Rheumatoid Arthritis

Key clinical point: The Internet-based Worry and Sadness program improved mental health in adults with rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months.

Major finding: At 3 months’ follow-up, measures of anxiety, depression, and emotional distress  improved significantly from baseline with effect sizes ranging from small to large; 44% of participants had normal scores for anxiety (medium effect size).

Study details: The data come from 28 adults (mean age 57 years, 86% women) with rheumatoid arthritis who completed an Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by a University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship and The Arthritis Society 2016 PhD Salary Award to lead author Dr. Blaney, and by the CIHR Chronic Pain SPOR Network and Health Sciences Centre. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Blaney C et al. Internet Interv. 2021 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100385.

Key clinical point: The Internet-based Worry and Sadness program improved mental health in adults with rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months.

Major finding: At 3 months’ follow-up, measures of anxiety, depression, and emotional distress  improved significantly from baseline with effect sizes ranging from small to large; 44% of participants had normal scores for anxiety (medium effect size).

Study details: The data come from 28 adults (mean age 57 years, 86% women) with rheumatoid arthritis who completed an Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by a University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship and The Arthritis Society 2016 PhD Salary Award to lead author Dr. Blaney, and by the CIHR Chronic Pain SPOR Network and Health Sciences Centre. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Blaney C et al. Internet Interv. 2021 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100385.

Key clinical point: The Internet-based Worry and Sadness program improved mental health in adults with rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months.

Major finding: At 3 months’ follow-up, measures of anxiety, depression, and emotional distress  improved significantly from baseline with effect sizes ranging from small to large; 44% of participants had normal scores for anxiety (medium effect size).

Study details: The data come from 28 adults (mean age 57 years, 86% women) with rheumatoid arthritis who completed an Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by a University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship and The Arthritis Society 2016 PhD Salary Award to lead author Dr. Blaney, and by the CIHR Chronic Pain SPOR Network and Health Sciences Centre. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Blaney C et al. Internet Interv. 2021 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100385.

Key clinical point: Use of beta blockers was significantly associated with remission in RA based on the Simplified Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index.

Major finding: Approximately 11% of the RA patients were using systemic beta blockers, and beta blocker use was associated with less frequent remission, both in the total study cohort and the cohort of patients with cardiovascular disease (adjusted hazard ratios 0.70 and 0.75, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a pooled cohort analysis of five randomized trials of tocilizumab and/or csDMARDs including 5,502 RA patients.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. Two researchers were supported by Beat Cancer Research Fellowships from Cancer Council South Australia and a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia. The lead author and other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Abuhelwa AY. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021 Apr 12. doi: 10.1177/1759720X211009020.

Key clinical point: Use of beta blockers was significantly associated with remission in RA based on the Simplified Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index.

Major finding: Approximately 11% of the RA patients were using systemic beta blockers, and beta blocker use was associated with less frequent remission, both in the total study cohort and the cohort of patients with cardiovascular disease (adjusted hazard ratios 0.70 and 0.75, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a pooled cohort analysis of five randomized trials of tocilizumab and/or csDMARDs including 5,502 RA patients.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. Two researchers were supported by Beat Cancer Research Fellowships from Cancer Council South Australia and a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia. The lead author and other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Abuhelwa AY. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021 Apr 12. doi: 10.1177/1759720X211009020.

Key clinical point: Use of beta blockers was significantly associated with remission in RA based on the Simplified Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index.

Major finding: Approximately 11% of the RA patients were using systemic beta blockers, and beta blocker use was associated with less frequent remission, both in the total study cohort and the cohort of patients with cardiovascular disease (adjusted hazard ratios 0.70 and 0.75, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a pooled cohort analysis of five randomized trials of tocilizumab and/or csDMARDs including 5,502 RA patients.

Disclosures: The study received no outside funding. Two researchers were supported by Beat Cancer Research Fellowships from Cancer Council South Australia and a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia. The lead author and other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Source: Abuhelwa AY. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2021 Apr 12. doi: 10.1177/1759720X211009020.

Key clinical point: Treatment of irradiated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) with filgotinib in particular correlated with enhanced foci in vitro; the study was a rare comparison of all four JAKis approved for RA: tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, and filgotinib.

Major finding: Lymphocyte proliferation was similar for tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, while dosage of filgotinib was two orders of magnitude higher when these JAKis were added to peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy donors.

Study details: The data come from an in vitro study of four JAK inhibitors currently approved for the treatment of RA: tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib, in which increasing concentrations of the JAKis or methotrexate were added to peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the European Union Program Regional Development Fund of the Ministry of Economy, Science and Digitalisation in Saxony-Anhalt. Lead author Dr. Reddig had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Reddig A et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 103390/jcm10071431.

Key clinical point: Treatment of irradiated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) with filgotinib in particular correlated with enhanced foci in vitro; the study was a rare comparison of all four JAKis approved for RA: tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, and filgotinib.

Major finding: Lymphocyte proliferation was similar for tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, while dosage of filgotinib was two orders of magnitude higher when these JAKis were added to peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy donors.

Study details: The data come from an in vitro study of four JAK inhibitors currently approved for the treatment of RA: tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib, in which increasing concentrations of the JAKis or methotrexate were added to peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the European Union Program Regional Development Fund of the Ministry of Economy, Science and Digitalisation in Saxony-Anhalt. Lead author Dr. Reddig had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Reddig A et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 103390/jcm10071431.

Key clinical point: Treatment of irradiated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) with filgotinib in particular correlated with enhanced foci in vitro; the study was a rare comparison of all four JAKis approved for RA: tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, and filgotinib.

Major finding: Lymphocyte proliferation was similar for tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, while dosage of filgotinib was two orders of magnitude higher when these JAKis were added to peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy donors.

Study details: The data come from an in vitro study of four JAK inhibitors currently approved for the treatment of RA: tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib, in which increasing concentrations of the JAKis or methotrexate were added to peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the European Union Program Regional Development Fund of the Ministry of Economy, Science and Digitalisation in Saxony-Anhalt. Lead author Dr. Reddig had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Source: Reddig A et al. J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 1. doi: 103390/jcm10071431.

The association of RA and cardiovascular disease has been extensively described. Beta adrenergic receptors are not known to be involved in RA, though Abuhelwa et al. suggest a potential role in “immunologic balance” in their study of beta blocker use and RA remission. In a pooled analysis of five tocilizumab trials, use of beta blockers was associated with lower proportions of CDAI remission. However, without information on beta blocker dose or duration of therapy as well as potential confounding by indication, the significance of this finding is uncertain.

Another known association of RA and its treatment is malignancy, perhaps due to decrease in immunosurveillance; it remains a concern in choice of therapy and long-term effects. Solipuram et al. performed a systematic review of combination JAK inhibitor and methotrexate therapy in RA to evaluate the evidence regarding malignancy risk. Among the 13 trials included for analysis, 40 cases of malignancy were reported for over 3,600 patient-years in patients receiving combination therapy, compared to 7 cases among nearly 1,000 patient-years in patients receiving methotrexate alone; no change in relative risk was seen in non-melanomatous skin cancer or other cancers. While this information is reassuring, it does not eliminate the possibility of increased malignancy given variations in duration of followup in different studies.  There is also a need for longer follow-up because of a potential latency period before the development of cancer. Ideally, long-term extension studies could help better define this risk, though those studies tend to be single-armed and without a control.

