MDedge Rheumatology

It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear

We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?

Deagreez/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.

Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.

In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.

That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.

Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
 

Singing … your … lungs … out

There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.

lisegagne/E+/Getty Images

A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.

After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.

So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
 

And the word of the year is …

Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.

NoSystem images/Getty Images

We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”

Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.

Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!

It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear

We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?

Deagreez/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.

Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.

In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.

That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.

Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
 

Singing … your … lungs … out

There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.

lisegagne/E+/Getty Images

A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.

After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.

So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
 

And the word of the year is …

Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.

NoSystem images/Getty Images

We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”

Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.

Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!

It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear

We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?

Deagreez/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.

Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.

In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.

That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.

Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
 

Singing … your … lungs … out

There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.

lisegagne/E+/Getty Images

A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.

After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.

So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
 

And the word of the year is …

Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.

NoSystem images/Getty Images

We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”

Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.

Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The first case of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus in the United States was confirmed by officials today in an individual in California who had recently traveled to South Africa. He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. 

The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.

“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said. 

The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”

Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.

The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.

It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

Key clinical point: Vitamin D status was inversely associated with severe sarcopenia, impaired physical performance, and decreased skeletal muscle mass in females with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), highlighting the need to investigate vitamin D supplementation as a therapeutic strategy for sarcopenic patients with RA.

Major finding: Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH])D status (16.0 ng/mL or lower) was significantly associated with a high prevalence of severe sarcopenia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.00; P = .0006) in females with RA. Low physical performance (aOR, 2.65; P = .0043) and skeletal muscle mass (aOR, 2.54; P = .027) were the major components of sarcopenia linked with a low serum 25(OH)D level.

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study involving 156 female outpatients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AMED and Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. Several authors reported receiving research grants and speaker’s fees from various sources including Daiichi Sankyo. Some of the authors including the lead author declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Minamino H et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99894-6.

Key clinical point: Vitamin D status was inversely associated with severe sarcopenia, impaired physical performance, and decreased skeletal muscle mass in females with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), highlighting the need to investigate vitamin D supplementation as a therapeutic strategy for sarcopenic patients with RA.

Major finding: Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH])D status (16.0 ng/mL or lower) was significantly associated with a high prevalence of severe sarcopenia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.00; P = .0006) in females with RA. Low physical performance (aOR, 2.65; P = .0043) and skeletal muscle mass (aOR, 2.54; P = .027) were the major components of sarcopenia linked with a low serum 25(OH)D level.

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study involving 156 female outpatients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AMED and Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. Several authors reported receiving research grants and speaker’s fees from various sources including Daiichi Sankyo. Some of the authors including the lead author declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Minamino H et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99894-6.

Key clinical point: Vitamin D status was inversely associated with severe sarcopenia, impaired physical performance, and decreased skeletal muscle mass in females with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), highlighting the need to investigate vitamin D supplementation as a therapeutic strategy for sarcopenic patients with RA.

Major finding: Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH])D status (16.0 ng/mL or lower) was significantly associated with a high prevalence of severe sarcopenia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.00; P = .0006) in females with RA. Low physical performance (aOR, 2.65; P = .0043) and skeletal muscle mass (aOR, 2.54; P = .027) were the major components of sarcopenia linked with a low serum 25(OH)D level.

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study involving 156 female outpatients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AMED and Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. Several authors reported receiving research grants and speaker’s fees from various sources including Daiichi Sankyo. Some of the authors including the lead author declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Minamino H et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99894-6.

Key clinical point: The anti-inflammatory diet did not enhance health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with a control diet. However, physical functioning improved significantly, particularly in patients who did not alter antirheumatic medication.

Major finding: The Health Assessment Questionnaire was not significantly different between the intervention and control diet periods (P = .503); however, the physical functioning improved significantly during intervention diet vs. control diet period (mean, 5.791; 95% CI, 1.576-10.005), particularly in patients without pharmacological treatment changes (mean, 7.898; P = .036).

Study details: Findings are from the ADIRA trial, a controlled crossover trial including 50 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to either an intervention diet including foods with suggested anti-inflammatory properties and promising effects on RA symptoms (n=24) or control diet (usual Swedish diet; n=26) for 10 weeks before switching to the other diet.

Disclosures: This study received grants from the Swedish government, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and others. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Turesson Wadell A et al. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258716.

Key clinical point: The anti-inflammatory diet did not enhance health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with a control diet. However, physical functioning improved significantly, particularly in patients who did not alter antirheumatic medication.

Major finding: The Health Assessment Questionnaire was not significantly different between the intervention and control diet periods (P = .503); however, the physical functioning improved significantly during intervention diet vs. control diet period (mean, 5.791; 95% CI, 1.576-10.005), particularly in patients without pharmacological treatment changes (mean, 7.898; P = .036).

