, with multiple studies showing childhood traumatic experiences and even posttraumatic stress disorder to be risk factors for lupus. “Whether nightmares represent a traumatic event or prior traumatic events is not clear to me, but one could hypothesize that this may be a manifestation of trauma,” Dr. Kim said.

In addition, nightmares represent a sleep disorder that can substantially reduce sleep quality, Dr. Kim said, and poor sleep is also associated with lupus. “One has to wonder whether disruptive dreaming sleep is one of several specific manifestations of poor sleep quality, which then increases the risk of lupus in those patients,” Dr. Kim said.
 

Misattribution of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms

The final theme to emerge from the findings was patients had been misdiagnosed with psychiatric or psychosomatic conditions shortly before getting their rheumatic disease diagnosis. One patient, for example, reported being diagnosed with borderline personality disorder just 6 months before the lupus diagnosis at age 19 and noticed that the symptoms of one “got under control” when the symptoms of the other did.

“Early misattributions of SARD symptoms to primary psychiatric or psychosomatic conditions were frequently reported to have delayed SARD diagnosis and led to future misattributions,” the authors reported. “Whilst some of these misdiagnoses likely reflect the widespread lack of knowledge and limited definitive tests for SLE, it is plausible that some early SLE neurological and/or psychiatric symptoms may represent a neuropsychiatric prodrome for SLE itself.”

Dr. Kim agreed that misattribution of symptoms to other diagnoses is common with lupus and a common reason for delays in diagnosis, even with symptoms that are not neuropsychiatric. The findings in this study broaden “the type of symptoms we need to put on our radar pre-diagnosis,” Dr. Kim said. “We just also have to be aware that these prodromal symptoms are not diagnostic for lupus, though.”

Dr. Sloan cited earlier work in recommending an “ABC” approach to improving clinician-patient relationships: “Availability is being accessible when patients need them, Belief is demonstrating belief and validating patient self-reports of symptoms, and Continuity is when the same clinician sees the same patient each clinic visit to build up a trusting relationship.” She noted the importance of asking about and normalizing the existence of these symptoms with rheumatic diseases.

The research was funded by The Lupus Trust. Three authors reported consultancy, speaker, or advisory fees from Alumis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MGP, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Vifor, and/or Werfen Group. The other authors, including Dr. Sloan, had no industry-related disclosures. Dr. Kim reported research support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; speaking fees from Exagen Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Atara Bio, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Cargo Therapeutics, Exagen Diagnostics, Hinge Bio, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotec, Synthekine, and Tectonic Therapeutic.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms, including nightmares and hallucinatory “daymares,” may be a more important aspect of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than formerly recognized, according to a qualitative mixed methods study published in The Lancet Discovery Science’s eClinicalMedicine. The findings suggested these neuropsychiatric symptoms can sometimes present as prodromal and other times act as an early warning system for a forthcoming flare.

“For clinicians, the key point is to be aware that neurological and psychiatric symptoms are much more common in patients with lupus and other autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases than previously thought,” lead author Melanie Sloan, PhD, of the Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Cambridge in England, told this news organization.

“If clinicians — and some do already — could all ask about and document these symptoms for each patient, the usual progression of symptoms in a flare can then be monitored, and patients could be supported and treated at an earlier stage,” Dr. Sloan said. “Another key point is to consider systemic autoimmune diseases at an early stage if a patient presents with multiple seemingly unconnected symptoms, which often include both physical and mental health symptoms.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, noted the difficulty of determining what neuropsychiatric symptoms may be linked to lupus vs those occurring independently or as part of a different condition.

Dr. Kim

Study Details

In planning for the study, the researchers first searched the existing literature for studies involving neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). “The literature indicated frequent underreporting and misattributions of neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE and other SARD patients, and clinician-patient discordance in neuropsychiatric symptom attribution,” the authors reported.

During 2022-2023, the researchers conducted two surveys, one with 676 adult patients with SLE and one with 400 clinicians, recruited through social media, online patient support groups, and professional networks. All patients self-reported an SLE diagnosis that the researchers did not independently confirm. The patients were predominantly White (80%) and female (94%), ranging in age from 18 to over 70, with most falling between ages 40 and 69. Most patients lived in the United Kingdom (76%) or Europe (15%).