Though different JAK inhibitors generally are thought to have similar efficacy and class-associated side effects, few studies have compared immunomodulatory effects of the medications. Reddig et al compared the effects of baricitinib, upadicitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, and methotrexate on cell proliferation, cell activation, and apoptosis, as well as induction of DNA damage and repair in an in vitro study. The study authors used human peripheral blood monocytes treated with phytohemagglutinin to activate T cells and induce proliferation. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadicitinib were associated with comparable dose-dependent inhibition of lymphocyte activation and proliferation. Higher doses of filgotinib were required to obtain the same effect. Filgotinib at high concentrations also were associated with higher levels of DNA damage markers. These findings are interesting as to the shared mechanism of action of JAK inhibitors, regardless of JAK specificity. However, given the lack of “universal” patterns in vitro, their clinical importance or relevance in distinguishing between the medications is unclear.

Kim et al. investigates the pathogenesis of RA in their in vitro study of mast cells. Though previously identified in RA synovial fluid and tissue and not in OA synovium, their role is not entirely clear. Though normally associated with allergic responses, mast cells have been postulated to have pro- and anti-inflammatory effects, and release inflammatory cytokines and mediators, such as histamine. Synovial fluid and serum samples from RA and OA patients, as well as healthy volunteers, were analyzed for tryptase, chymase, and histamine; serum levels of all three were higher in RA than in OA patients and healthy volunteers. Synovial fluid levels of histamine were higher in RA. Cell culture studies were performed using IL-33 to activate human mast cells, causing an increase in tryptase –positive cells, as well as an increased expression of RANKL and MMP-9. This suggests a role for mast cells in osteoclastogenesis and tissue degradation. In addition to providing more information about the involvement of mast cells in RA pathogenesis, these findings suggest mast cells as a potential therapeutic target.

The association of RA and cardiovascular disease has been extensively described. Beta adrenergic receptors are not known to be involved in RA, though Abuhelwa et al. suggest a potential role in “immunologic balance” in their study of beta blocker use and RA remission. In a pooled analysis of five tocilizumab trials, use of beta blockers was associated with lower proportions of CDAI remission. However, without information on beta blocker dose or duration of therapy as well as potential confounding by indication, the significance of this finding is uncertain.

Another known association of RA and its treatment is malignancy, perhaps due to decrease in immunosurveillance; it remains a concern in choice of therapy and long-term effects. Solipuram et al. performed a systematic review of combination JAK inhibitor and methotrexate therapy in RA to evaluate the evidence regarding malignancy risk. Among the 13 trials included for analysis, 40 cases of malignancy were reported for over 3,600 patient-years in patients receiving combination therapy, compared to 7 cases among nearly 1,000 patient-years in patients receiving methotrexate alone; no change in relative risk was seen in non-melanomatous skin cancer or other cancers. While this information is reassuring, it does not eliminate the possibility of increased malignancy given variations in duration of followup in different studies.  There is also a need for longer follow-up because of a potential latency period before the development of cancer. Ideally, long-term extension studies could help better define this risk, though those studies tend to be single-armed and without a control.

Though different JAK inhibitors generally are thought to have similar efficacy and class-associated side effects, few studies have compared immunomodulatory effects of the medications. Reddig et al compared the effects of baricitinib, upadicitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, and methotrexate on cell proliferation, cell activation, and apoptosis, as well as induction of DNA damage and repair in an in vitro study. The study authors used human peripheral blood monocytes treated with phytohemagglutinin to activate T cells and induce proliferation. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadicitinib were associated with comparable dose-dependent inhibition of lymphocyte activation and proliferation. Higher doses of filgotinib were required to obtain the same effect. Filgotinib at high concentrations also were associated with higher levels of DNA damage markers. These findings are interesting as to the shared mechanism of action of JAK inhibitors, regardless of JAK specificity. However, given the lack of “universal” patterns in vitro, their clinical importance or relevance in distinguishing between the medications is unclear.

Kim et al. investigates the pathogenesis of RA in their in vitro study of mast cells. Though previously identified in RA synovial fluid and tissue and not in OA synovium, their role is not entirely clear. Though normally associated with allergic responses, mast cells have been postulated to have pro- and anti-inflammatory effects, and release inflammatory cytokines and mediators, such as histamine. Synovial fluid and serum samples from RA and OA patients, as well as healthy volunteers, were analyzed for tryptase, chymase, and histamine; serum levels of all three were higher in RA than in OA patients and healthy volunteers. Synovial fluid levels of histamine were higher in RA. Cell culture studies were performed using IL-33 to activate human mast cells, causing an increase in tryptase –positive cells, as well as an increased expression of RANKL and MMP-9. This suggests a role for mast cells in osteoclastogenesis and tissue degradation. In addition to providing more information about the involvement of mast cells in RA pathogenesis, these findings suggest mast cells as a potential therapeutic target.

The association of RA and cardiovascular disease has been extensively described. Beta adrenergic receptors are not known to be involved in RA, though Abuhelwa et al. suggest a potential role in “immunologic balance” in their study of beta blocker use and RA remission. In a pooled analysis of five tocilizumab trials, use of beta blockers was associated with lower proportions of CDAI remission. However, without information on beta blocker dose or duration of therapy as well as potential confounding by indication, the significance of this finding is uncertain.

Another known association of RA and its treatment is malignancy, perhaps due to decrease in immunosurveillance; it remains a concern in choice of therapy and long-term effects. Solipuram et al. performed a systematic review of combination JAK inhibitor and methotrexate therapy in RA to evaluate the evidence regarding malignancy risk. Among the 13 trials included for analysis, 40 cases of malignancy were reported for over 3,600 patient-years in patients receiving combination therapy, compared to 7 cases among nearly 1,000 patient-years in patients receiving methotrexate alone; no change in relative risk was seen in non-melanomatous skin cancer or other cancers. While this information is reassuring, it does not eliminate the possibility of increased malignancy given variations in duration of followup in different studies.  There is also a need for longer follow-up because of a potential latency period before the development of cancer. Ideally, long-term extension studies could help better define this risk, though those studies tend to be single-armed and without a control.

Though different JAK inhibitors generally are thought to have similar efficacy and class-associated side effects, few studies have compared immunomodulatory effects of the medications. Reddig et al compared the effects of baricitinib, upadicitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, and methotrexate on cell proliferation, cell activation, and apoptosis, as well as induction of DNA damage and repair in an in vitro study. The study authors used human peripheral blood monocytes treated with phytohemagglutinin to activate T cells and induce proliferation. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadicitinib were associated with comparable dose-dependent inhibition of lymphocyte activation and proliferation. Higher doses of filgotinib were required to obtain the same effect. Filgotinib at high concentrations also were associated with higher levels of DNA damage markers. These findings are interesting as to the shared mechanism of action of JAK inhibitors, regardless of JAK specificity. However, given the lack of “universal” patterns in vitro, their clinical importance or relevance in distinguishing between the medications is unclear.

Kim et al. investigates the pathogenesis of RA in their in vitro study of mast cells. Though previously identified in RA synovial fluid and tissue and not in OA synovium, their role is not entirely clear. Though normally associated with allergic responses, mast cells have been postulated to have pro- and anti-inflammatory effects, and release inflammatory cytokines and mediators, such as histamine. Synovial fluid and serum samples from RA and OA patients, as well as healthy volunteers, were analyzed for tryptase, chymase, and histamine; serum levels of all three were higher in RA than in OA patients and healthy volunteers. Synovial fluid levels of histamine were higher in RA. Cell culture studies were performed using IL-33 to activate human mast cells, causing an increase in tryptase –positive cells, as well as an increased expression of RANKL and MMP-9. This suggests a role for mast cells in osteoclastogenesis and tissue degradation. In addition to providing more information about the involvement of mast cells in RA pathogenesis, these findings suggest mast cells as a potential therapeutic target.