Study details: Findings are from the ADIRA trial, a controlled crossover trial including 50 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to either an intervention diet including foods with suggested anti-inflammatory properties and promising effects on RA symptoms (n=24) or control diet (usual Swedish diet; n=26) for 10 weeks before switching to the other diet.

Disclosures: This study received grants from the Swedish government, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and others. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Turesson Wadell A et al. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258716.

Key clinical point: The anti-inflammatory diet did not enhance health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with a control diet. However, physical functioning improved significantly, particularly in patients who did not alter antirheumatic medication.

Major finding: The Health Assessment Questionnaire was not significantly different between the intervention and control diet periods (P = .503); however, the physical functioning improved significantly during intervention diet vs. control diet period (mean, 5.791; 95% CI, 1.576-10.005), particularly in patients without pharmacological treatment changes (mean, 7.898; P = .036).

Study details: Findings are from the ADIRA trial, a controlled crossover trial including 50 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to either an intervention diet including foods with suggested anti-inflammatory properties and promising effects on RA symptoms (n=24) or control diet (usual Swedish diet; n=26) for 10 weeks before switching to the other diet.

Disclosures: This study received grants from the Swedish government, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and others. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Turesson Wadell A et al. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258716.

Key clinical point: Sinusitis, pharyngitis, and acute respiratory burden all raised the likelihood of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Acute sinusitis (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.05-2.45), chronic sinusitis (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.39-3.35), asthma (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.87), and burden of acute respiratory tract disease during the preindex exposure period (OR, 1.30 per 10 codes; 95% CI, 1.08-1.55) were associated with an elevated risk for RA. Acute pharyngitis was associated with seronegative RA (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.02-2.74), whereas chronic rhinitis/pharyngitis was associated with seropositive RA (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.01-5.99).

Study details: This was a case-control study involving 741 patients with RA matched with 2,223 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Rheumatology Research Foundation funded this research. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kronzer VL et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210580.

Key clinical point: Sinusitis, pharyngitis, and acute respiratory burden all raised the likelihood of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Acute sinusitis (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.05-2.45), chronic sinusitis (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.39-3.35), asthma (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.87), and burden of acute respiratory tract disease during the preindex exposure period (OR, 1.30 per 10 codes; 95% CI, 1.08-1.55) were associated with an elevated risk for RA. Acute pharyngitis was associated with seronegative RA (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.02-2.74), whereas chronic rhinitis/pharyngitis was associated with seropositive RA (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.01-5.99).

Study details: This was a case-control study involving 741 patients with RA matched with 2,223 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Rheumatology Research Foundation funded this research. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kronzer VL et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210580.

Key clinical point: Sinusitis, pharyngitis, and acute respiratory burden all raised the likelihood of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Acute sinusitis (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.05-2.45), chronic sinusitis (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.39-3.35), asthma (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.87), and burden of acute respiratory tract disease during the preindex exposure period (OR, 1.30 per 10 codes; 95% CI, 1.08-1.55) were associated with an elevated risk for RA. Acute pharyngitis was associated with seronegative RA (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.02-2.74), whereas chronic rhinitis/pharyngitis was associated with seropositive RA (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.01-5.99).

Study details: This was a case-control study involving 741 patients with RA matched with 2,223 healthy controls.

Disclosures: The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Rheumatology Research Foundation funded this research. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Kronzer VL et al. J Rheumatol. 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.210580.

Key clinical point: Filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) and 100 mg (FIL100) showed similar safety/tolerability in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with over a median of 1.6 years and maximum of 5.6 years of exposure, with FIL200 showing a lower infection rate in the long term.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between FIL200 (exposure-adjusted incidence rate [EAIR], 195.4 per 100 patient-years of exposure [100 PYE]), FIL100 (176.3 per 100 PYE), and placebo (175.9 per 100 PYE) during the 12-week period. During long-term exposure, EAIR for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 6.4 and 7.6 per 100 PYE for FIL200 and FIL100, respectively, but serious infectious AEs were lower with FIL200 vs. FIL100 (EAIR, 1.6 vs. 3.1 per 100 PYE).

Study details: Data come from integrated analysis of 7 clinical trials including patients with moderate-to-severe RA who received ≥1 dose of FIL200, FIL100, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc. Some investigators including the lead author reported receiving grants, honoraria, consultancy/speaker’s fees, and being an employee of or shareholder of various sources including Gilead Sciences.

Source: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Nov 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221051.

Key clinical point: Filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) and 100 mg (FIL100) showed similar safety/tolerability in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with over a median of 1.6 years and maximum of 5.6 years of exposure, with FIL200 showing a lower infection rate in the long term.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between FIL200 (exposure-adjusted incidence rate [EAIR], 195.4 per 100 patient-years of exposure [100 PYE]), FIL100 (176.3 per 100 PYE), and placebo (175.9 per 100 PYE) during the 12-week period. During long-term exposure, EAIR for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 6.4 and 7.6 per 100 PYE for FIL200 and FIL100, respectively, but serious infectious AEs were lower with FIL200 vs. FIL100 (EAIR, 1.6 vs. 3.1 per 100 PYE).