The clinicians included 51% rheumatologists, 24% psychiatrists, 13% neurologists, 5% rheumatology nurses, 3% primary care physicians, and 7% other clinicians. Nearly half of the clinicians (45%) were from the United Kingdom, with others from the United States or Canada (16%), Europe (17%), Asia (9%), Latin America (8%), Australia or New Zealand (3%), or elsewhere (3%).

The patient surveys asked whether they had experienced any of the 29 neuropsychiatric symptoms. For the symptoms that patients had experienced at least three times in their lives, the survey asked when they first experienced the symptom in relation to their SLE onset or other SLE symptoms: Over a year before, within a year of (on either side), 1-4 years after, or more than 5 years after onset/other symptoms. “Other quantitative data included timings of disrupted dreaming sleep in relation to hallucinations for those patients reporting experiencing these,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also conducted video conference interviews with 50 clinicians, including 20 rheumatologists, and 69 interviews with patients who had a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, including 27 patients with SLE. Other conditions among those interviewed included inflammatory arthritis, vasculitis, Sjögren disease, systemic sclerosis, myositis, undifferentiated and mixed connective tissue diseases, and polymyalgia rheumatica. During interviews, the term “daymare” was used to discuss possible hallucinations.
 

Linking Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Disease

Four themes emerged from the analysis of the surveys and interviews. First, despite many rheumatologists stating that it was an “established theory” that most neuropsychiatric symptoms related to SLE would initially present around the time of diagnosis or disease onset, the findings from patients and interviews with psychiatrists did not align with this theory. The first presentation of each neuropsychiatric symptom only occurred around the onset of other SLE symptoms, about one fifth to one third of the time. In fact, more than half of the patients with SLE who had experienced hallucinations or delusions/paranoia said they occurred more than a year after they first experienced their other SLE symptoms.

Patient experiences differed in terms of whether they believed their neuropsychiatric symptoms were directly related to their SLE or other rheumatic disease. Some did attribute the symptoms, such as hypomania, to their rheumatic illness, while others, such as a patient with major depression, did not see the two as linked.

A second theme focused on pattern recognition of neuropsychiatric symptoms and the onset of a disease flare. “For example, several patients described how they felt that some types of depressive symptoms were directly attributable to active inflammation due to its time of onset and differences in type and intensity compared to their more ‘reactive’ low mood that could be more attributable to a consequence of psychological distress,” the authors wrote. Another common report from patients was experiencing a sudden, intense fatigue that coincided with a flare and differed from other types of fatigue.

Some patients could recognize that a flare was coming because of familiar neuropsychiatric symptoms that acted like an “early warning system.” Often, however, these symptoms “were absent from current diagnostic guidelines and only rarely identified by clinician interviewees as related to SLE/NPSLE,” the authors found. “These neuropsychiatric prodromal symptoms were reported as sometimes preceding the more widely recognized SLE and other SARD symptoms such as joint pain, rashes, and other organ involvement.” These symptoms included sudden changes in mood (usually a lowering but sometimes mania), increased nightmares, a “feeling of unreality,” or increased sensory symptoms.

Other patients, on the other hand, had not considered a link between neuropsychiatric symptoms and their rheumatic disease until the interview, and many of the clinicians, aside from psychiatrists and nurses, said they had little time in clinic to gather information about symptom progression.
 

Nightmares and Daymares

A third theme centered on disrupted dreaming sleep, nightmares, and “daymares” as a prodromal symptom in particular. Some patients had already drawn a connection between an oncoming flare of their disease and these dreaming-related symptoms, while others had not considered a link until the interviews.

“Several SLE patients recounted flares consistently involving the segueing of increasingly vivid and distressing nightmares into distorted reality and daytime hallucinations,” the authors reported. Flare-related nightmares in particular “often involved being attacked, trapped, crushed, or falling.” Patients tended to be more forthcoming about hallucinatory experiences when the term “daymare” was used to describe them, and they often related to the idea of feeling “in-between asleep and awake.”

Only one of the rheumatologists interviewed had considered nightmares as potentially related to SLE flares, and several appeared skeptical about a link but planned to ask their patients about it. Most of the specialists interviewed, meanwhile, said they often discussed sleep disruption with patients.

