Psoriatic Arthritis

Key clinical point: Minimal important change (MIC) of the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) could help physicians understand patients' perspectives of disease activity and provide an additional tool for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The overall MIC of the PASDAS was 0.67 (95% CI 0.55-0.79) and results for improvement and deterioration were 0.65 (95% CI 0.46-0.83) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.49-0.93), respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study that evaluated routine practice data of 408 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Regional Junior Researcher Grant from the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, and the Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mulder MLM et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac025.

Key clinical point: Minimal important change (MIC) of the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) could help physicians understand patients' perspectives of disease activity and provide an additional tool for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The overall MIC of the PASDAS was 0.67 (95% CI 0.55-0.79) and results for improvement and deterioration were 0.65 (95% CI 0.46-0.83) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.49-0.93), respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study that evaluated routine practice data of 408 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Regional Junior Researcher Grant from the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, and the Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mulder MLM et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac025.

Key clinical point: Minimal important change (MIC) of the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) could help physicians understand patients' perspectives of disease activity and provide an additional tool for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The overall MIC of the PASDAS was 0.67 (95% CI 0.55-0.79) and results for improvement and deterioration were 0.65 (95% CI 0.46-0.83) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.49-0.93), respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study that evaluated routine practice data of 408 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Regional Junior Researcher Grant from the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, and the Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mulder MLM et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac025.

Key clinical point: Entheseal power Doppler (PD) signal, entheseal bone erosions, and gray scale (GS) joint synovitis were indicative of severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in terms of ultrasound (US)-detected joint bone erosion.

Major finding: At least 1 joint bone erosion was found in 45.2% of patients and was associated with PD signal at enthesis (odds ratio [OR] 1.74; P < .01), entheseal bone erosions (OR 3.17; P = .01), and GS synovitis (OR 2.59; P = .02).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 104 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. E Filippucci and W Grassi declared receiving speaker fees from various sources.

Source: Smerilli G et al. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210974.

Key clinical point: Entheseal power Doppler (PD) signal, entheseal bone erosions, and gray scale (GS) joint synovitis were indicative of severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in terms of ultrasound (US)-detected joint bone erosion.

Major finding: At least 1 joint bone erosion was found in 45.2% of patients and was associated with PD signal at enthesis (odds ratio [OR] 1.74; P < .01), entheseal bone erosions (OR 3.17; P = .01), and GS synovitis (OR 2.59; P = .02).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 104 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. E Filippucci and W Grassi declared receiving speaker fees from various sources.

Source: Smerilli G et al. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210974.

Key clinical point: Entheseal power Doppler (PD) signal, entheseal bone erosions, and gray scale (GS) joint synovitis were indicative of severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in terms of ultrasound (US)-detected joint bone erosion.

Major finding: At least 1 joint bone erosion was found in 45.2% of patients and was associated with PD signal at enthesis (odds ratio [OR] 1.74; P < .01), entheseal bone erosions (OR 3.17; P = .01), and GS synovitis (OR 2.59; P = .02).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 104 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. E Filippucci and W Grassi declared receiving speaker fees from various sources.

Source: Smerilli G et al. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210974.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving tofacitinib experienced a shorter time to initial clinically meaningful response than those who switched from placebo to tofacitinib.

Major finding: Median time to the initial Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score response was shorter in patients receiving 5 mg tofacitinib (29-30 days) and 10 mg tofacitinib (53.5 days) than in those switching from placebo to 5 mg tofacitinib (162 days) or 10 mg tofacitinib (112 days; P < .01). The initial Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue total score response was achieved faster with 5 mg tofacitinib vs. other treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of 2 phase 3 trials (OPAL BROADEN and OPAL BEYOND) including 816 patients with PsA randomly assigned to 5 mg tofacitinib, 10 mg tofacitinib, 40 mg adalimumab, or placebo switching to 5 or 10 mg tofacitinib at month 3.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving research grants, consulting fees, and honoraria from Pfizer and other sources. Four authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer.