Study details: Data come from integrated analysis of 7 clinical trials including patients with moderate-to-severe RA who received ≥1 dose of FIL200, FIL100, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc. Some investigators including the lead author reported receiving grants, honoraria, consultancy/speaker’s fees, and being an employee of or shareholder of various sources including Gilead Sciences.

Source: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Nov 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221051.

Key clinical point: Filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) and 100 mg (FIL100) showed similar safety/tolerability in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with over a median of 1.6 years and maximum of 5.6 years of exposure, with FIL200 showing a lower infection rate in the long term.

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between FIL200 (exposure-adjusted incidence rate [EAIR], 195.4 per 100 patient-years of exposure [100 PYE]), FIL100 (176.3 per 100 PYE), and placebo (175.9 per 100 PYE) during the 12-week period. During long-term exposure, EAIR for grade ≥3 TEAEs were 6.4 and 7.6 per 100 PYE for FIL200 and FIL100, respectively, but serious infectious AEs were lower with FIL200 vs. FIL100 (EAIR, 1.6 vs. 3.1 per 100 PYE).

Study details: Data come from integrated analysis of 7 clinical trials including patients with moderate-to-severe RA who received ≥1 dose of FIL200, FIL100, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc. Some investigators including the lead author reported receiving grants, honoraria, consultancy/speaker’s fees, and being an employee of or shareholder of various sources including Gilead Sciences.

Source: Winthrop KL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Nov 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221051.

Key clinical point: Obesity, anxiety, depression, and illness perception at baseline were associated with treatment outcomes, pain, and fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: At 12 months, obesity vs. normal weight was associated with a lower likelihood of remission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; P=.005). Obesity and illness perception were significantly associated with pain (aOR, 8.16; P = .002 and aOR, 0.62; P < .001, respectively) and fatigue (aOR, 5.66; P = .049 and aOR, 0.51; P = .001, respectively) with patients with severe vs. no anxiety having higher pain (aOR, 9.60; P = .010) and those with severe (aOR, 17.07; P < .001) and moderate (aOR, 10.13; P = .001) depression having higher fatigue.

Study details: This secondary analysis of the TITRATE trial included 335 patients with RA treated with intensive management (n=168) or standard care (n=167).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. E Nikiphorou received speaker fees and served on advisory boards for various sources. Other authors declared no competing interest.

Source: Lee SY et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Nov 4. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02653-1.

Key clinical point: Obesity, anxiety, depression, and illness perception at baseline were associated with treatment outcomes, pain, and fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: At 12 months, obesity vs. normal weight was associated with a lower likelihood of remission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; P=.005). Obesity and illness perception were significantly associated with pain (aOR, 8.16; P = .002 and aOR, 0.62; P < .001, respectively) and fatigue (aOR, 5.66; P = .049 and aOR, 0.51; P = .001, respectively) with patients with severe vs. no anxiety having higher pain (aOR, 9.60; P = .010) and those with severe (aOR, 17.07; P < .001) and moderate (aOR, 10.13; P = .001) depression having higher fatigue.

Study details: This secondary analysis of the TITRATE trial included 335 patients with RA treated with intensive management (n=168) or standard care (n=167).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. E Nikiphorou received speaker fees and served on advisory boards for various sources. Other authors declared no competing interest.

Source: Lee SY et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Nov 4. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02653-1.

Key clinical point: Obesity, anxiety, depression, and illness perception at baseline were associated with treatment outcomes, pain, and fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: At 12 months, obesity vs. normal weight was associated with a lower likelihood of remission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; P=.005). Obesity and illness perception were significantly associated with pain (aOR, 8.16; P = .002 and aOR, 0.62; P < .001, respectively) and fatigue (aOR, 5.66; P = .049 and aOR, 0.51; P = .001, respectively) with patients with severe vs. no anxiety having higher pain (aOR, 9.60; P = .010) and those with severe (aOR, 17.07; P < .001) and moderate (aOR, 10.13; P = .001) depression having higher fatigue.

Study details: This secondary analysis of the TITRATE trial included 335 patients with RA treated with intensive management (n=168) or standard care (n=167).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. E Nikiphorou received speaker fees and served on advisory boards for various sources. Other authors declared no competing interest.

Source: Lee SY et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Nov 4. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02653-1.

Key clinical point: Certolizumab (CTZ) monotherapy seemed as effective as combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) or leflunomide (LFN) or MTX+LFN in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed previous conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) therapy.