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

Studies are flagging racial and ethnic disparities in rheumatology training materials, pointing to a need to boost representation of darker skin tones and better educate physicians in evaluating this cohort.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

Not enough is known about these disparities in rheumatology education, despite the fact that minorities make up 40% of the population in the United States.

The problem starts with books and references used in medical schools, Lynn McKinley-Grant, MD, immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and associate professor of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, said in an interview. “In the medical literature there has been a dearth of images in skin of color in all specialties,” she said. With an increased diversity in the U.S. population, there is a need for health care providers to be able to recognize disease patterns in all skin types.” If a physician is training at an institution where there are not many patients of color in the community, the rheumatologists are even more limited in terms of their clinical experience.

This lack of training in diagnosis of disease has serious clinical repercussions, as seen in COVID cases, Dr. McKinley-Grant noted. “You end up not being able to recognize early erythema, jaundice, anemia, or hypoxemia because those conditions are a different color or pattern in the darker skin types. This can lead to errors in treatment, diagnosis, and medical care, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality.”

Studies point to education gaps

A team of researchers from Washington University in St. Louis called attention to this issue at the American College of Rhematology’s Convergence 2020 conference.

“Patients of color with lupus are especially vulnerable as they often carry a greater disease burden, yet studies show that individuals with darker skin tones are underrepresented in medical educational materials,” Vijay Kannuthurai, MD, and colleagues wrote in their study abstract. The team surveyed 132 providers in St. Louis, Mo., on their confidence in evaluating any rash, and rashes in patients with lupus and varied skin tones.

Participating clinicians, mostly rheumatologists, dermatologists, or internists, had a higher confidence level in diagnosing any rash versus lupus rashes, but were considerably less confident in diagnosing lupus rash on darker skin, compared with those on fair skin. This represents “a disparity between provider confidence and the patient population lupus traditionally affects,” the investigators concluded.

Another recent study found evidence of disparities in clinical education resources. “The lack of dark skin representation among rheumatology educational materials contributes to the implicit bias and structural racism present in medical education by promoting White-only models of disease,” lead author Adrienne Strait, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “Given that rheumatic diseases disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities, we felt it was important to examine the representation of these groups within rheumatology training resources.”

She and her colleagues gathered images of rheumatic diseases from four major databases: the American College of Rheumatology’s Image Library, UpToDate, the New England Journal of Medicine Images in Clinical Medicine and Clinical Cases filtered by “Rheumatology,” and the 9th edition of Kelley’s Textbook of Rheumatology. They used Fitzpatrick’s skin phototypes to independently code images depicting skin as “light” (skin types I-IV), “dark” (skin types V-VI), or “indeterminate,” focusing on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis, two conditions with a known connection to racial and ethnic health disparities.

Taking into account the high incidence of sarcoidosis and SLE in Black patients when compared with White patients, the investigators did a secondary analysis that excluded these cases.

Among 1,043 patient images studied, just 13.4% represented dark skin, compared with 84% that represented light skin. More than 2% represented an indeterminate skin color. Comparing dark-skin representation in the clinical images and SLE images with the representation of Asian, Native American, and Black individuals in the United States and within lupus cases nationally, the investigators found significant underrepresentation of dark skin.

Only 4.2% of RA images had dark-skin representation, making RA one of the diseases with the lowest representation in the study, along with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the spondyloarthropathies, and Kawasaki disease. “Representation of dark skin in SLE was also lower than the proportion of Black individuals in SLE studies,” the investigators noted. Overall, representation of dark skin in SLE images was just 22.6%. Sarcoidosis comparatively had the largest representation of dark-skin images (69.6%, n = 32).

“Excluding sarcoidosis and SLE images, the overall representation of dark skin was 9.4% (n = 84), which was significantly lower than the proportion of Asian, Native American, and Black individuals within the U.S. Census population,” according to Ms. Strait and her associates. UpToDate contained the largest proportion of images of dark skin respective to other databases, whereas Kelley’s Textbook had the smallest.
 

Actionable steps

Many physicians are willing to improve upon their skills in identifying conditions on darker skin, as the study by Dr. Kannuthurai and associates suggests. Overall, 93% of the survey’s participants wanted to learn more about rashes in patients of color. “Future educational interventions may help practitioners improve their confidence when diagnosing rashes in lupus patients” with darker skin, they suggested.

Ms. Strait and her colleagues recommended a series of actionable steps to improve diversity and equity of dark skin tone representation in rheumatology curricula.

Editors of educational resources, for example, should make image diversity a priority for those diseases that are most commonly associated with cutaneous manifestations, such as SLE, vasculitis, inflammatory myopathies, systemic sclerosis, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis. They also called for educators in academic rheumatology programs to collaborate to improve diversity in resources used at the undergraduate and graduate medical education level.

Efforts should take place at the local, regional, and national level to publicly discuss and educate clinicians about rheumatic diseases in individuals of color. Speakers at rheumatology conferences should strive to educate learners about presentations of rheumatic diseases in individuals of color. The ACR in the meantime could establish a task force to enhance racial and ethnic diversity in their image library and other published resources.

“These steps may improve provider recognition and diagnosis of rheumatic disease manifestations in skin of color, which may in turn reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority groups,” Ms. Strait said.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chair of the ACR’s Committee on Rheumatology Training and Workforce Issues, called the findings of this study “timely and important.” The researchers highlighted a deficiency in rheumatology training materials that needs addressing, she said in an interview. “I definitely agree that ACR needs to be mindful of this. There’s no doubt that we need to take these recommendations and move along these lines.”

The ACR took a first step in 2020 with the creation of a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee. “We are undergoing a college-wide look at what we do, with an eye toward inclusion. There is a strong interest in addressing health disparities and being an equitable and inclusive community of rheumatology health care professionals,” said Dr. Jonas, chief of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology.

The American Academy of Dermatology is also working to improve the image library with images of disease in skin of color. “Everyone’s jumping on this now,” Dr. McKinley-Grant observed. The medical profession can’t afford not to. It’s a life-threatening issue when rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases in people of color aren’t diagnosed early and correctly, she added.

Technologies seek to reduce bias

While many organizations are taking steps to improve representation of darker skin images, VisualDx has taken the lead on this, she said. “They’ve been doing this for years now. There are over 14,000 images of disease in skin of color, including all the rheumatologic diseases. There’s a mobile app and desktop decision support system, and it is very popular. A majority of medical schools have this as a library resource, and hospital systems license it for EHR integration.” Doctors can also get it individually. This enables them to share images and handouts of a diagnosis and select images of patients of color, said Dr. McKinley-Grant, who uses the VisualDx smartphone app DermExpert, which is an app for nondermatologists that features an image library of skin lesions, including darker-skin images.

ProjectIMPACT, powered by VisualDx, is another effort to support reducing health care bias in darker skin. The project is a collaboration between the New England Journal of Medicine Group and the Skin Of Color Society. According to Dr. McKinley-Grant, the organizers are building awareness of the importance of reducing the educational and clinical gaps in diagnosing patients of color and trying to get students and educators to pledge to take meaningful steps and to have real-world impact.

This isn’t just exclusive to dermatology and rheumatology – it involves all medical specialties, she stressed.

ProjectIMPACT isn’t just a resource for physicians, she continued. Librarians can also use it to develop more resources on skin of color.