“There was agreement that recognizing and eliciting these early flare symptoms may improve care and even reduce clinic times by averting flares at any earlier stage, although some rheumatologists were clear that limited appointment times meant that these symptoms would not be prioritized for discussion,” the authors wrote.

Though Dr. Kim acknowledged the possibility of nightmares as prodromal, he noted other ways in which nightmares may be indirectly linked to lupus. “Trauma is a major risk factor for lupus,” Dr. Kim said, with multiple studies showing childhood traumatic experiences and even posttraumatic stress disorder to be risk factors for lupus. “Whether nightmares represent a traumatic event or prior traumatic events is not clear to me, but one could hypothesize that this may be a manifestation of trauma,” Dr. Kim said.

In addition, nightmares represent a sleep disorder that can substantially reduce sleep quality, Dr. Kim said, and poor sleep is also associated with lupus. “One has to wonder whether disruptive dreaming sleep is one of several specific manifestations of poor sleep quality, which then increases the risk of lupus in those patients,” Dr. Kim said.
 

Misattribution of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms

The final theme to emerge from the findings was patients had been misdiagnosed with psychiatric or psychosomatic conditions shortly before getting their rheumatic disease diagnosis. One patient, for example, reported being diagnosed with borderline personality disorder just 6 months before the lupus diagnosis at age 19 and noticed that the symptoms of one “got under control” when the symptoms of the other did.

“Early misattributions of SARD symptoms to primary psychiatric or psychosomatic conditions were frequently reported to have delayed SARD diagnosis and led to future misattributions,” the authors reported. “Whilst some of these misdiagnoses likely reflect the widespread lack of knowledge and limited definitive tests for SLE, it is plausible that some early SLE neurological and/or psychiatric symptoms may represent a neuropsychiatric prodrome for SLE itself.”

Dr. Kim agreed that misattribution of symptoms to other diagnoses is common with lupus and a common reason for delays in diagnosis, even with symptoms that are not neuropsychiatric. The findings in this study broaden “the type of symptoms we need to put on our radar pre-diagnosis,” Dr. Kim said. “We just also have to be aware that these prodromal symptoms are not diagnostic for lupus, though.”

Dr. Sloan cited earlier work in recommending an “ABC” approach to improving clinician-patient relationships: “Availability is being accessible when patients need them, Belief is demonstrating belief and validating patient self-reports of symptoms, and Continuity is when the same clinician sees the same patient each clinic visit to build up a trusting relationship.” She noted the importance of asking about and normalizing the existence of these symptoms with rheumatic diseases.

The research was funded by The Lupus Trust. Three authors reported consultancy, speaker, or advisory fees from Alumis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MGP, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Vifor, and/or Werfen Group. The other authors, including Dr. Sloan, had no industry-related disclosures. Dr. Kim reported research support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; speaking fees from Exagen Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKline; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Atara Bio, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Cargo Therapeutics, Exagen Diagnostics, Hinge Bio, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotec, Synthekine, and Tectonic Therapeutic.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older patients prescribed hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have a higher risk of developing retinal damage from taking the medication, according to a new analysis.

In addition to known risk factors such as a higher weight-based HCQ dose and higher cumulative dose, researchers also found that female sex, chronic kidney disease stage III, and tamoxifen use were associated with HCQ retinopathy.

The findings provide “evidence for other key risk factors for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy beyond hydroxychloroquine exposure itself,” wrote April M. Jorge, MD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Baylor College of Medicine

Study Details

Researchers identified patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Oakland, California, health system who began taking HCQ between July 1, 1997, and December 14, 2014. To be included, patients needed to have at least 5 years of continuous enrollment in the KPNC system and at least one prescription for HCQ after more than 5 years of starting the drug. Patients were followed from HCQ initiation to their last retinopathy screening study, up to December 31, 2020.

The study was published May 9 in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 4677 users followed for the study, 83% were women, and the average age starting HCQ was 52. Most patients were White (58.1%), while 13.7% were Asian, 10.5% were Black, and 17.7% were Hispanic.

More than 60% of patients had an initial dose > 5 mg/kg/d, though the mean initial dose of HCQ was 4.4 mg/kg/d. After 5 years, only 34.4% of patients were using a daily dose over 5 mg/kg.

