Spondyloarthropathies

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.

In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.

The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).

Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.

This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.

Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice

“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.

“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.

“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”

Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.

As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.

The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
 

What does this all mean?

Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.

“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”

Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.

“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.

Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.

Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”

Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) as an oral treatment for active ankylosing spondylitis in adults, its manufacturer AbbVie announced April 29.

Upadacitinib, a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, is the second drug in its class to be FDA approved for ankylosing spondylitis, after tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in December.

Upadacitinib is now indicated for patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Upadacitinib is already approved by the FDA for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more TNF inhibitors. It also has been approved for adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

The European Medicines Agency gave marketing approval for upadacitinib in adults with active AS in January 2021.

Two main clinical studies form the basis for the FDA’s approval decision. The phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial involved patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). A total of 44.5% patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of at least 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at 14 weeks, compared against 18.2% with placebo.

The second study, the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 clinical trial, tested upadacitinib in patients who had never taken bDMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least two NSAIDs. In this study, significantly more patients randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib achieved ASAS 40 at 14 weeks, compared with placebo (51% vs. 26%).

Patients randomly assigned to upadacitinib also showed significant improvements in signs and symptoms of AS, as well as improvements in physical function and disease activity, compared with placebo, after 14 weeks. The safety profile for patients with AS treated with upadacitinib was similar to that seen in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Potential severe side effects include increased risk for death in patients aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor; increased risk of serious infections, such as tuberculosis; and increased risk of certain cancers, according to the company statement.

Read the complete prescribing information here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) as an oral treatment for active ankylosing spondylitis in adults, its manufacturer AbbVie announced April 29.

Upadacitinib, a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, is the second drug in its class to be FDA approved for ankylosing spondylitis, after tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in December.

Upadacitinib is now indicated for patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Upadacitinib is already approved by the FDA for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more TNF inhibitors. It also has been approved for adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

The European Medicines Agency gave marketing approval for upadacitinib in adults with active AS in January 2021.

Two main clinical studies form the basis for the FDA’s approval decision. The phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial involved patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). A total of 44.5% patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of at least 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at 14 weeks, compared against 18.2% with placebo.

The second study, the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 clinical trial, tested upadacitinib in patients who had never taken bDMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least two NSAIDs. In this study, significantly more patients randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib achieved ASAS 40 at 14 weeks, compared with placebo (51% vs. 26%).

Patients randomly assigned to upadacitinib also showed significant improvements in signs and symptoms of AS, as well as improvements in physical function and disease activity, compared with placebo, after 14 weeks. The safety profile for patients with AS treated with upadacitinib was similar to that seen in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Potential severe side effects include increased risk for death in patients aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor; increased risk of serious infections, such as tuberculosis; and increased risk of certain cancers, according to the company statement.

Read the complete prescribing information here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) as an oral treatment for active ankylosing spondylitis in adults, its manufacturer AbbVie announced April 29.

Upadacitinib, a selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor, is the second drug in its class to be FDA approved for ankylosing spondylitis, after tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in December.

Upadacitinib is now indicated for patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Upadacitinib is already approved by the FDA for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance with one or more TNF inhibitors. It also has been approved for adults and pediatric patients 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

The European Medicines Agency gave marketing approval for upadacitinib in adults with active AS in January 2021.

Two main clinical studies form the basis for the FDA’s approval decision. The phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial involved patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). A total of 44.5% patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of at least 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at 14 weeks, compared against 18.2% with placebo.

The second study, the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 clinical trial, tested upadacitinib in patients who had never taken bDMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least two NSAIDs. In this study, significantly more patients randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib achieved ASAS 40 at 14 weeks, compared with placebo (51% vs. 26%).

Patients randomly assigned to upadacitinib also showed significant improvements in signs and symptoms of AS, as well as improvements in physical function and disease activity, compared with placebo, after 14 weeks. The safety profile for patients with AS treated with upadacitinib was similar to that seen in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Potential severe side effects include increased risk for death in patients aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor; increased risk of serious infections, such as tuberculosis; and increased risk of certain cancers, according to the company statement.

Read the complete prescribing information here.