The Skin Of Color Society and VisualDx have also partnered with the NEJM Group to develop a comprehensive virtual series on the impact of skin color and ethnicity on clinical research. The four-part series addresses structural racism and racial bias in medicine, hair disorders in people of color, pigmentary disorders, keloids, COVID-19 comorbidities, and cutaneous manifestations of systemic diseases in children and adults.

Nuances of recognizing disease

As a medical student, Dr. McKinley-Grant said she was fortunate to attend the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambarene, Gabon, on a fellowship. For 3 months, she gained a wealth of experience examining only African patients with brown skin.

In her other training in medicine, “I’ve been at institutions with diverse populations, in Boston, New York, and Washington,” learning more about all different skin pigments.

This type of training should be more widely available, especially now, with COVID-19 producing new manifestations of skin lesions, she emphasized. Such efforts involve a diversification of images physicians are being trained on so that they can recognize the same disease in a person of color.

“Doctors have to be able to recognize different colors, different shades of brown and shades of white. Not all white skin is the same color,” she noted. In looking at a rash or lesion, “you have to learn how to discern differences in the background color of the skin, which is determined by melanin in the skin (Fitzpatrick skin types I-VI) and by what’s going on in the blood, such as how much oxygen and hemoglobin the patient has in their blood.” Inflammation and infection (erythema) will appear more violaceous in IV-VI skin types, for example.

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a group of students and faculty have created a dermatology image library to address the deficiency in the availability of images for teaching purposes. “Our medical students recognized the gap and started this,” Dr. Jonas said. Julie Mervak, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, is spearheading this effort, with students Linnea Westerkam and Anuj Pranav Sanghvi.

“I understand that others around the country are working on similar initiatives,” Dr. Jonas said.

None of the sources for this story had any relevant disclosures.

Studies are flagging racial and ethnic disparities in rheumatology training materials, pointing to a need to boost representation of darker skin tones and better educate physicians in evaluating this cohort.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

Not enough is known about these disparities in rheumatology education, despite the fact that minorities make up 40% of the population in the United States.

The problem starts with books and references used in medical schools, Lynn McKinley-Grant, MD, immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and associate professor of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, said in an interview. “In the medical literature there has been a dearth of images in skin of color in all specialties,” she said. With an increased diversity in the U.S. population, there is a need for health care providers to be able to recognize disease patterns in all skin types.” If a physician is training at an institution where there are not many patients of color in the community, the rheumatologists are even more limited in terms of their clinical experience.

This lack of training in diagnosis of disease has serious clinical repercussions, as seen in COVID cases, Dr. McKinley-Grant noted. “You end up not being able to recognize early erythema, jaundice, anemia, or hypoxemia because those conditions are a different color or pattern in the darker skin types. This can lead to errors in treatment, diagnosis, and medical care, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality.”

Studies point to education gaps

A team of researchers from Washington University in St. Louis called attention to this issue at the American College of Rhematology’s Convergence 2020 conference.

“Patients of color with lupus are especially vulnerable as they often carry a greater disease burden, yet studies show that individuals with darker skin tones are underrepresented in medical educational materials,” Vijay Kannuthurai, MD, and colleagues wrote in their study abstract. The team surveyed 132 providers in St. Louis, Mo., on their confidence in evaluating any rash, and rashes in patients with lupus and varied skin tones.

Participating clinicians, mostly rheumatologists, dermatologists, or internists, had a higher confidence level in diagnosing any rash versus lupus rashes, but were considerably less confident in diagnosing lupus rash on darker skin, compared with those on fair skin. This represents “a disparity between provider confidence and the patient population lupus traditionally affects,” the investigators concluded.

Another recent study found evidence of disparities in clinical education resources. “The lack of dark skin representation among rheumatology educational materials contributes to the implicit bias and structural racism present in medical education by promoting White-only models of disease,” lead author Adrienne Strait, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “Given that rheumatic diseases disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities, we felt it was important to examine the representation of these groups within rheumatology training resources.”

She and her colleagues gathered images of rheumatic diseases from four major databases: the American College of Rheumatology’s Image Library, UpToDate, the New England Journal of Medicine Images in Clinical Medicine and Clinical Cases filtered by “Rheumatology,” and the 9th edition of Kelley’s Textbook of Rheumatology. They used Fitzpatrick’s skin phototypes to independently code images depicting skin as “light” (skin types I-IV), “dark” (skin types V-VI), or “indeterminate,” focusing on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis, two conditions with a known connection to racial and ethnic health disparities.

Taking into account the high incidence of sarcoidosis and SLE in Black patients when compared with White patients, the investigators did a secondary analysis that excluded these cases.

Among 1,043 patient images studied, just 13.4% represented dark skin, compared with 84% that represented light skin. More than 2% represented an indeterminate skin color. Comparing dark-skin representation in the clinical images and SLE images with the representation of Asian, Native American, and Black individuals in the United States and within lupus cases nationally, the investigators found significant underrepresentation of dark skin.

Only 4.2% of RA images had dark-skin representation, making RA one of the diseases with the lowest representation in the study, along with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the spondyloarthropathies, and Kawasaki disease. “Representation of dark skin in SLE was also lower than the proportion of Black individuals in SLE studies,” the investigators noted. Overall, representation of dark skin in SLE images was just 22.6%. Sarcoidosis comparatively had the largest representation of dark-skin images (69.6%, n = 32).

“Excluding sarcoidosis and SLE images, the overall representation of dark skin was 9.4% (n = 84), which was significantly lower than the proportion of Asian, Native American, and Black individuals within the U.S. Census population,” according to Ms. Strait and her associates. UpToDate contained the largest proportion of images of dark skin respective to other databases, whereas Kelley’s Textbook had the smallest.
 

Actionable steps

Many physicians are willing to improve upon their skills in identifying conditions on darker skin, as the study by Dr. Kannuthurai and associates suggests. Overall, 93% of the survey’s participants wanted to learn more about rashes in patients of color. “Future educational interventions may help practitioners improve their confidence when diagnosing rashes in lupus patients” with darker skin, they suggested.

Ms. Strait and her colleagues recommended a series of actionable steps to improve diversity and equity of dark skin tone representation in rheumatology curricula.

Editors of educational resources, for example, should make image diversity a priority for those diseases that are most commonly associated with cutaneous manifestations, such as SLE, vasculitis, inflammatory myopathies, systemic sclerosis, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis. They also called for educators in academic rheumatology programs to collaborate to improve diversity in resources used at the undergraduate and graduate medical education level.

Efforts should take place at the local, regional, and national level to publicly discuss and educate clinicians about rheumatic diseases in individuals of color. Speakers at rheumatology conferences should strive to educate learners about presentations of rheumatic diseases in individuals of color. The ACR in the meantime could establish a task force to enhance racial and ethnic diversity in their image library and other published resources.

“These steps may improve provider recognition and diagnosis of rheumatic disease manifestations in skin of color, which may in turn reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority groups,” Ms. Strait said.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chair of the ACR’s Committee on Rheumatology Training and Workforce Issues, called the findings of this study “timely and important.” The researchers highlighted a deficiency in rheumatology training materials that needs addressing, she said in an interview. “I definitely agree that ACR needs to be mindful of this. There’s no doubt that we need to take these recommendations and move along these lines.”

The ACR took a first step in 2020 with the creation of a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee. “We are undergoing a college-wide look at what we do, with an eye toward inclusion. There is a strong interest in addressing health disparities and being an equitable and inclusive community of rheumatology health care professionals,” said Dr. Jonas, chief of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology.