Of the entire cohort, 125 patients (2.7%) developed HCQ retinopathy. As expected, cumulative HCQ exposure was associated with a higher retinopathy risk: For every 100 g of HCQ cumulative exposure, risk rose by 64% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.44-1.87).

Age was a significant risk factor for retinal damage from HCQ use. Individuals who began taking the drug at 65 years or older were nearly six times more likely to develop retinopathy than those who started HCQ when they were younger than 45. In people aged 55-64 years, this risk was nearly four times higher, and individuals aged 45-54 years when starting the drug were 2.5 times more likely to have retinal damage than those younger than 45.

Other risk factors were female sex (HR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.86-7.89), chronic kidney disease stage III (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.25-3.04), and tamoxifen use (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.08-10.89), although only 17 patients were taking tamoxifen during the study.

Researchers also found that the type of HCQ retinopathy varied by race. Of the 125 cases in the cohort, 102 had a parafoveal pattern, and 23 had a pericentral pattern. Asian individuals were 15 times more likely, and Black individuals were more than 5 times more likely to develop this pericentral type than were White patients.

This association in Asian patients has also been found in previous studies, Dr. Weng said, and many eye practices now screen their Asian patients with a 30-2 Humphrey visual field — rather than the more commonly used 10-2 — to examine areas farther outside the center.

This study also found this association in Black patients, though only five Black patients developed HCQ retinopathy over the study period.

“More studies and larger studies will be very helpful in strengthening or dispelling some of the associations that have been seen here,” Dr. Weng said.
 

‘More Room for Personalized Medicine’

The team found a “relatively linear” relationship between HCQ dose and retinopathy risk, with higher daily doses correlating with higher incidence. While 2016 guidelines from the American Academy of Ophthalmology advise using < 5 mg/kg, “what we found is it’s not that straightforward [where there’s] just this one cutoff,” Dr. Jorge told this news organization. “It does seem like the higher the dose of medication per bodyweight and the longer duration of use, there is a higher risk of retinopathy.”

These findings leave “a bit more room for personalized medicine” with patients, she explained. “For an elderly female patient with CKD, aiming for a dose < 5 mg/kg might be more appropriate; however, a young male patient without any additional risk factors may be able to exceed 5 mg/kg and continue to have a low risk for HCQ retinopathy,” she said.

“For anyone, I think it really is more of an individual risk-benefit evaluation,” rather than strict cutoffs, she continued.

“Guidelines are just that: They’re guidelines,” added Dr. Weng, “and treatment plans should be tailored to each individual patient.”

As the study authors also discussed, “the goal is to treat the patient with the lowest dose that is still effective and also be mindful of the duration that a patient is left at higher doses,” Dr. Weng said. “But ultimately, we need to control these diseases, which can cause damage across multiple organ systems in the body. While it’s important to be aware of the potential retinopathy adverse events, we also don’t want physicians to feel restricted in their use of this very effective drug.”

The work of three coauthors on the current study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS). Dr. Jorge’s work on the study was supported by an award from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and a grant from NIAMS. Dr. Jorge reported clinical trial agreements with Bristol Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio outside of this study. Dr. Weng has served as a consultant for Allergan/AbbVie, Alcon, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Alimera Sciences, DORC, Novartis, Genentech, Regeneron, RegenxBio, Iveric Bio, and EyePoint Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Weng disclosed financial relationships with Springer Publishers (royalties) and DRCR Retina Network, Alimera Sciences, and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (research).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older patients prescribed hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have a higher risk of developing retinal damage from taking the medication, according to a new analysis.

In addition to known risk factors such as a higher weight-based HCQ dose and higher cumulative dose, researchers also found that female sex, chronic kidney disease stage III, and tamoxifen use were associated with HCQ retinopathy.

The findings provide “evidence for other key risk factors for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy beyond hydroxychloroquine exposure itself,” wrote April M. Jorge, MD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Baylor College of Medicine

Study Details

Researchers identified patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Oakland, California, health system who began taking HCQ between July 1, 1997, and December 14, 2014. To be included, patients needed to have at least 5 years of continuous enrollment in the KPNC system and at least one prescription for HCQ after more than 5 years of starting the drug. Patients were followed from HCQ initiation to their last retinopathy screening study, up to December 31, 2020.