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

Considerable uncertainty surrounds whether people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who are treated with biologic drugs have an increased risk for developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is higher than if they receive other treatments, according to data reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“We noticed two patterns,” Gary Macfarlane, MD, PhD, Dsc, of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) said in presenting findings from an analysis of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) and a meta-analysis of available studies.

copyright varaphoto/Thinkstock

There was a “large excess risk in observational studies associated with biologic therapies, which was not replicated in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” he said, “and trials under extensions suggested a small absolute increased risk associated with etanercept and with [interleukin]-17 [inhibitors], although again with considerable uncertainty.”

While these data make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions, “we should be reassured that the patient groups receiving these specific biologics in routine clinical care have not demonstrated an excess risk of IBD,” Dr. Macfarlane told delegates at the meeting.
 

Addressing clinical questions

IBD is a known extra-articular manifestation of axSpA, with an estimated prevalence of about 7%, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of 69 studies involving more than 30,000 patients.

The idea that people being treated with biologics may be at higher risk for developing IBD than those taking other treatments was suggested by the results of a large (n = 80,326) Danish study in which patients who were treated with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha medication were found to be more likely to develop de novo ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease than were patients who did not receive biologics.

Notably, the risk for IBD seemed higher with etanercept than with other anti–TNF-alpha agents, such as infliximab and adalimumab.

The aim of the analyses that Dr. Macfarlane presented was therefore to see if there was a difference in IBD risk among patients treated with biologic agents versus other agents, and if etanercept really did pose a greater cause for concern.

“The reason that we are asking this question is that a clinician called us up and asked us if we had any data on it,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “I think that’s really important to say that one of the things the registers are designed for are to answer questions that clinicians may have.”
 

Looking for new-onset IBD

Although no longer recruiting patients, the BSRBR-AS provides a wealth of data on the real-life management of patients with axSpA who were or were not taking a biologic. Patients were recruited into the register between 2012 and 2017, with follow-up until 2018. Data analyses are still ongoing and expected to continue for another couple of years.

The current analysis of data from the BSRBR-AS included patients who did not already have IBD at enrollment into the register, and patients who had been treated with a biologic could have been treated only with a single agent. Of just over 1,800 eligible patients, 793 had been treated with a biologic and 1,058 had been given nonbiologic treatment.

As expected, there were some differences between the two groups of patients studied, with biologic-treated patients having a younger age than non–biologic-treated patients. Those who took a biologic also had higher disease activity, inflammatory scores, and rates of psoriasis, enthesitis, and peripheral joint involvement.

Incidence rates for new-onset IBD per 1,000 person-years of treatment were calculated as 17 (95% confidence interval, 10.7-25.8) for patients taking a biologic and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.7-8.7) for those not taking a biologic, giving an incidence rate difference of 11.9 (95% CI, 4.3-19.6).

There was some observed differences in the incidence of new-onset IBD associated with specific agents. Etanercept did not have a higher rate (13.9/1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 5.1-30.3) than did other agents. But in comparison, the incidence of new-onset IBD for adalimumab was 20.4 (95% CI, 11.7-33.1) and zero for other anti-TNF agents such as certolizumab pegol and infliximab, although the duration of exposure to these drugs was much lower.

The IRDs for etanercept versus nonbiologic treatment and versus other anti-TNFs were 8.8 (95% CI, –2.7 to 20.3) and -6.4 (95% CI, –21.3 to 8.5), but with “considerable uncertainty” because the confidence intervals were very wide.
 

Uncertainty not helped by meta-analysis

“Given the uncertainty associated with the results from BSRBR-AS, we decided to undertake a meta-analysis to try to accumulate other data that could help us answer this question,” Dr. Macfarlane explained.

However, this didn’t really help clarify things because combining BSRBR-AS data with the results of a couple of observational studies suggested that the odds of of IBD doubled with any biologic treatment versus no biologic treatment (odds ratio, 2.19), and a 2.5-fold higher likelihood considering etanercept versus no biologic treatment, but no difference was seen comparing etanercept to other anti-TNF agents (OR, 0.93).