Source: Gladman DD et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:40 (Feb 9). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02721-0.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving tofacitinib experienced a shorter time to initial clinically meaningful response than those who switched from placebo to tofacitinib.

Major finding: Median time to the initial Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score response was shorter in patients receiving 5 mg tofacitinib (29-30 days) and 10 mg tofacitinib (53.5 days) than in those switching from placebo to 5 mg tofacitinib (162 days) or 10 mg tofacitinib (112 days; P < .01). The initial Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue total score response was achieved faster with 5 mg tofacitinib vs. other treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of 2 phase 3 trials (OPAL BROADEN and OPAL BEYOND) including 816 patients with PsA randomly assigned to 5 mg tofacitinib, 10 mg tofacitinib, 40 mg adalimumab, or placebo switching to 5 or 10 mg tofacitinib at month 3.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving research grants, consulting fees, and honoraria from Pfizer and other sources. Four authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer.

Source: Gladman DD et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:40 (Feb 9). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02721-0.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving tofacitinib experienced a shorter time to initial clinically meaningful response than those who switched from placebo to tofacitinib.

Major finding: Median time to the initial Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score response was shorter in patients receiving 5 mg tofacitinib (29-30 days) and 10 mg tofacitinib (53.5 days) than in those switching from placebo to 5 mg tofacitinib (162 days) or 10 mg tofacitinib (112 days; P < .01). The initial Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue total score response was achieved faster with 5 mg tofacitinib vs. other treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of 2 phase 3 trials (OPAL BROADEN and OPAL BEYOND) including 816 patients with PsA randomly assigned to 5 mg tofacitinib, 10 mg tofacitinib, 40 mg adalimumab, or placebo switching to 5 or 10 mg tofacitinib at month 3.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer. The authors declared receiving research grants, consulting fees, and honoraria from Pfizer and other sources. Four authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer.

Source: Gladman DD et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:40 (Feb 9). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02721-0.

Key clinical point: Increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) seemed to be associated with underlying comorbidities and not independently associated with PsA.

Major finding: During follow-up, 1.2% vs. 0.8% patients in the PsA vs. control group were diagnosed with VTE, but this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.27; P = .16) with only older age (aHR 1.08; P < .0001) and  history of VTE (aHR 31.63; P < .0001) remaining associated with an increased risk for VTE after multivariate adjustment.

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 5,275 patients with newly diagnosed PsA who were matched with 21,011 control individuals without PsA.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gazitt T et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:16 (Jan 7). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02703-8.

Key clinical point: Increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) seemed to be associated with underlying comorbidities and not independently associated with PsA.

Major finding: During follow-up, 1.2% vs. 0.8% patients in the PsA vs. control group were diagnosed with VTE, but this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.27; P = .16) with only older age (aHR 1.08; P < .0001) and  history of VTE (aHR 31.63; P < .0001) remaining associated with an increased risk for VTE after multivariate adjustment.

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 5,275 patients with newly diagnosed PsA who were matched with 21,011 control individuals without PsA.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gazitt T et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:16 (Jan 7). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02703-8.

Key clinical point: Increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) seemed to be associated with underlying comorbidities and not independently associated with PsA.

Major finding: During follow-up, 1.2% vs. 0.8% patients in the PsA vs. control group were diagnosed with VTE, but this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.27; P = .16) with only older age (aHR 1.08; P < .0001) and  history of VTE (aHR 31.63; P < .0001) remaining associated with an increased risk for VTE after multivariate adjustment.

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included 5,275 patients with newly diagnosed PsA who were matched with 21,011 control individuals without PsA.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gazitt T et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:16 (Jan 7). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02703-8.

Key clinical point: Patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) were more likely to develop uveitis if they were diagnosed with PsA at a younger age or were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, with higher disease activity being the only factor significantly associated with the presence of uveitis.

Major finding: Patients with JPsA with vs. without uveitis were younger at JPsA onset (5.3 years vs. 9.3 years) and were more frequently positive for ANA (60.3% vs. 37%; both P < .001). The mean clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 was the only factor significantly associated with the development of uveitis in patients with JPsA (hazard ratio 1.16; P = .025).