The American Academy of Dermatology is also working to improve the image library with images of disease in skin of color. “Everyone’s jumping on this now,” Dr. McKinley-Grant observed. The medical profession can’t afford not to. It’s a life-threatening issue when rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases in people of color aren’t diagnosed early and correctly, she added.

Technologies seek to reduce bias

While many organizations are taking steps to improve representation of darker skin images, VisualDx has taken the lead on this, she said. “They’ve been doing this for years now. There are over 14,000 images of disease in skin of color, including all the rheumatologic diseases. There’s a mobile app and desktop decision support system, and it is very popular. A majority of medical schools have this as a library resource, and hospital systems license it for EHR integration.” Doctors can also get it individually. This enables them to share images and handouts of a diagnosis and select images of patients of color, said Dr. McKinley-Grant, who uses the VisualDx smartphone app DermExpert, which is an app for nondermatologists that features an image library of skin lesions, including darker-skin images.

ProjectIMPACT, powered by VisualDx, is another effort to support reducing health care bias in darker skin. The project is a collaboration between the New England Journal of Medicine Group and the Skin Of Color Society. According to Dr. McKinley-Grant, the organizers are building awareness of the importance of reducing the educational and clinical gaps in diagnosing patients of color and trying to get students and educators to pledge to take meaningful steps and to have real-world impact.

This isn’t just exclusive to dermatology and rheumatology – it involves all medical specialties, she stressed.

ProjectIMPACT isn’t just a resource for physicians, she continued. Librarians can also use it to develop more resources on skin of color.

The Skin Of Color Society and VisualDx have also partnered with the NEJM Group to develop a comprehensive virtual series on the impact of skin color and ethnicity on clinical research. The four-part series addresses structural racism and racial bias in medicine, hair disorders in people of color, pigmentary disorders, keloids, COVID-19 comorbidities, and cutaneous manifestations of systemic diseases in children and adults.

Nuances of recognizing disease

As a medical student, Dr. McKinley-Grant said she was fortunate to attend the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambarene, Gabon, on a fellowship. For 3 months, she gained a wealth of experience examining only African patients with brown skin.

In her other training in medicine, “I’ve been at institutions with diverse populations, in Boston, New York, and Washington,” learning more about all different skin pigments.

This type of training should be more widely available, especially now, with COVID-19 producing new manifestations of skin lesions, she emphasized. Such efforts involve a diversification of images physicians are being trained on so that they can recognize the same disease in a person of color.

“Doctors have to be able to recognize different colors, different shades of brown and shades of white. Not all white skin is the same color,” she noted. In looking at a rash or lesion, “you have to learn how to discern differences in the background color of the skin, which is determined by melanin in the skin (Fitzpatrick skin types I-VI) and by what’s going on in the blood, such as how much oxygen and hemoglobin the patient has in their blood.” Inflammation and infection (erythema) will appear more violaceous in IV-VI skin types, for example.

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a group of students and faculty have created a dermatology image library to address the deficiency in the availability of images for teaching purposes. “Our medical students recognized the gap and started this,” Dr. Jonas said. Julie Mervak, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, is spearheading this effort, with students Linnea Westerkam and Anuj Pranav Sanghvi.

“I understand that others around the country are working on similar initiatives,” Dr. Jonas said.

None of the sources for this story had any relevant disclosures.

Studies are flagging racial and ethnic disparities in rheumatology training materials, pointing to a need to boost representation of darker skin tones and better educate physicians in evaluating this cohort.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

Not enough is known about these disparities in rheumatology education, despite the fact that minorities make up 40% of the population in the United States.

The problem starts with books and references used in medical schools, Lynn McKinley-Grant, MD, immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and associate professor of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, said in an interview. “In the medical literature there has been a dearth of images in skin of color in all specialties,” she said. With an increased diversity in the U.S. population, there is a need for health care providers to be able to recognize disease patterns in all skin types.” If a physician is training at an institution where there are not many patients of color in the community, the rheumatologists are even more limited in terms of their clinical experience.

This lack of training in diagnosis of disease has serious clinical repercussions, as seen in COVID cases, Dr. McKinley-Grant noted. “You end up not being able to recognize early erythema, jaundice, anemia, or hypoxemia because those conditions are a different color or pattern in the darker skin types. This can lead to errors in treatment, diagnosis, and medical care, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality.”

Studies point to education gaps

A team of researchers from Washington University in St. Louis called attention to this issue at the American College of Rhematology’s Convergence 2020 conference.

“Patients of color with lupus are especially vulnerable as they often carry a greater disease burden, yet studies show that individuals with darker skin tones are underrepresented in medical educational materials,” Vijay Kannuthurai, MD, and colleagues wrote in their study abstract. The team surveyed 132 providers in St. Louis, Mo., on their confidence in evaluating any rash, and rashes in patients with lupus and varied skin tones.

Participating clinicians, mostly rheumatologists, dermatologists, or internists, had a higher confidence level in diagnosing any rash versus lupus rashes, but were considerably less confident in diagnosing lupus rash on darker skin, compared with those on fair skin. This represents “a disparity between provider confidence and the patient population lupus traditionally affects,” the investigators concluded.

Another recent study found evidence of disparities in clinical education resources. “The lack of dark skin representation among rheumatology educational materials contributes to the implicit bias and structural racism present in medical education by promoting White-only models of disease,” lead author Adrienne Strait, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “Given that rheumatic diseases disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities, we felt it was important to examine the representation of these groups within rheumatology training resources.”

She and her colleagues gathered images of rheumatic diseases from four major databases: the American College of Rheumatology’s Image Library, UpToDate, the New England Journal of Medicine Images in Clinical Medicine and Clinical Cases filtered by “Rheumatology,” and the 9th edition of Kelley’s Textbook of Rheumatology. They used Fitzpatrick’s skin phototypes to independently code images depicting skin as “light” (skin types I-IV), “dark” (skin types V-VI), or “indeterminate,” focusing on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis, two conditions with a known connection to racial and ethnic health disparities.

Taking into account the high incidence of sarcoidosis and SLE in Black patients when compared with White patients, the investigators did a secondary analysis that excluded these cases.

Among 1,043 patient images studied, just 13.4% represented dark skin, compared with 84% that represented light skin. More than 2% represented an indeterminate skin color. Comparing dark-skin representation in the clinical images and SLE images with the representation of Asian, Native American, and Black individuals in the United States and within lupus cases nationally, the investigators found significant underrepresentation of dark skin.

Only 4.2% of RA images had dark-skin representation, making RA one of the diseases with the lowest representation in the study, along with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the spondyloarthropathies, and Kawasaki disease. “Representation of dark skin in SLE was also lower than the proportion of Black individuals in SLE studies,” the investigators noted. Overall, representation of dark skin in SLE images was just 22.6%. Sarcoidosis comparatively had the largest representation of dark-skin images (69.6%, n = 32).

“Excluding sarcoidosis and SLE images, the overall representation of dark skin was 9.4% (n = 84), which was significantly lower than the proportion of Asian, Native American, and Black individuals within the U.S. Census population,” according to Ms. Strait and her associates. UpToDate contained the largest proportion of images of dark skin respective to other databases, whereas Kelley’s Textbook had the smallest.
 

Actionable steps

Many physicians are willing to improve upon their skills in identifying conditions on darker skin, as the study by Dr. Kannuthurai and associates suggests. Overall, 93% of the survey’s participants wanted to learn more about rashes in patients of color. “Future educational interventions may help practitioners improve their confidence when diagnosing rashes in lupus patients” with darker skin, they suggested.