When the meta-analysis was restricted to RCTs, the rate of IBD per 1,000 person-years was 3.43 for placebo, 5.64 for all biologics, 8.14 for etanercept, 2.35 for other anti-TNFs, and 7.02 for IL-17 inhibitors.

For extensions of RCTs, IBD rates per 1,000 person-years of follow-up were 2.91 for etanercept, 0.83 for other anti-TNFs, 3.61 for IL-17 inhibitors, and 2.79 for all biologics.

“There was only a small difference in IBD incidence between the biologic therapy and the placebo groups” in the RCTs and associated studies, Dr. Macfarlane said, adding that “there was a small excess incidence associated with etanercept, compared to other anti-TNF agents, and [for] IL-17 therapy, compared to nonetanercept, anti–TNF-alpha therapies.”

Of course, the different study designs and durations of exposure to the various treatments raises significant methodological issues.

“Randomized, controlled trials should provide the highest quality evidence as a result of their design and randomizing patients to treatment,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “However, their relatively short follow-up, as well as their restrictive eligibility criteria, may work against finding a difference in IBD incidence if it were to exist.”

Observational studies are very valuable in the data they can provide but are also beset with problems, such as surveillance bias and confounding by indication.

The higher risk of IBD that was observed in observational studies could be an issue with study design, or perhaps, “in routine clinical practice, rheumatologists are taking on board factors that we have not measured, that are negating any slight increased risk,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Session chair Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Liverpool (England) University NHS Foundation Trust, commented: “I think that could well be a very reasonable explanation, because I think as a clinician, you do tend to channel drugs away from some people and channel drugs towards others.

However, Dr. Goodson noted that there was “a glimmer” of signal coming from the RCTs.

“Methodologically, that is what you would have to take as the most robust evidence,” Dr. Macfarlane said, “but even with all the evidence available, it’s still very hard for us to quantify; that has enormous uncertainty.”

Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Goodson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. The BSRBR-AS is supported by the BSR, which receives funds to support the registry from Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB.

Considerable uncertainty surrounds whether people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who are treated with biologic drugs have an increased risk for developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is higher than if they receive other treatments, according to data reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“We noticed two patterns,” Gary Macfarlane, MD, PhD, Dsc, of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) said in presenting findings from an analysis of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) and a meta-analysis of available studies.

copyright varaphoto/Thinkstock

There was a “large excess risk in observational studies associated with biologic therapies, which was not replicated in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” he said, “and trials under extensions suggested a small absolute increased risk associated with etanercept and with [interleukin]-17 [inhibitors], although again with considerable uncertainty.”

While these data make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions, “we should be reassured that the patient groups receiving these specific biologics in routine clinical care have not demonstrated an excess risk of IBD,” Dr. Macfarlane told delegates at the meeting.
 

Addressing clinical questions

IBD is a known extra-articular manifestation of axSpA, with an estimated prevalence of about 7%, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of 69 studies involving more than 30,000 patients.

The idea that people being treated with biologics may be at higher risk for developing IBD than those taking other treatments was suggested by the results of a large (n = 80,326) Danish study in which patients who were treated with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha medication were found to be more likely to develop de novo ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease than were patients who did not receive biologics.

Notably, the risk for IBD seemed higher with etanercept than with other anti–TNF-alpha agents, such as infliximab and adalimumab.

The aim of the analyses that Dr. Macfarlane presented was therefore to see if there was a difference in IBD risk among patients treated with biologic agents versus other agents, and if etanercept really did pose a greater cause for concern.

“The reason that we are asking this question is that a clinician called us up and asked us if we had any data on it,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “I think that’s really important to say that one of the things the registers are designed for are to answer questions that clinicians may have.”
 

Looking for new-onset IBD

Although no longer recruiting patients, the BSRBR-AS provides a wealth of data on the real-life management of patients with axSpA who were or were not taking a biologic. Patients were recruited into the register between 2012 and 2017, with follow-up until 2018. Data analyses are still ongoing and expected to continue for another couple of years.

The current analysis of data from the BSRBR-AS included patients who did not already have IBD at enrollment into the register, and patients who had been treated with a biologic could have been treated only with a single agent. Of just over 1,800 eligible patients, 793 had been treated with a biologic and 1,058 had been given nonbiologic treatment.