Study details: This was an analysis of cross-sectional data from 1,862 patients with JPsA from the National Pediatric Rheumatological Database. Of the patients in the study, 122 developed uveitis.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Education, Deutsche Kinderrheuma-Stiftung, and others. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria and research grants from several sources.

Source: Walscheid K et al. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Jan 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210755.

Key clinical point: Patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) were more likely to develop uveitis if they were diagnosed with PsA at a younger age or were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, with higher disease activity being the only factor significantly associated with the presence of uveitis.

Major finding: Patients with JPsA with vs. without uveitis were younger at JPsA onset (5.3 years vs. 9.3 years) and were more frequently positive for ANA (60.3% vs. 37%; both P < .001). The mean clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 was the only factor significantly associated with the development of uveitis in patients with JPsA (hazard ratio 1.16; P = .025).

Study details: This was an analysis of cross-sectional data from 1,862 patients with JPsA from the National Pediatric Rheumatological Database. Of the patients in the study, 122 developed uveitis.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Education, Deutsche Kinderrheuma-Stiftung, and others. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria and research grants from several sources.

Source: Walscheid K et al. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Jan 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210755.

Key clinical point: Patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) were more likely to develop uveitis if they were diagnosed with PsA at a younger age or were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, with higher disease activity being the only factor significantly associated with the presence of uveitis.

Major finding: Patients with JPsA with vs. without uveitis were younger at JPsA onset (5.3 years vs. 9.3 years) and were more frequently positive for ANA (60.3% vs. 37%; both P < .001). The mean clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 was the only factor significantly associated with the development of uveitis in patients with JPsA (hazard ratio 1.16; P = .025).

Study details: This was an analysis of cross-sectional data from 1,862 patients with JPsA from the National Pediatric Rheumatological Database. Of the patients in the study, 122 developed uveitis.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Federal Ministry for Research and Education, Deutsche Kinderrheuma-Stiftung, and others. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria and research grants from several sources.

Source: Walscheid K et al. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Jan 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210755.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at greater risk of developing endometriosis.

Major finding: A history of psoriasis with concomitant PsA was associated with an increased risk for subsequent endometriosis diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% CI 1.23-3.30), which persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease (HR 1.94; 95% CI 1.18-3.18).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 4,112 patients with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis and 767 patients with psoriasis, of which 140 had concomitant PsA from the Nurses’ Health Study II.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Harris HR et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac009.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at greater risk of developing endometriosis.

Major finding: A history of psoriasis with concomitant PsA was associated with an increased risk for subsequent endometriosis diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% CI 1.23-3.30), which persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease (HR 1.94; 95% CI 1.18-3.18).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 4,112 patients with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis and 767 patients with psoriasis, of which 140 had concomitant PsA from the Nurses’ Health Study II.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Harris HR et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac009.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at greater risk of developing endometriosis.

Major finding: A history of psoriasis with concomitant PsA was associated with an increased risk for subsequent endometriosis diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% CI 1.23-3.30), which persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular disease (HR 1.94; 95% CI 1.18-3.18).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 4,112 patients with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis and 767 patients with psoriasis, of which 140 had concomitant PsA from the Nurses’ Health Study II.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Harris HR et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2022 (Jan 13). Doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac009.

Key clinical point: Secukinumab showed early and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 16, patients in all secukinumab treatment groups vs. placebo showed significant improvement in all PRO (P ≤ .0001) except for the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey mental component summary. Patients receiving 300 mg secukinumab showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements as early as week 1 (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 FUTURE 5 trial including 996 adults with active PsA who were randomly assigned to 300 mg secukinumab, 150 mg secukinumab  (with/without loading dose), or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma. Some of the authors declared receiving research grants or consulting and speaker’s bureau fees from various sources including Novartis. Four authors declared being past/current employees or shareholders of Novartis.

Source: Strand V et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00354-4.