The study was published May 9 in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 4677 users followed for the study, 83% were women, and the average age starting HCQ was 52. Most patients were White (58.1%), while 13.7% were Asian, 10.5% were Black, and 17.7% were Hispanic.

More than 60% of patients had an initial dose > 5 mg/kg/d, though the mean initial dose of HCQ was 4.4 mg/kg/d. After 5 years, only 34.4% of patients were using a daily dose over 5 mg/kg.

Of the entire cohort, 125 patients (2.7%) developed HCQ retinopathy. As expected, cumulative HCQ exposure was associated with a higher retinopathy risk: For every 100 g of HCQ cumulative exposure, risk rose by 64% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.44-1.87).

Age was a significant risk factor for retinal damage from HCQ use. Individuals who began taking the drug at 65 years or older were nearly six times more likely to develop retinopathy than those who started HCQ when they were younger than 45. In people aged 55-64 years, this risk was nearly four times higher, and individuals aged 45-54 years when starting the drug were 2.5 times more likely to have retinal damage than those younger than 45.

Other risk factors were female sex (HR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.86-7.89), chronic kidney disease stage III (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.25-3.04), and tamoxifen use (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.08-10.89), although only 17 patients were taking tamoxifen during the study.

Researchers also found that the type of HCQ retinopathy varied by race. Of the 125 cases in the cohort, 102 had a parafoveal pattern, and 23 had a pericentral pattern. Asian individuals were 15 times more likely, and Black individuals were more than 5 times more likely to develop this pericentral type than were White patients.

This association in Asian patients has also been found in previous studies, Dr. Weng said, and many eye practices now screen their Asian patients with a 30-2 Humphrey visual field — rather than the more commonly used 10-2 — to examine areas farther outside the center.

This study also found this association in Black patients, though only five Black patients developed HCQ retinopathy over the study period.

“More studies and larger studies will be very helpful in strengthening or dispelling some of the associations that have been seen here,” Dr. Weng said.
 

‘More Room for Personalized Medicine’

The team found a “relatively linear” relationship between HCQ dose and retinopathy risk, with higher daily doses correlating with higher incidence. While 2016 guidelines from the American Academy of Ophthalmology advise using < 5 mg/kg, “what we found is it’s not that straightforward [where there’s] just this one cutoff,” Dr. Jorge told this news organization. “It does seem like the higher the dose of medication per bodyweight and the longer duration of use, there is a higher risk of retinopathy.”

These findings leave “a bit more room for personalized medicine” with patients, she explained. “For an elderly female patient with CKD, aiming for a dose < 5 mg/kg might be more appropriate; however, a young male patient without any additional risk factors may be able to exceed 5 mg/kg and continue to have a low risk for HCQ retinopathy,” she said.

“For anyone, I think it really is more of an individual risk-benefit evaluation,” rather than strict cutoffs, she continued.

“Guidelines are just that: They’re guidelines,” added Dr. Weng, “and treatment plans should be tailored to each individual patient.”

As the study authors also discussed, “the goal is to treat the patient with the lowest dose that is still effective and also be mindful of the duration that a patient is left at higher doses,” Dr. Weng said. “But ultimately, we need to control these diseases, which can cause damage across multiple organ systems in the body. While it’s important to be aware of the potential retinopathy adverse events, we also don’t want physicians to feel restricted in their use of this very effective drug.”

The work of three coauthors on the current study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS). Dr. Jorge’s work on the study was supported by an award from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and a grant from NIAMS. Dr. Jorge reported clinical trial agreements with Bristol Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio outside of this study. Dr. Weng has served as a consultant for Allergan/AbbVie, Alcon, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Alimera Sciences, DORC, Novartis, Genentech, Regeneron, RegenxBio, Iveric Bio, and EyePoint Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Weng disclosed financial relationships with Springer Publishers (royalties) and DRCR Retina Network, Alimera Sciences, and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (research).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older patients prescribed hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have a higher risk of developing retinal damage from taking the medication, according to a new analysis.

In addition to known risk factors such as a higher weight-based HCQ dose and higher cumulative dose, researchers also found that female sex, chronic kidney disease stage III, and tamoxifen use were associated with HCQ retinopathy.