As expected, there were some differences between the two groups of patients studied, with biologic-treated patients having a younger age than non–biologic-treated patients. Those who took a biologic also had higher disease activity, inflammatory scores, and rates of psoriasis, enthesitis, and peripheral joint involvement.

Incidence rates for new-onset IBD per 1,000 person-years of treatment were calculated as 17 (95% confidence interval, 10.7-25.8) for patients taking a biologic and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.7-8.7) for those not taking a biologic, giving an incidence rate difference of 11.9 (95% CI, 4.3-19.6).

There was some observed differences in the incidence of new-onset IBD associated with specific agents. Etanercept did not have a higher rate (13.9/1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 5.1-30.3) than did other agents. But in comparison, the incidence of new-onset IBD for adalimumab was 20.4 (95% CI, 11.7-33.1) and zero for other anti-TNF agents such as certolizumab pegol and infliximab, although the duration of exposure to these drugs was much lower.

The IRDs for etanercept versus nonbiologic treatment and versus other anti-TNFs were 8.8 (95% CI, –2.7 to 20.3) and -6.4 (95% CI, –21.3 to 8.5), but with “considerable uncertainty” because the confidence intervals were very wide.
 

Uncertainty not helped by meta-analysis

“Given the uncertainty associated with the results from BSRBR-AS, we decided to undertake a meta-analysis to try to accumulate other data that could help us answer this question,” Dr. Macfarlane explained.

However, this didn’t really help clarify things because combining BSRBR-AS data with the results of a couple of observational studies suggested that the odds of of IBD doubled with any biologic treatment versus no biologic treatment (odds ratio, 2.19), and a 2.5-fold higher likelihood considering etanercept versus no biologic treatment, but no difference was seen comparing etanercept to other anti-TNF agents (OR, 0.93).

When the meta-analysis was restricted to RCTs, the rate of IBD per 1,000 person-years was 3.43 for placebo, 5.64 for all biologics, 8.14 for etanercept, 2.35 for other anti-TNFs, and 7.02 for IL-17 inhibitors.

For extensions of RCTs, IBD rates per 1,000 person-years of follow-up were 2.91 for etanercept, 0.83 for other anti-TNFs, 3.61 for IL-17 inhibitors, and 2.79 for all biologics.

“There was only a small difference in IBD incidence between the biologic therapy and the placebo groups” in the RCTs and associated studies, Dr. Macfarlane said, adding that “there was a small excess incidence associated with etanercept, compared to other anti-TNF agents, and [for] IL-17 therapy, compared to nonetanercept, anti–TNF-alpha therapies.”

Of course, the different study designs and durations of exposure to the various treatments raises significant methodological issues.

“Randomized, controlled trials should provide the highest quality evidence as a result of their design and randomizing patients to treatment,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “However, their relatively short follow-up, as well as their restrictive eligibility criteria, may work against finding a difference in IBD incidence if it were to exist.”

Observational studies are very valuable in the data they can provide but are also beset with problems, such as surveillance bias and confounding by indication.

The higher risk of IBD that was observed in observational studies could be an issue with study design, or perhaps, “in routine clinical practice, rheumatologists are taking on board factors that we have not measured, that are negating any slight increased risk,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Session chair Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Liverpool (England) University NHS Foundation Trust, commented: “I think that could well be a very reasonable explanation, because I think as a clinician, you do tend to channel drugs away from some people and channel drugs towards others.

However, Dr. Goodson noted that there was “a glimmer” of signal coming from the RCTs.

“Methodologically, that is what you would have to take as the most robust evidence,” Dr. Macfarlane said, “but even with all the evidence available, it’s still very hard for us to quantify; that has enormous uncertainty.”

Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Goodson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. The BSRBR-AS is supported by the BSR, which receives funds to support the registry from Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB.