Key clinical point: Secukinumab showed early and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 16, patients in all secukinumab treatment groups vs. placebo showed significant improvement in all PRO (P ≤ .0001) except for the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey mental component summary. Patients receiving 300 mg secukinumab showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements as early as week 1 (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 FUTURE 5 trial including 996 adults with active PsA who were randomly assigned to 300 mg secukinumab, 150 mg secukinumab  (with/without loading dose), or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma. Some of the authors declared receiving research grants or consulting and speaker’s bureau fees from various sources including Novartis. Four authors declared being past/current employees or shareholders of Novartis.

Source: Strand V et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00354-4.

Key clinical point: Secukinumab showed early and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 16, patients in all secukinumab treatment groups vs. placebo showed significant improvement in all PRO (P ≤ .0001) except for the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey mental component summary. Patients receiving 300 mg secukinumab showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements as early as week 1 (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 FUTURE 5 trial including 996 adults with active PsA who were randomly assigned to 300 mg secukinumab, 150 mg secukinumab  (with/without loading dose), or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma. Some of the authors declared receiving research grants or consulting and speaker’s bureau fees from various sources including Novartis. Four authors declared being past/current employees or shareholders of Novartis.

Source: Strand V et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 (Feb 1). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00354-4.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

Guselkumab (Tremfya) received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) almost 2 years ago on the basis of a phase 3 trial, but a new substudy from that trial has now demonstrated long-term benefit in the subgroup of patients who entered the trial with axial involvement, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

“The symptom relief was clinically meaningful and durable through week 100,” reported Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine and director of the psoriatic arthritis program at the University of Toronto.

In the previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled DISCOVER-2 trial, two dosing regimens of the interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor guselkumab were compared with placebo in biologic-naive patients. The active regimens were similarly effective relative to placebo for the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.

In this new long-term subgroup analysis, outcomes at 2 years were evaluated in the 246 patients with axial involvement (33.3% of the total number of 739 evaluable patients). Baseline characteristics across treatment groups in this subset of the DISCOVER-2 trial were similar.
 

Guselkumab exhibits nearly twofold advantage

At 24 weeks relative to baseline, the improvement on multiple axial involvement outcome measures was approximately twofold greater with active therapy than with placebo. For example, the mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score fell 2.6 points in both active treatment arms versus 1.4 on placebo.

The same relative advantage was observed when the BASDAI spinal pain subscore was isolated. There were also comparable responses on a modified BASDAI that excluded the peripheral pain response, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

When evaluated at week 52 and again at week 100, all outcomes employed to evaluate change in axial involvement were sustained. Many were further improved. In patients who initiated therapy on placebo, all of whom were switched to guselkumab at the end of the 24-week double-blind period, at least the same degree of axial symptom control relative to baseline was achieved at both time periods.

Incremental improvement observed over time

“For most measures there was further improvement at 2 years, and there was generally consistent response across patient groups stratified by HLA [human leucocyte antigen] status,” Dr. Gladman reported.

Relative to the 2.6-point reduction in the BASDAI score in the two guselkumab arms at week 24, the reductions reached 3.0, 3.1, and 3.3 at 100 weeks in the every-4-week guselkumab group, every-8-week guselkumab group, and the crossed-over placebo group, respectively. For ASDAS, the reductions at week 24 were 1.4, 1.5, and 0.7 points and reached 1.6, 1.7, and 1.6 points at 100 weeks in the every-4-week, every-8-week, and placebo crossover groups, respectively.

The sustained improvement is consistent with a previous post hoc analysis in which data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial were pooled with those from DISCOVER-2. This analysis focused on the 312 patients in these studies with axial disease documented by imaging. Again, the study showed improvement at week 24 was sustained at week 52 independent of HLA-B27 status.
 

Need for MRI confirmation seen

The potential problem with this new analysis as well as the previous analysis is the absence of MRI to provide objective evidence of axial involvement, according to Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Noting that previous studies have indicated that axial involvement assessed by investigators is not reliable even when performed with x-rays, Dr. Maksymowych said these data would be much more reassuring with MRI controls.