The findings provide “evidence for other key risk factors for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy beyond hydroxychloroquine exposure itself,” wrote April M. Jorge, MD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Baylor College of Medicine

Study Details

Researchers identified patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Oakland, California, health system who began taking HCQ between July 1, 1997, and December 14, 2014. To be included, patients needed to have at least 5 years of continuous enrollment in the KPNC system and at least one prescription for HCQ after more than 5 years of starting the drug. Patients were followed from HCQ initiation to their last retinopathy screening study, up to December 31, 2020.

The study was published May 9 in JAMA Network Open.

Of the 4677 users followed for the study, 83% were women, and the average age starting HCQ was 52. Most patients were White (58.1%), while 13.7% were Asian, 10.5% were Black, and 17.7% were Hispanic.

More than 60% of patients had an initial dose > 5 mg/kg/d, though the mean initial dose of HCQ was 4.4 mg/kg/d. After 5 years, only 34.4% of patients were using a daily dose over 5 mg/kg.

Of the entire cohort, 125 patients (2.7%) developed HCQ retinopathy. As expected, cumulative HCQ exposure was associated with a higher retinopathy risk: For every 100 g of HCQ cumulative exposure, risk rose by 64% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.44-1.87).

Age was a significant risk factor for retinal damage from HCQ use. Individuals who began taking the drug at 65 years or older were nearly six times more likely to develop retinopathy than those who started HCQ when they were younger than 45. In people aged 55-64 years, this risk was nearly four times higher, and individuals aged 45-54 years when starting the drug were 2.5 times more likely to have retinal damage than those younger than 45.

Other risk factors were female sex (HR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.86-7.89), chronic kidney disease stage III (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.25-3.04), and tamoxifen use (HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.08-10.89), although only 17 patients were taking tamoxifen during the study.

Researchers also found that the type of HCQ retinopathy varied by race. Of the 125 cases in the cohort, 102 had a parafoveal pattern, and 23 had a pericentral pattern. Asian individuals were 15 times more likely, and Black individuals were more than 5 times more likely to develop this pericentral type than were White patients.

This association in Asian patients has also been found in previous studies, Dr. Weng said, and many eye practices now screen their Asian patients with a 30-2 Humphrey visual field — rather than the more commonly used 10-2 — to examine areas farther outside the center.

This study also found this association in Black patients, though only five Black patients developed HCQ retinopathy over the study period.

“More studies and larger studies will be very helpful in strengthening or dispelling some of the associations that have been seen here,” Dr. Weng said.
 

‘More Room for Personalized Medicine’

The team found a “relatively linear” relationship between HCQ dose and retinopathy risk, with higher daily doses correlating with higher incidence. While 2016 guidelines from the American Academy of Ophthalmology advise using < 5 mg/kg, “what we found is it’s not that straightforward [where there’s] just this one cutoff,” Dr. Jorge told this news organization. “It does seem like the higher the dose of medication per bodyweight and the longer duration of use, there is a higher risk of retinopathy.”

These findings leave “a bit more room for personalized medicine” with patients, she explained. “For an elderly female patient with CKD, aiming for a dose < 5 mg/kg might be more appropriate; however, a young male patient without any additional risk factors may be able to exceed 5 mg/kg and continue to have a low risk for HCQ retinopathy,” she said.

“For anyone, I think it really is more of an individual risk-benefit evaluation,” rather than strict cutoffs, she continued.

“Guidelines are just that: They’re guidelines,” added Dr. Weng, “and treatment plans should be tailored to each individual patient.”

As the study authors also discussed, “the goal is to treat the patient with the lowest dose that is still effective and also be mindful of the duration that a patient is left at higher doses,” Dr. Weng said. “But ultimately, we need to control these diseases, which can cause damage across multiple organ systems in the body. While it’s important to be aware of the potential retinopathy adverse events, we also don’t want physicians to feel restricted in their use of this very effective drug.”