Considerable uncertainty surrounds whether people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who are treated with biologic drugs have an increased risk for developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is higher than if they receive other treatments, according to data reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“We noticed two patterns,” Gary Macfarlane, MD, PhD, Dsc, of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) said in presenting findings from an analysis of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) and a meta-analysis of available studies.

copyright varaphoto/Thinkstock

There was a “large excess risk in observational studies associated with biologic therapies, which was not replicated in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” he said, “and trials under extensions suggested a small absolute increased risk associated with etanercept and with [interleukin]-17 [inhibitors], although again with considerable uncertainty.”

While these data make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions, “we should be reassured that the patient groups receiving these specific biologics in routine clinical care have not demonstrated an excess risk of IBD,” Dr. Macfarlane told delegates at the meeting.
 

Addressing clinical questions

IBD is a known extra-articular manifestation of axSpA, with an estimated prevalence of about 7%, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of 69 studies involving more than 30,000 patients.

The idea that people being treated with biologics may be at higher risk for developing IBD than those taking other treatments was suggested by the results of a large (n = 80,326) Danish study in which patients who were treated with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha medication were found to be more likely to develop de novo ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease than were patients who did not receive biologics.

Notably, the risk for IBD seemed higher with etanercept than with other anti–TNF-alpha agents, such as infliximab and adalimumab.

The aim of the analyses that Dr. Macfarlane presented was therefore to see if there was a difference in IBD risk among patients treated with biologic agents versus other agents, and if etanercept really did pose a greater cause for concern.

“The reason that we are asking this question is that a clinician called us up and asked us if we had any data on it,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “I think that’s really important to say that one of the things the registers are designed for are to answer questions that clinicians may have.”
 

Looking for new-onset IBD

Although no longer recruiting patients, the BSRBR-AS provides a wealth of data on the real-life management of patients with axSpA who were or were not taking a biologic. Patients were recruited into the register between 2012 and 2017, with follow-up until 2018. Data analyses are still ongoing and expected to continue for another couple of years.

The current analysis of data from the BSRBR-AS included patients who did not already have IBD at enrollment into the register, and patients who had been treated with a biologic could have been treated only with a single agent. Of just over 1,800 eligible patients, 793 had been treated with a biologic and 1,058 had been given nonbiologic treatment.

As expected, there were some differences between the two groups of patients studied, with biologic-treated patients having a younger age than non–biologic-treated patients. Those who took a biologic also had higher disease activity, inflammatory scores, and rates of psoriasis, enthesitis, and peripheral joint involvement.

Incidence rates for new-onset IBD per 1,000 person-years of treatment were calculated as 17 (95% confidence interval, 10.7-25.8) for patients taking a biologic and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.7-8.7) for those not taking a biologic, giving an incidence rate difference of 11.9 (95% CI, 4.3-19.6).

There was some observed differences in the incidence of new-onset IBD associated with specific agents. Etanercept did not have a higher rate (13.9/1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 5.1-30.3) than did other agents. But in comparison, the incidence of new-onset IBD for adalimumab was 20.4 (95% CI, 11.7-33.1) and zero for other anti-TNF agents such as certolizumab pegol and infliximab, although the duration of exposure to these drugs was much lower.

The IRDs for etanercept versus nonbiologic treatment and versus other anti-TNFs were 8.8 (95% CI, –2.7 to 20.3) and -6.4 (95% CI, –21.3 to 8.5), but with “considerable uncertainty” because the confidence intervals were very wide.
 

Uncertainty not helped by meta-analysis

“Given the uncertainty associated with the results from BSRBR-AS, we decided to undertake a meta-analysis to try to accumulate other data that could help us answer this question,” Dr. Macfarlane explained.

However, this didn’t really help clarify things because combining BSRBR-AS data with the results of a couple of observational studies suggested that the odds of of IBD doubled with any biologic treatment versus no biologic treatment (odds ratio, 2.19), and a 2.5-fold higher likelihood considering etanercept versus no biologic treatment, but no difference was seen comparing etanercept to other anti-TNF agents (OR, 0.93).

When the meta-analysis was restricted to RCTs, the rate of IBD per 1,000 person-years was 3.43 for placebo, 5.64 for all biologics, 8.14 for etanercept, 2.35 for other anti-TNFs, and 7.02 for IL-17 inhibitors.