“We have seen little correlation between clinical symptoms and MRI manifestations of disease,” he said.

Dr. Gladman conceded this point. Baseline MRI was performed in some of the patients in this subgroup analysis, but it was not mandated. As a result, the data support benefit from guselkumab for symptomatic axial involvement, but she indicated that better evidence of a disease-modifying effect is expected from a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial of guselkumab called STAR.

This trial is requiring MRI at baseline and at week 24 and is using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score to assess change. Dr. Gladman said the trial is enrolling “as we speak.”

Overall, Dr. Gladman agreed with Dr. Maksymowych that objective biomarkers are important for demonstrating that treatments are improving long-term outcomes, not just relieving symptoms.

Guselkumab manufacturer Janssen supported the post hoc analysis. Dr. Gladman reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Maksymowych reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

Guselkumab (Tremfya) received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) almost 2 years ago on the basis of a phase 3 trial, but a new substudy from that trial has now demonstrated long-term benefit in the subgroup of patients who entered the trial with axial involvement, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

“The symptom relief was clinically meaningful and durable through week 100,” reported Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine and director of the psoriatic arthritis program at the University of Toronto.

In the previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled DISCOVER-2 trial, two dosing regimens of the interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor guselkumab were compared with placebo in biologic-naive patients. The active regimens were similarly effective relative to placebo for the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.

In this new long-term subgroup analysis, outcomes at 2 years were evaluated in the 246 patients with axial involvement (33.3% of the total number of 739 evaluable patients). Baseline characteristics across treatment groups in this subset of the DISCOVER-2 trial were similar.
 

Guselkumab exhibits nearly twofold advantage

At 24 weeks relative to baseline, the improvement on multiple axial involvement outcome measures was approximately twofold greater with active therapy than with placebo. For example, the mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score fell 2.6 points in both active treatment arms versus 1.4 on placebo.

The same relative advantage was observed when the BASDAI spinal pain subscore was isolated. There were also comparable responses on a modified BASDAI that excluded the peripheral pain response, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

When evaluated at week 52 and again at week 100, all outcomes employed to evaluate change in axial involvement were sustained. Many were further improved. In patients who initiated therapy on placebo, all of whom were switched to guselkumab at the end of the 24-week double-blind period, at least the same degree of axial symptom control relative to baseline was achieved at both time periods.

Incremental improvement observed over time

“For most measures there was further improvement at 2 years, and there was generally consistent response across patient groups stratified by HLA [human leucocyte antigen] status,” Dr. Gladman reported.

Relative to the 2.6-point reduction in the BASDAI score in the two guselkumab arms at week 24, the reductions reached 3.0, 3.1, and 3.3 at 100 weeks in the every-4-week guselkumab group, every-8-week guselkumab group, and the crossed-over placebo group, respectively. For ASDAS, the reductions at week 24 were 1.4, 1.5, and 0.7 points and reached 1.6, 1.7, and 1.6 points at 100 weeks in the every-4-week, every-8-week, and placebo crossover groups, respectively.

The sustained improvement is consistent with a previous post hoc analysis in which data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial were pooled with those from DISCOVER-2. This analysis focused on the 312 patients in these studies with axial disease documented by imaging. Again, the study showed improvement at week 24 was sustained at week 52 independent of HLA-B27 status.
 

Need for MRI confirmation seen

The potential problem with this new analysis as well as the previous analysis is the absence of MRI to provide objective evidence of axial involvement, according to Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Noting that previous studies have indicated that axial involvement assessed by investigators is not reliable even when performed with x-rays, Dr. Maksymowych said these data would be much more reassuring with MRI controls.

“We have seen little correlation between clinical symptoms and MRI manifestations of disease,” he said.

Dr. Gladman conceded this point. Baseline MRI was performed in some of the patients in this subgroup analysis, but it was not mandated. As a result, the data support benefit from guselkumab for symptomatic axial involvement, but she indicated that better evidence of a disease-modifying effect is expected from a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial of guselkumab called STAR.