The work of three coauthors on the current study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS). Dr. Jorge’s work on the study was supported by an award from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and a grant from NIAMS. Dr. Jorge reported clinical trial agreements with Bristol Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio outside of this study. Dr. Weng has served as a consultant for Allergan/AbbVie, Alcon, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Alimera Sciences, DORC, Novartis, Genentech, Regeneron, RegenxBio, Iveric Bio, and EyePoint Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Weng disclosed financial relationships with Springer Publishers (royalties) and DRCR Retina Network, Alimera Sciences, and Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (research).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Benlysta (belimumab) autoinjector for patients aged 5 years or older with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) on standard therapy. This is the first time that children with SLE can receive this treatment at home, according to a GSK press release.

Prior to this approval, pediatric patients aged 5 years or older could receive belimumab only intravenously via a 1-hour infusion in a hospital or clinic setting.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Going to the doctor’s office once every 4 weeks can be a logistical hurdle for some children and their caregivers, so having the option to administer Benlysta in the comfort of their home provides much-needed flexibility,” Mary Crimmings, the interim CEO and senior vice president for marketing and communications at the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a statement. 

An estimated 5000-10,000 children in the United States are living with SLE.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor approved for the treatment of active SLE and active lupus nephritis in patients aged 5 years or older receiving standard therapy. This approval of the subcutaneous administration of belimumab applies only to pediatric patients with SLE.

The 200-mg injection can be administered once every week for children who weigh ≥ 40 kg and should be given once every 2 weeks for children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. 

The autoinjector “will be available immediately” for caregivers, the company announcement said.

“Patients are our top priority, and we are always working to innovate solutions that can improve lives and address unmet needs,” Court Horncastle, senior vice president and head of US specialty at GSK, said in the press release. “This approval for an at-home treatment is the first and only of its kind for children with lupus and is a testament to our continued commitment to the lupus community.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Benlysta (belimumab) autoinjector for patients aged 5 years or older with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) on standard therapy. This is the first time that children with SLE can receive this treatment at home, according to a GSK press release.

Prior to this approval, pediatric patients aged 5 years or older could receive belimumab only intravenously via a 1-hour infusion in a hospital or clinic setting.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Going to the doctor’s office once every 4 weeks can be a logistical hurdle for some children and their caregivers, so having the option to administer Benlysta in the comfort of their home provides much-needed flexibility,” Mary Crimmings, the interim CEO and senior vice president for marketing and communications at the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a statement. 

An estimated 5000-10,000 children in the United States are living with SLE.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor approved for the treatment of active SLE and active lupus nephritis in patients aged 5 years or older receiving standard therapy. This approval of the subcutaneous administration of belimumab applies only to pediatric patients with SLE.

The 200-mg injection can be administered once every week for children who weigh ≥ 40 kg and should be given once every 2 weeks for children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. 

The autoinjector “will be available immediately” for caregivers, the company announcement said.

“Patients are our top priority, and we are always working to innovate solutions that can improve lives and address unmet needs,” Court Horncastle, senior vice president and head of US specialty at GSK, said in the press release. “This approval for an at-home treatment is the first and only of its kind for children with lupus and is a testament to our continued commitment to the lupus community.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Benlysta (belimumab) autoinjector for patients aged 5 years or older with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) on standard therapy. This is the first time that children with SLE can receive this treatment at home, according to a GSK press release.

Prior to this approval, pediatric patients aged 5 years or older could receive belimumab only intravenously via a 1-hour infusion in a hospital or clinic setting.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Going to the doctor’s office once every 4 weeks can be a logistical hurdle for some children and their caregivers, so having the option to administer Benlysta in the comfort of their home provides much-needed flexibility,” Mary Crimmings, the interim CEO and senior vice president for marketing and communications at the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a statement. 

An estimated 5000-10,000 children in the United States are living with SLE.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor approved for the treatment of active SLE and active lupus nephritis in patients aged 5 years or older receiving standard therapy. This approval of the subcutaneous administration of belimumab applies only to pediatric patients with SLE.

The 200-mg injection can be administered once every week for children who weigh ≥ 40 kg and should be given once every 2 weeks for children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. 

The autoinjector “will be available immediately” for caregivers, the company announcement said.

“Patients are our top priority, and we are always working to innovate solutions that can improve lives and address unmet needs,” Court Horncastle, senior vice president and head of US specialty at GSK, said in the press release. “This approval for an at-home treatment is the first and only of its kind for children with lupus and is a testament to our continued commitment to the lupus community.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.