Ms. Strait and her colleagues recommended a series of actionable steps to improve diversity and equity of dark skin tone representation in rheumatology curricula.

Editors of educational resources, for example, should make image diversity a priority for those diseases that are most commonly associated with cutaneous manifestations, such as SLE, vasculitis, inflammatory myopathies, systemic sclerosis, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis. They also called for educators in academic rheumatology programs to collaborate to improve diversity in resources used at the undergraduate and graduate medical education level.

Efforts should take place at the local, regional, and national level to publicly discuss and educate clinicians about rheumatic diseases in individuals of color. Speakers at rheumatology conferences should strive to educate learners about presentations of rheumatic diseases in individuals of color. The ACR in the meantime could establish a task force to enhance racial and ethnic diversity in their image library and other published resources.

“These steps may improve provider recognition and diagnosis of rheumatic disease manifestations in skin of color, which may in turn reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority groups,” Ms. Strait said.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chair of the ACR’s Committee on Rheumatology Training and Workforce Issues, called the findings of this study “timely and important.” The researchers highlighted a deficiency in rheumatology training materials that needs addressing, she said in an interview. “I definitely agree that ACR needs to be mindful of this. There’s no doubt that we need to take these recommendations and move along these lines.”

The ACR took a first step in 2020 with the creation of a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee. “We are undergoing a college-wide look at what we do, with an eye toward inclusion. There is a strong interest in addressing health disparities and being an equitable and inclusive community of rheumatology health care professionals,” said Dr. Jonas, chief of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology.

The American Academy of Dermatology is also working to improve the image library with images of disease in skin of color. “Everyone’s jumping on this now,” Dr. McKinley-Grant observed. The medical profession can’t afford not to. It’s a life-threatening issue when rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases in people of color aren’t diagnosed early and correctly, she added.

Technologies seek to reduce bias

While many organizations are taking steps to improve representation of darker skin images, VisualDx has taken the lead on this, she said. “They’ve been doing this for years now. There are over 14,000 images of disease in skin of color, including all the rheumatologic diseases. There’s a mobile app and desktop decision support system, and it is very popular. A majority of medical schools have this as a library resource, and hospital systems license it for EHR integration.” Doctors can also get it individually. This enables them to share images and handouts of a diagnosis and select images of patients of color, said Dr. McKinley-Grant, who uses the VisualDx smartphone app DermExpert, which is an app for nondermatologists that features an image library of skin lesions, including darker-skin images.

ProjectIMPACT, powered by VisualDx, is another effort to support reducing health care bias in darker skin. The project is a collaboration between the New England Journal of Medicine Group and the Skin Of Color Society. According to Dr. McKinley-Grant, the organizers are building awareness of the importance of reducing the educational and clinical gaps in diagnosing patients of color and trying to get students and educators to pledge to take meaningful steps and to have real-world impact.

This isn’t just exclusive to dermatology and rheumatology – it involves all medical specialties, she stressed.

ProjectIMPACT isn’t just a resource for physicians, she continued. Librarians can also use it to develop more resources on skin of color.

The Skin Of Color Society and VisualDx have also partnered with the NEJM Group to develop a comprehensive virtual series on the impact of skin color and ethnicity on clinical research. The four-part series addresses structural racism and racial bias in medicine, hair disorders in people of color, pigmentary disorders, keloids, COVID-19 comorbidities, and cutaneous manifestations of systemic diseases in children and adults.

Nuances of recognizing disease

As a medical student, Dr. McKinley-Grant said she was fortunate to attend the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Lambarene, Gabon, on a fellowship. For 3 months, she gained a wealth of experience examining only African patients with brown skin.

In her other training in medicine, “I’ve been at institutions with diverse populations, in Boston, New York, and Washington,” learning more about all different skin pigments.

This type of training should be more widely available, especially now, with COVID-19 producing new manifestations of skin lesions, she emphasized. Such efforts involve a diversification of images physicians are being trained on so that they can recognize the same disease in a person of color.

“Doctors have to be able to recognize different colors, different shades of brown and shades of white. Not all white skin is the same color,” she noted. In looking at a rash or lesion, “you have to learn how to discern differences in the background color of the skin, which is determined by melanin in the skin (Fitzpatrick skin types I-VI) and by what’s going on in the blood, such as how much oxygen and hemoglobin the patient has in their blood.” Inflammation and infection (erythema) will appear more violaceous in IV-VI skin types, for example.

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a group of students and faculty have created a dermatology image library to address the deficiency in the availability of images for teaching purposes. “Our medical students recognized the gap and started this,” Dr. Jonas said. Julie Mervak, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, is spearheading this effort, with students Linnea Westerkam and Anuj Pranav Sanghvi.

“I understand that others around the country are working on similar initiatives,” Dr. Jonas said.

None of the sources for this story had any relevant disclosures.

During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.

The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.

“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
 

Details on medication changes

Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).

In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.

They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).

Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.

The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.

The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.

Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.

During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.

The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.

“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
 

Details on medication changes

Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).

In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.

They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).

Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.

The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.

The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.

Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.

During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.

The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.

“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
 

Details on medication changes

Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).

In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.

They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).

Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.

The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.

The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.

Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.

Although most patients with chronic inflammatory diseases mounted immune responses after two doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, glucocorticoids and B-cell–depleting therapies markedly reduced the response, according to a recently published preprint of a new study.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The study, published on MedRxiv and not yet peer reviewed, involved a prospective look at 133 patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) and 53 patients with healthy immune systems at Washington University, St. Louis, and the University of California, San Francisco. It is regarded as the largest and most detailed study yet in how vaccines perform in people with immune-mediated inflammatory disease. The patients were enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021, and the most common diseases were inflammatory bowel disease (32%), rheumatoid arthritis (29%), spondyloarthritis (15%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (11%).
 

A ‘modest’ reduction in antibody response

Senior author Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Washington University, said the overall results so far are encouraging.

“Most patients with an autoimmune disease that are on immunosuppression can mount antibody responses,” he said. “We’re seeing the majority of our subjects respond.”

The immune-healthy controls and most of the patients with CID had a robust immune response against the spike protein, although the CID group had a mean reduction in antibody titers that was three times lower than the controls (P = .0092). The CID group similarly had a 2.7-fold reduction in preventing neutralization, or halting the virus’ ability to infect (P < .0001), researchers reported.

This reduction in response is “modest,” he said.

“Is the level of reduction going to be detrimental for protection? Time will tell,” he said, adding that researchers anticipate that it won’t have a critical effect on protection because responses tended to be within the range of the immunocompetent controls, who themselves had wildly varied antibody titers across a 20-fold range. “ ‘Optimal’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘sufficient.’ ”
 

Type of medication has big impact on antibody titers

But there was a wide variety of effects on the immune response depending on the medication. Glucorticoids resulted in a response that was 10 times lower than the immune-healthy controls, as well as fewer circulating plasmablasts after vaccination. Researchers found that 98% of controls were seropositive for antibody, compared with 92% of those with CID who were not taking prednisone, and 65% of CID patients on prednisone (P = .0006 and .0115, respectively). Prevention of neutralization of the virus was similarly reduced in those groups, compared with the controls. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 15 patients. These effects were seen regardless of the dose.

“We would’ve anticipated this would have been dose dependent, so this was a little bit surprising,” Dr. Kim said.

B-cell–depleting therapies, such as rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), reduced antibody titers by 36 times, compared with controls (P < .0001), with a similar reduction in preventing infection (P = .0066), the researchers found. The reduction in antibody titers was the most pronounced among those who had received B-cell–depleting therapies within the previous 6 months. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 10 patients.