For extensions of RCTs, IBD rates per 1,000 person-years of follow-up were 2.91 for etanercept, 0.83 for other anti-TNFs, 3.61 for IL-17 inhibitors, and 2.79 for all biologics.

“There was only a small difference in IBD incidence between the biologic therapy and the placebo groups” in the RCTs and associated studies, Dr. Macfarlane said, adding that “there was a small excess incidence associated with etanercept, compared to other anti-TNF agents, and [for] IL-17 therapy, compared to nonetanercept, anti–TNF-alpha therapies.”

Of course, the different study designs and durations of exposure to the various treatments raises significant methodological issues.

“Randomized, controlled trials should provide the highest quality evidence as a result of their design and randomizing patients to treatment,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “However, their relatively short follow-up, as well as their restrictive eligibility criteria, may work against finding a difference in IBD incidence if it were to exist.”

Observational studies are very valuable in the data they can provide but are also beset with problems, such as surveillance bias and confounding by indication.

The higher risk of IBD that was observed in observational studies could be an issue with study design, or perhaps, “in routine clinical practice, rheumatologists are taking on board factors that we have not measured, that are negating any slight increased risk,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Session chair Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Liverpool (England) University NHS Foundation Trust, commented: “I think that could well be a very reasonable explanation, because I think as a clinician, you do tend to channel drugs away from some people and channel drugs towards others.

However, Dr. Goodson noted that there was “a glimmer” of signal coming from the RCTs.

“Methodologically, that is what you would have to take as the most robust evidence,” Dr. Macfarlane said, “but even with all the evidence available, it’s still very hard for us to quantify; that has enormous uncertainty.”

Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Goodson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. The BSRBR-AS is supported by the BSR, which receives funds to support the registry from Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB.

A small number of patient and physician-reported outcomes, as well as laboratory and clinical factors, may help to predict the response of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors when they have never taken them before, according to an analysis of data from nearly 2,000 individuals in 10 clinical trials.

TNF inhibitors are recommended for patients with AS whose symptoms persist despite use of NSAIDs, Runsheng Wang, MD, adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and a practicing rheumatologist at Garden State Rheumatology Consultants, Union, N.J., and colleagues wrote. Randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown that TNF inhibitors are effective in treating AS, but approximately half of patients fail to achieve notable improvement, which suggests the need for a predictive model.

“In clinical practice, before starting a treatment, physicians and patients want to know how likely a patient would be to respond to the treatment, particularly when more than one treatment option is available,” Dr. Wang said in an interview. “In this study, we developed predictive models that can potentially answer this question.”

The results suggest that the models in the study can be used to personalize clinical decision-making for patients with AS, whether to promote confidence in choosing a TNF inhibitor or to terminate treatment in nonresponders who had a higher probability of nonresponse at baseline, the researchers wrote. Similar models for other biologic treatments can help prioritize treatment options.

The predictive models are practical for clinical use because the variables in the reduced models – can be collected easily during patient visits, Dr. Wang explained. However, data from clinical practice are needed to further validate the study findings.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data from 10 randomized, controlled clinical trials of TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with active AS conducted during 2002-2016. The study population included 1,899 adults with active AS who received an originator TNF inhibitor for at least 12 weeks, and the training set included 1,207 individuals. In the training set, the mean age of the participants was 39 years, and 75% were men.

The outcomes included major response and no response based on change in AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) from baseline to 12 weeks, and the researchers used machine-learning algorithms to estimate the probability of major response or no response. Major response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of 2.0 or greater; no response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of less than 1.1.

In the training set, a total of 407 patients (33.7%) had a major response, and 414 (34.3%) had no response.

The key features in the full, 21-variable model that increased the probability of a major response were higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, higher patient global assessment (PGA) of disease activity, and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) question 2 scores. (Question 2 asks for the overall level of back, hip, or neck pain associated with AS.) The probability of a major response decreased with higher body mass index and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores.

The key features in the model that increased the probability of no response were older age and higher BASFI scores. The probability of no response decreased with higher CRP levels, higher BASDAI question 2 scores, and higher PGA scores.

Overall, the researchers found that models using smaller subsets of variables (three or five variables in total) that would be easier to gather clinically yielded similar predictive performance.