Major finding: Overall, 63% of patients were in remission or showed low disease activity (LDA) within 3 months of follow-up, with no difference between groups (P = .080). Most patients maintained response at 12 months, with remission or LDA achieved by 94.4%, 81.8%, 80.5%, and 51.4% of patients receiving CTZ monotherapy, CTZ+MTX, CTZ+LFN, and MTX+LFN, respectively (P = .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study of 181 patients with RA who were treated for a minimum of 3 months with certolizumab as monotherapy (n=24) or in combination with MTX (n=62), LFN (n=47) or MTX+LFN (n=48).

Disclosures: No information on funding was provided. P Santos-Moreno and A Rojas-Villarrage received fees for conferences, counseling, advisory boards, or travel expenses and research grants from various sources.

Source: Santos-Moreno P et al. Biologics. 2021 Oct 22. doi: 10.2147/BTT.S322860.

Key clinical point: Certolizumab (CTZ) monotherapy seemed as effective as combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) or leflunomide (LFN) or MTX+LFN in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed previous conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) therapy.

Major finding: Overall, 63% of patients were in remission or showed low disease activity (LDA) within 3 months of follow-up, with no difference between groups (P = .080). Most patients maintained response at 12 months, with remission or LDA achieved by 94.4%, 81.8%, 80.5%, and 51.4% of patients receiving CTZ monotherapy, CTZ+MTX, CTZ+LFN, and MTX+LFN, respectively (P = .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study of 181 patients with RA who were treated for a minimum of 3 months with certolizumab as monotherapy (n=24) or in combination with MTX (n=62), LFN (n=47) or MTX+LFN (n=48).

Disclosures: No information on funding was provided. P Santos-Moreno and A Rojas-Villarrage received fees for conferences, counseling, advisory boards, or travel expenses and research grants from various sources.

Source: Santos-Moreno P et al. Biologics. 2021 Oct 22. doi: 10.2147/BTT.S322860.

Key clinical point: Certolizumab (CTZ) monotherapy seemed as effective as combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) or leflunomide (LFN) or MTX+LFN in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed previous conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) therapy.

Major finding: Overall, 63% of patients were in remission or showed low disease activity (LDA) within 3 months of follow-up, with no difference between groups (P = .080). Most patients maintained response at 12 months, with remission or LDA achieved by 94.4%, 81.8%, 80.5%, and 51.4% of patients receiving CTZ monotherapy, CTZ+MTX, CTZ+LFN, and MTX+LFN, respectively (P = .001).

Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study of 181 patients with RA who were treated for a minimum of 3 months with certolizumab as monotherapy (n=24) or in combination with MTX (n=62), LFN (n=47) or MTX+LFN (n=48).

Disclosures: No information on funding was provided. P Santos-Moreno and A Rojas-Villarrage received fees for conferences, counseling, advisory boards, or travel expenses and research grants from various sources.

Source: Santos-Moreno P et al. Biologics. 2021 Oct 22. doi: 10.2147/BTT.S322860.

Key clinical point: Elevated T helper (Th)1, Th17, or Th1/T-regulatory (Treg) cell frequencies in the peripheral blood were significantly associated with the development of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The percentage of Th1 cells (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.05; P = .0027], absolute number of Th17 cells (aOR, 1.11; P = .0046), and ratio of Th1/Treg (aOR, 1.08; P = .0374) were significantly associated with AF development in RA.

Study details: This was a retrospective case-control study of 40 patients with RA and AF who were propensity matched (1:3) with 120 control patients with RA.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Excellent Youth Foundation of Shanxi Province. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Wang X et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.744254.

Key clinical point: Elevated T helper (Th)1, Th17, or Th1/T-regulatory (Treg) cell frequencies in the peripheral blood were significantly associated with the development of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The percentage of Th1 cells (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.05; P = .0027], absolute number of Th17 cells (aOR, 1.11; P = .0046), and ratio of Th1/Treg (aOR, 1.08; P = .0374) were significantly associated with AF development in RA.

Study details: This was a retrospective case-control study of 40 patients with RA and AF who were propensity matched (1:3) with 120 control patients with RA.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Excellent Youth Foundation of Shanxi Province. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Wang X et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.744254.

Key clinical point: Elevated T helper (Th)1, Th17, or Th1/T-regulatory (Treg) cell frequencies in the peripheral blood were significantly associated with the development of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: The percentage of Th1 cells (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.05; P = .0027], absolute number of Th17 cells (aOR, 1.11; P = .0046), and ratio of Th1/Treg (aOR, 1.08; P = .0374) were significantly associated with AF development in RA.

Study details: This was a retrospective case-control study of 40 patients with RA and AF who were propensity matched (1:3) with 120 control patients with RA.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Excellent Youth Foundation of Shanxi Province. No conflict of interests was reported.

Source: Wang X et al. Front Immunol. 2021 Oct 15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.744254.