CID study subjects taking an antimetabolite, including methotrexate, had an average of a two- to threefold reduction in antibody titers and in neutralization (P = .0006). This reduction was greatest with methotrexate, researchers found (P = .0027).

JAK inhibitors also significantly reduced antibody titers (P = .0066), but the reduction in neutralization of the virus was not significant. In addition, researchers found a reduction in antibody titers, the prevention of viral infection, and circulating plasmablasts among those on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, compared with controls, but these were insignificant statistically except for virus neutralization.

Dr. Kim said he hopes the glucocorticoid data spur physicians to try harder to wean patients off the drugs, when possible, in keeping with recommendations already in place.

“The general culture in rheumatology has been very lax about the need to reduce glucocorticoids,” he said. “This reinvigorates that call.” Questions about possible drug holidays from glucocorticoids remain, regarding how long a holiday would be needed, he said. He noted that many patients on glucocorticoids nonetheless mounted responses.

Those on B-cell–depleting therapies present a “much more difficult” question, he said. Some patients possibly could wait a bit longer than their normal, every-6-month schedule, but it’s an individual decision, he said. Since a booster of influenza vaccine has been found to enhance the response even within the 6-month window among ocrelizumab patients, a booster of COVID-19 vaccine might also help, although this remains to be studied.

The study group has already increased its sample size and is looking at adverse reactions and long-term immune responses, Dr. Kim said.

Encouraging, rather than discouraging, results

Leonard Calabrese, DO, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said the findings shouldn’t discourage clinicians from encouraging vaccination.

“There’s still a preponderance of people who will develop a robust antibody vaccine response,” he said.

He cautioned that the findings look only at antibodies to the spike protein and at plasmablasts. The reduction in these titers is “of concern,” he said, but “we don’t really know with certainty what are the effects of these drugs, and these data are on the overall biologic protective effect of the vaccine. There’s much more to a vaccine response than anti–spike protein and plasmablasts,” including cell-mediated immune response.

For an individual patient, the findings “mean a lot,” he said.

“I think that people who are on significant prednisone and B-cell–depleting agents, I think you have to share with them that there’s a reasonable chance that you’re not going to be making a response similar to healthy people,” he said. “Thus, even with your vaccine, we’re not going to cut you loose to do things that are violating social distancing and group settings. … Should you be hugging your grandchildren if you’re a rituximab vaccine recipient? I think I would wait until we have a little bit more data.”

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, where he studies vaccinations in the immunocompromised, said that glucocorticoids tend to have little effect on vaccinations generally at low doses.

When effects are seen they can be difficult to interpret, he said.

“It’s hard to extricate that from the effect of the underlying disease,” he said. The drug can be a proxy for worse disease control.

Although it’s a small study, it’s reassuring that overall the responses were similar to healthy controls.

For B-cell–depleting therapies, his usual guidance is to not give vaccine until a patient is at least 3 months out from their last dose, and not to restart until at least 2 weeks after vaccination.

“It’s not surprising that some of these DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] do negatively affect vaccine response, particularly B-cell–depletion therapy. We need to do some studies to find a way to overcome that, or optimize delivery of the vaccine.”

Dr. Kim reported participating in consulting, advisory board, or speaker’s bureau for Alexion, Aurinia, Annexon Biosciences, Exagen Diagnostics, and GlaxoSmithKline, and receiving funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Winthrop reported receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Calabrese reported no relevant disclosures.

Although most patients with chronic inflammatory diseases mounted immune responses after two doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, glucocorticoids and B-cell–depleting therapies markedly reduced the response, according to a recently published preprint of a new study.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The study, published on MedRxiv and not yet peer reviewed, involved a prospective look at 133 patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) and 53 patients with healthy immune systems at Washington University, St. Louis, and the University of California, San Francisco. It is regarded as the largest and most detailed study yet in how vaccines perform in people with immune-mediated inflammatory disease. The patients were enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021, and the most common diseases were inflammatory bowel disease (32%), rheumatoid arthritis (29%), spondyloarthritis (15%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (11%).
 

A ‘modest’ reduction in antibody response

Senior author Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Washington University, said the overall results so far are encouraging.

“Most patients with an autoimmune disease that are on immunosuppression can mount antibody responses,” he said. “We’re seeing the majority of our subjects respond.”

The immune-healthy controls and most of the patients with CID had a robust immune response against the spike protein, although the CID group had a mean reduction in antibody titers that was three times lower than the controls (P = .0092). The CID group similarly had a 2.7-fold reduction in preventing neutralization, or halting the virus’ ability to infect (P < .0001), researchers reported.

This reduction in response is “modest,” he said.

“Is the level of reduction going to be detrimental for protection? Time will tell,” he said, adding that researchers anticipate that it won’t have a critical effect on protection because responses tended to be within the range of the immunocompetent controls, who themselves had wildly varied antibody titers across a 20-fold range. “ ‘Optimal’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘sufficient.’ ”
 

Type of medication has big impact on antibody titers

But there was a wide variety of effects on the immune response depending on the medication. Glucorticoids resulted in a response that was 10 times lower than the immune-healthy controls, as well as fewer circulating plasmablasts after vaccination. Researchers found that 98% of controls were seropositive for antibody, compared with 92% of those with CID who were not taking prednisone, and 65% of CID patients on prednisone (P = .0006 and .0115, respectively). Prevention of neutralization of the virus was similarly reduced in those groups, compared with the controls. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 15 patients. These effects were seen regardless of the dose.

“We would’ve anticipated this would have been dose dependent, so this was a little bit surprising,” Dr. Kim said.

B-cell–depleting therapies, such as rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), reduced antibody titers by 36 times, compared with controls (P < .0001), with a similar reduction in preventing infection (P = .0066), the researchers found. The reduction in antibody titers was the most pronounced among those who had received B-cell–depleting therapies within the previous 6 months. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 10 patients.

CID study subjects taking an antimetabolite, including methotrexate, had an average of a two- to threefold reduction in antibody titers and in neutralization (P = .0006). This reduction was greatest with methotrexate, researchers found (P = .0027).

JAK inhibitors also significantly reduced antibody titers (P = .0066), but the reduction in neutralization of the virus was not significant. In addition, researchers found a reduction in antibody titers, the prevention of viral infection, and circulating plasmablasts among those on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, compared with controls, but these were insignificant statistically except for virus neutralization.

Dr. Kim said he hopes the glucocorticoid data spur physicians to try harder to wean patients off the drugs, when possible, in keeping with recommendations already in place.

“The general culture in rheumatology has been very lax about the need to reduce glucocorticoids,” he said. “This reinvigorates that call.” Questions about possible drug holidays from glucocorticoids remain, regarding how long a holiday would be needed, he said. He noted that many patients on glucocorticoids nonetheless mounted responses.

Those on B-cell–depleting therapies present a “much more difficult” question, he said. Some patients possibly could wait a bit longer than their normal, every-6-month schedule, but it’s an individual decision, he said. Since a booster of influenza vaccine has been found to enhance the response even within the 6-month window among ocrelizumab patients, a booster of COVID-19 vaccine might also help, although this remains to be studied.

The study group has already increased its sample size and is looking at adverse reactions and long-term immune responses, Dr. Kim said.

Encouraging, rather than discouraging, results

Leonard Calabrese, DO, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said the findings shouldn’t discourage clinicians from encouraging vaccination.

“There’s still a preponderance of people who will develop a robust antibody vaccine response,” he said.