This trial is requiring MRI at baseline and at week 24 and is using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score to assess change. Dr. Gladman said the trial is enrolling “as we speak.”

Overall, Dr. Gladman agreed with Dr. Maksymowych that objective biomarkers are important for demonstrating that treatments are improving long-term outcomes, not just relieving symptoms.

Guselkumab manufacturer Janssen supported the post hoc analysis. Dr. Gladman reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Maksymowych reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

Guselkumab (Tremfya) received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) almost 2 years ago on the basis of a phase 3 trial, but a new substudy from that trial has now demonstrated long-term benefit in the subgroup of patients who entered the trial with axial involvement, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

“The symptom relief was clinically meaningful and durable through week 100,” reported Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine and director of the psoriatic arthritis program at the University of Toronto.

In the previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled DISCOVER-2 trial, two dosing regimens of the interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor guselkumab were compared with placebo in biologic-naive patients. The active regimens were similarly effective relative to placebo for the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.

In this new long-term subgroup analysis, outcomes at 2 years were evaluated in the 246 patients with axial involvement (33.3% of the total number of 739 evaluable patients). Baseline characteristics across treatment groups in this subset of the DISCOVER-2 trial were similar.
 

Guselkumab exhibits nearly twofold advantage

At 24 weeks relative to baseline, the improvement on multiple axial involvement outcome measures was approximately twofold greater with active therapy than with placebo. For example, the mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score fell 2.6 points in both active treatment arms versus 1.4 on placebo.

The same relative advantage was observed when the BASDAI spinal pain subscore was isolated. There were also comparable responses on a modified BASDAI that excluded the peripheral pain response, and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

When evaluated at week 52 and again at week 100, all outcomes employed to evaluate change in axial involvement were sustained. Many were further improved. In patients who initiated therapy on placebo, all of whom were switched to guselkumab at the end of the 24-week double-blind period, at least the same degree of axial symptom control relative to baseline was achieved at both time periods.

Incremental improvement observed over time

“For most measures there was further improvement at 2 years, and there was generally consistent response across patient groups stratified by HLA [human leucocyte antigen] status,” Dr. Gladman reported.

Relative to the 2.6-point reduction in the BASDAI score in the two guselkumab arms at week 24, the reductions reached 3.0, 3.1, and 3.3 at 100 weeks in the every-4-week guselkumab group, every-8-week guselkumab group, and the crossed-over placebo group, respectively. For ASDAS, the reductions at week 24 were 1.4, 1.5, and 0.7 points and reached 1.6, 1.7, and 1.6 points at 100 weeks in the every-4-week, every-8-week, and placebo crossover groups, respectively.

The sustained improvement is consistent with a previous post hoc analysis in which data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 trial were pooled with those from DISCOVER-2. This analysis focused on the 312 patients in these studies with axial disease documented by imaging. Again, the study showed improvement at week 24 was sustained at week 52 independent of HLA-B27 status.
 

Need for MRI confirmation seen

The potential problem with this new analysis as well as the previous analysis is the absence of MRI to provide objective evidence of axial involvement, according to Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Noting that previous studies have indicated that axial involvement assessed by investigators is not reliable even when performed with x-rays, Dr. Maksymowych said these data would be much more reassuring with MRI controls.

“We have seen little correlation between clinical symptoms and MRI manifestations of disease,” he said.

Dr. Gladman conceded this point. Baseline MRI was performed in some of the patients in this subgroup analysis, but it was not mandated. As a result, the data support benefit from guselkumab for symptomatic axial involvement, but she indicated that better evidence of a disease-modifying effect is expected from a more rigorous placebo-controlled trial of guselkumab called STAR.

This trial is requiring MRI at baseline and at week 24 and is using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score to assess change. Dr. Gladman said the trial is enrolling “as we speak.”

Overall, Dr. Gladman agreed with Dr. Maksymowych that objective biomarkers are important for demonstrating that treatments are improving long-term outcomes, not just relieving symptoms.

Guselkumab manufacturer Janssen supported the post hoc analysis. Dr. Gladman reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Maksymowych reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.