The models were externally validated in a testing set of 692 individuals. Baseline characteristics were similar in the testing and training sets. In the testing set, the full models demonstrated moderate to high accuracy of 0.71 in the random forest model for major response and 0.76 in the random forest model for no response, with similar results in the reduced models.

At a prevalence of 25% for major response, the positive predictive values (PPVs) for random forest and logistic regression models ranged from 0.49 to 0.60, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) ranged from 0.82 to 0.84. At a prevalence of 25% for no response, PPVs ranged from 0.61 to 0.77, and NPVs ranged from 0.81 to 0.83.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on smoking, which has been linked both to shorter treatment adherence and worse response to TNF inhibitors; the inclusion of only TNF inhibitor–naive patients; and the exclusion of NSAIDs from the models, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Wang disclosed support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The study’s two other authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The study was based on an analysis of data from AbbVie and Pfizer that were made available through Vivli.

A small number of patient and physician-reported outcomes, as well as laboratory and clinical factors, may help to predict the response of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors when they have never taken them before, according to an analysis of data from nearly 2,000 individuals in 10 clinical trials.

TNF inhibitors are recommended for patients with AS whose symptoms persist despite use of NSAIDs, Runsheng Wang, MD, adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and a practicing rheumatologist at Garden State Rheumatology Consultants, Union, N.J., and colleagues wrote. Randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown that TNF inhibitors are effective in treating AS, but approximately half of patients fail to achieve notable improvement, which suggests the need for a predictive model.

“In clinical practice, before starting a treatment, physicians and patients want to know how likely a patient would be to respond to the treatment, particularly when more than one treatment option is available,” Dr. Wang said in an interview. “In this study, we developed predictive models that can potentially answer this question.”

The results suggest that the models in the study can be used to personalize clinical decision-making for patients with AS, whether to promote confidence in choosing a TNF inhibitor or to terminate treatment in nonresponders who had a higher probability of nonresponse at baseline, the researchers wrote. Similar models for other biologic treatments can help prioritize treatment options.

The predictive models are practical for clinical use because the variables in the reduced models – can be collected easily during patient visits, Dr. Wang explained. However, data from clinical practice are needed to further validate the study findings.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data from 10 randomized, controlled clinical trials of TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with active AS conducted during 2002-2016. The study population included 1,899 adults with active AS who received an originator TNF inhibitor for at least 12 weeks, and the training set included 1,207 individuals. In the training set, the mean age of the participants was 39 years, and 75% were men.

The outcomes included major response and no response based on change in AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) from baseline to 12 weeks, and the researchers used machine-learning algorithms to estimate the probability of major response or no response. Major response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of 2.0 or greater; no response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of less than 1.1.

In the training set, a total of 407 patients (33.7%) had a major response, and 414 (34.3%) had no response.

The key features in the full, 21-variable model that increased the probability of a major response were higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, higher patient global assessment (PGA) of disease activity, and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) question 2 scores. (Question 2 asks for the overall level of back, hip, or neck pain associated with AS.) The probability of a major response decreased with higher body mass index and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores.

The key features in the model that increased the probability of no response were older age and higher BASFI scores. The probability of no response decreased with higher CRP levels, higher BASDAI question 2 scores, and higher PGA scores.

Overall, the researchers found that models using smaller subsets of variables (three or five variables in total) that would be easier to gather clinically yielded similar predictive performance.

The models were externally validated in a testing set of 692 individuals. Baseline characteristics were similar in the testing and training sets. In the testing set, the full models demonstrated moderate to high accuracy of 0.71 in the random forest model for major response and 0.76 in the random forest model for no response, with similar results in the reduced models.

At a prevalence of 25% for major response, the positive predictive values (PPVs) for random forest and logistic regression models ranged from 0.49 to 0.60, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) ranged from 0.82 to 0.84. At a prevalence of 25% for no response, PPVs ranged from 0.61 to 0.77, and NPVs ranged from 0.81 to 0.83.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on smoking, which has been linked both to shorter treatment adherence and worse response to TNF inhibitors; the inclusion of only TNF inhibitor–naive patients; and the exclusion of NSAIDs from the models, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Wang disclosed support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The study’s two other authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The study was based on an analysis of data from AbbVie and Pfizer that were made available through Vivli.