He cautioned that the findings look only at antibodies to the spike protein and at plasmablasts. The reduction in these titers is “of concern,” he said, but “we don’t really know with certainty what are the effects of these drugs, and these data are on the overall biologic protective effect of the vaccine. There’s much more to a vaccine response than anti–spike protein and plasmablasts,” including cell-mediated immune response.

For an individual patient, the findings “mean a lot,” he said.

“I think that people who are on significant prednisone and B-cell–depleting agents, I think you have to share with them that there’s a reasonable chance that you’re not going to be making a response similar to healthy people,” he said. “Thus, even with your vaccine, we’re not going to cut you loose to do things that are violating social distancing and group settings. … Should you be hugging your grandchildren if you’re a rituximab vaccine recipient? I think I would wait until we have a little bit more data.”

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, where he studies vaccinations in the immunocompromised, said that glucocorticoids tend to have little effect on vaccinations generally at low doses.

When effects are seen they can be difficult to interpret, he said.

“It’s hard to extricate that from the effect of the underlying disease,” he said. The drug can be a proxy for worse disease control.

Although it’s a small study, it’s reassuring that overall the responses were similar to healthy controls.

For B-cell–depleting therapies, his usual guidance is to not give vaccine until a patient is at least 3 months out from their last dose, and not to restart until at least 2 weeks after vaccination.

“It’s not surprising that some of these DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] do negatively affect vaccine response, particularly B-cell–depletion therapy. We need to do some studies to find a way to overcome that, or optimize delivery of the vaccine.”

Dr. Kim reported participating in consulting, advisory board, or speaker’s bureau for Alexion, Aurinia, Annexon Biosciences, Exagen Diagnostics, and GlaxoSmithKline, and receiving funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Winthrop reported receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Calabrese reported no relevant disclosures.

Although most patients with chronic inflammatory diseases mounted immune responses after two doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, glucocorticoids and B-cell–depleting therapies markedly reduced the response, according to a recently published preprint of a new study.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The study, published on MedRxiv and not yet peer reviewed, involved a prospective look at 133 patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) and 53 patients with healthy immune systems at Washington University, St. Louis, and the University of California, San Francisco. It is regarded as the largest and most detailed study yet in how vaccines perform in people with immune-mediated inflammatory disease. The patients were enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021, and the most common diseases were inflammatory bowel disease (32%), rheumatoid arthritis (29%), spondyloarthritis (15%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (11%).
 

A ‘modest’ reduction in antibody response

Senior author Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Washington University, said the overall results so far are encouraging.

“Most patients with an autoimmune disease that are on immunosuppression can mount antibody responses,” he said. “We’re seeing the majority of our subjects respond.”

The immune-healthy controls and most of the patients with CID had a robust immune response against the spike protein, although the CID group had a mean reduction in antibody titers that was three times lower than the controls (P = .0092). The CID group similarly had a 2.7-fold reduction in preventing neutralization, or halting the virus’ ability to infect (P < .0001), researchers reported.

This reduction in response is “modest,” he said.

“Is the level of reduction going to be detrimental for protection? Time will tell,” he said, adding that researchers anticipate that it won’t have a critical effect on protection because responses tended to be within the range of the immunocompetent controls, who themselves had wildly varied antibody titers across a 20-fold range. “ ‘Optimal’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘sufficient.’ ”
 

Type of medication has big impact on antibody titers

But there was a wide variety of effects on the immune response depending on the medication. Glucorticoids resulted in a response that was 10 times lower than the immune-healthy controls, as well as fewer circulating plasmablasts after vaccination. Researchers found that 98% of controls were seropositive for antibody, compared with 92% of those with CID who were not taking prednisone, and 65% of CID patients on prednisone (P = .0006 and .0115, respectively). Prevention of neutralization of the virus was similarly reduced in those groups, compared with the controls. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 15 patients. These effects were seen regardless of the dose.

“We would’ve anticipated this would have been dose dependent, so this was a little bit surprising,” Dr. Kim said.

B-cell–depleting therapies, such as rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), reduced antibody titers by 36 times, compared with controls (P < .0001), with a similar reduction in preventing infection (P = .0066), the researchers found. The reduction in antibody titers was the most pronounced among those who had received B-cell–depleting therapies within the previous 6 months. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 10 patients.

CID study subjects taking an antimetabolite, including methotrexate, had an average of a two- to threefold reduction in antibody titers and in neutralization (P = .0006). This reduction was greatest with methotrexate, researchers found (P = .0027).

JAK inhibitors also significantly reduced antibody titers (P = .0066), but the reduction in neutralization of the virus was not significant. In addition, researchers found a reduction in antibody titers, the prevention of viral infection, and circulating plasmablasts among those on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, compared with controls, but these were insignificant statistically except for virus neutralization.

Dr. Kim said he hopes the glucocorticoid data spur physicians to try harder to wean patients off the drugs, when possible, in keeping with recommendations already in place.

“The general culture in rheumatology has been very lax about the need to reduce glucocorticoids,” he said. “This reinvigorates that call.” Questions about possible drug holidays from glucocorticoids remain, regarding how long a holiday would be needed, he said. He noted that many patients on glucocorticoids nonetheless mounted responses.

Those on B-cell–depleting therapies present a “much more difficult” question, he said. Some patients possibly could wait a bit longer than their normal, every-6-month schedule, but it’s an individual decision, he said. Since a booster of influenza vaccine has been found to enhance the response even within the 6-month window among ocrelizumab patients, a booster of COVID-19 vaccine might also help, although this remains to be studied.

The study group has already increased its sample size and is looking at adverse reactions and long-term immune responses, Dr. Kim said.

Encouraging, rather than discouraging, results

Leonard Calabrese, DO, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said the findings shouldn’t discourage clinicians from encouraging vaccination.

“There’s still a preponderance of people who will develop a robust antibody vaccine response,” he said.

He cautioned that the findings look only at antibodies to the spike protein and at plasmablasts. The reduction in these titers is “of concern,” he said, but “we don’t really know with certainty what are the effects of these drugs, and these data are on the overall biologic protective effect of the vaccine. There’s much more to a vaccine response than anti–spike protein and plasmablasts,” including cell-mediated immune response.

For an individual patient, the findings “mean a lot,” he said.

“I think that people who are on significant prednisone and B-cell–depleting agents, I think you have to share with them that there’s a reasonable chance that you’re not going to be making a response similar to healthy people,” he said. “Thus, even with your vaccine, we’re not going to cut you loose to do things that are violating social distancing and group settings. … Should you be hugging your grandchildren if you’re a rituximab vaccine recipient? I think I would wait until we have a little bit more data.”

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, where he studies vaccinations in the immunocompromised, said that glucocorticoids tend to have little effect on vaccinations generally at low doses.

When effects are seen they can be difficult to interpret, he said.

“It’s hard to extricate that from the effect of the underlying disease,” he said. The drug can be a proxy for worse disease control.

Although it’s a small study, it’s reassuring that overall the responses were similar to healthy controls.

For B-cell–depleting therapies, his usual guidance is to not give vaccine until a patient is at least 3 months out from their last dose, and not to restart until at least 2 weeks after vaccination.

“It’s not surprising that some of these DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] do negatively affect vaccine response, particularly B-cell–depletion therapy. We need to do some studies to find a way to overcome that, or optimize delivery of the vaccine.”

Dr. Kim reported participating in consulting, advisory board, or speaker’s bureau for Alexion, Aurinia, Annexon Biosciences, Exagen Diagnostics, and GlaxoSmithKline, and receiving funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Winthrop reported receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Calabrese reported no relevant disclosures.