A small number of patient and physician-reported outcomes, as well as laboratory and clinical factors, may help to predict the response of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors when they have never taken them before, according to an analysis of data from nearly 2,000 individuals in 10 clinical trials.

TNF inhibitors are recommended for patients with AS whose symptoms persist despite use of NSAIDs, Runsheng Wang, MD, adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and a practicing rheumatologist at Garden State Rheumatology Consultants, Union, N.J., and colleagues wrote. Randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown that TNF inhibitors are effective in treating AS, but approximately half of patients fail to achieve notable improvement, which suggests the need for a predictive model.

“In clinical practice, before starting a treatment, physicians and patients want to know how likely a patient would be to respond to the treatment, particularly when more than one treatment option is available,” Dr. Wang said in an interview. “In this study, we developed predictive models that can potentially answer this question.”

The results suggest that the models in the study can be used to personalize clinical decision-making for patients with AS, whether to promote confidence in choosing a TNF inhibitor or to terminate treatment in nonresponders who had a higher probability of nonresponse at baseline, the researchers wrote. Similar models for other biologic treatments can help prioritize treatment options.

The predictive models are practical for clinical use because the variables in the reduced models – can be collected easily during patient visits, Dr. Wang explained. However, data from clinical practice are needed to further validate the study findings.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data from 10 randomized, controlled clinical trials of TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with active AS conducted during 2002-2016. The study population included 1,899 adults with active AS who received an originator TNF inhibitor for at least 12 weeks, and the training set included 1,207 individuals. In the training set, the mean age of the participants was 39 years, and 75% were men.

The outcomes included major response and no response based on change in AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) from baseline to 12 weeks, and the researchers used machine-learning algorithms to estimate the probability of major response or no response. Major response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of 2.0 or greater; no response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of less than 1.1.

In the training set, a total of 407 patients (33.7%) had a major response, and 414 (34.3%) had no response.

The key features in the full, 21-variable model that increased the probability of a major response were higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, higher patient global assessment (PGA) of disease activity, and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) question 2 scores. (Question 2 asks for the overall level of back, hip, or neck pain associated with AS.) The probability of a major response decreased with higher body mass index and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores.

The key features in the model that increased the probability of no response were older age and higher BASFI scores. The probability of no response decreased with higher CRP levels, higher BASDAI question 2 scores, and higher PGA scores.

Overall, the researchers found that models using smaller subsets of variables (three or five variables in total) that would be easier to gather clinically yielded similar predictive performance.

The models were externally validated in a testing set of 692 individuals. Baseline characteristics were similar in the testing and training sets. In the testing set, the full models demonstrated moderate to high accuracy of 0.71 in the random forest model for major response and 0.76 in the random forest model for no response, with similar results in the reduced models.

At a prevalence of 25% for major response, the positive predictive values (PPVs) for random forest and logistic regression models ranged from 0.49 to 0.60, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) ranged from 0.82 to 0.84. At a prevalence of 25% for no response, PPVs ranged from 0.61 to 0.77, and NPVs ranged from 0.81 to 0.83.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on smoking, which has been linked both to shorter treatment adherence and worse response to TNF inhibitors; the inclusion of only TNF inhibitor–naive patients; and the exclusion of NSAIDs from the models, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Wang disclosed support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The study’s two other authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The study was based on an analysis of data from AbbVie and Pfizer that were made available through Vivli.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

General principles

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

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

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

The recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

General principles

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

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

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

The recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

General principles

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

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

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

The recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK

“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”

For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.

“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”

As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.

“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
 

Study details

To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.

The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.

Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.

A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.

Removing barriers to TDM

It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.

Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.

For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”

The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.

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

A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK

“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”

For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.

“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”

As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.

“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
 

Study details

To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.

The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.

Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.

A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.

Removing barriers to TDM

It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.

Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.

For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”

The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.

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

A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK

“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”

For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.

“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”

As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.

“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
 

Study details

To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.

The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.

Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.

A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.

Removing barriers to TDM

It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.

Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.

For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”

The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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