MDedge Rheumatology

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors reduce both spinal and sacroiliac radiographic progression in early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the effects take time.

According to data from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort (GESPIC), it could take 2-4 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitor treatment before x-rays will show any sign of a benefit in either the spine or sacroiliac joints (SIJ).

“The association between anti-TNF treatment and the retardation of radiographic spinal progression in spondyloarthritis appears to be time-shifted,” GESPIC study investigator Denis Poddubnyy, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reporting the spinal findings, Dr. Poddubnyy, who is head of the rheumatology department at Campus Benjamin Franklin of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin noted that “at least 4 years of observation is required” to see an effect of TNF inhibitors on new bone formation. “This might be related to the intermediate and long-lasting process of bone repair that follows the resolution of inflammation and precedes the development of new bone,” he suggested.

The effect on the SIJ may precede the spinal damage, so it’s important to look at how anti-inflammatory treatment might affect the SIJ, Dr. Poddubnyy said in an interview. Results from the SIJ analysis, which were presented by Murat Torgutalp, MD, suggested that there might be a 2-year time lag between TNFi treatment and being able to see something on x-rays.

“Everybody in the past focused on the spine, considering that spinal changes are functionally more relevant than changes in the SIJ,” Dr. Poddubnyy observed.

Structural damage in the spine and SIJ in radiographic axSpA probably occur by different processes, he explained. While it’s more to do with new bone formation in the spine, it’s more to do with erosive damage followed by repair in the SIJ. “It is very likely that in the majority of patients we see that those two processes are somehow disconnected in time,” he suggested.

The GESPIC cohort provides a good base from which to examine the effects of TNF inhibitors on radiographic progression in patients with axSpA for several reasons, observed Dr. Poddubnyy. For one it was established in 2000, so “well before the introduction of TNF-alpha inhibitors.” That means that almost all patients would have been put on TNF inhibitors while enrolled in the cohort, he said, “so we could really follow up them prospectively for a few years.” In fact, just nine patients had been treated with TNF inhibitors at baseline.

Spinal findings

Although TNF inhibitors are widely accepted to be effective anti-inflammatory drugs that can relieve patients’ spinal symptoms, there were inconclusive data on whether they can also have an impact on radiographic progression.

To look at the possible immediate or later effect of TNF inhibitors on spinal radiographic progression, the GESPIC investigators looked at sets of radiographs, taken at least 2 years apart over a 10-year period, from 266 patients, 77 of whom who had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for at least 12 months or more. Overall, there were 103 2-year intervals covered by TNF inhibitor treatment of any duration, and 78 intervals in which treatment had lasted for at least 12 months.

“This cohort included patients with quite early disease, including both nonradiographic and radiographic forms,” Dr. Poddubnyy said, adding that some patients had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for up to 10 years.

While there were no significant changes in radiographic progression as measured using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) between patients who had and who had not received at least 12 months’ TNF inhibitor therapy in the first 2 years, there was a substantial difference after 4 years.

The mSASSS change in scores over 2 years in patients who were and were not treated with a TNF inhibitor for 12 months or more were a respective 0.35 and 0.81 (P = .047) considering treatment in the previous 2-year treatment period, and 0.33 and 0.77 (also P = .047) considering treatment in the prior 2-year treatment period and the current 2-year period.

“Our interpretation is that within the first 2 years we see a resolution of inflammation, a process of repair, maybe even a process of bone formation, but then if you continue this inflammation control for longer than 2 years, then we see the effect on structural damage,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

SIJ findings

The SIJ analysis included 301 patients who had at least two sets of radiographs taken every 2 years over a 10-year follow-up period, 87 (28.9%) of whom had been treated with at least one TNF inhibitor during follow-up.

Radiographic SIJ progression was defined as the change in the sacroiliitis sum score over 2 years. Calculations considered both the current 2-year period and the previous 2-year period, as well as any use of TNF inhibitors or more than 12 months’ use.

There were no significant differences in sacroiliitis sum scores comparing people who were and were not treated with TNF inhibitors for at least 12 months in the current 2-year period. However, when the previous 2-year period was looked at there was a significant difference in the score between those who had and had not been treated for 12 or more months (0.15 vs. 0.27, respectively; P = .024).

“These data indicate that TNF inhibitors have a late effect,” Dr. Torgutalp said. “You cannot observe the effect of the TNF inhibitor on radiographic progression in the same interval, you have to wait to see this effect in the next interval,” he explained. That means that when a patient uses a TNF inhibitor, you must wait to see the effect on SIJ progression in the subsequent 2 years, he qualified.

Lessons for practice

“If we control inflammation, we might control structural damage progression,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

If this is the case, then it is likely that other drugs that control inflammation in axSpA will have a similar effect, such as those that target interleukin-17 or Janus kinases. This is something in the future to look at in the GESPIC cohort once enough patient-years of data are available.

Early treatment is probably important, Dr. Poddubnyy suggested, “because in patients with early disease we can expect not that much structural damage at baseline.” Starting treatment early, at the inflammatory stage rather than at the stage where there was a lot of damage already there, could yield better results, he proposed.

“As a clinician, as a researcher, I would be really interested in demonstrating in a prospective, clinical trial that treating patients to target, achieving a remission, would be associated with retardation of structural damage progression. This has only been shown in observational studies so far, so this is an open question.”

Questions on adjustments made for confounding factors

Questions on the spinal presentation included whether there were any differences in NSAID use, to which Dr. Poddubnyy responded, “Patients on TNF inhibitors normally reduce NSAIDs. We adjusted, therefore, for NSAID use.”

The SIJ presentation garnered more questioning. Dr. Torgutalp qualified that both radiographic and nonradiographic patients had been included in the analysis, and “we observe the same effect.”

Asked how clinically relevant the findings were, he noted that, “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first data for sacroiliac joint progression.” The data for spinal progression seem to “reconcile the results from previous investigators,” where there had been some conflicting data on whether 2 or 4 years’ TNF-inhibitor therapy had any effect on radiographic progression.

“I don’t think you’ve adjusted for the baseline level of damage of the SIJ?” queried Pedro Machado, MD, of University College London Hospital. “As you know, in the spine, but also at the SIJ level, the baseline level of damage is usually one of the strongest predictors of further damage.”

This is not something that was adjusted for, Dr. Torgutalp conceded. “We will do it for further analysis,” he said.

Since 2010, GESPIC has been supported by grants from AbbVie. Dr. Poddubnyy reported financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Torgutalp had no relevant disclosures.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors reduce both spinal and sacroiliac radiographic progression in early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the effects take time.

According to data from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort (GESPIC), it could take 2-4 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitor treatment before x-rays will show any sign of a benefit in either the spine or sacroiliac joints (SIJ).

“The association between anti-TNF treatment and the retardation of radiographic spinal progression in spondyloarthritis appears to be time-shifted,” GESPIC study investigator Denis Poddubnyy, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reporting the spinal findings, Dr. Poddubnyy, who is head of the rheumatology department at Campus Benjamin Franklin of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin noted that “at least 4 years of observation is required” to see an effect of TNF inhibitors on new bone formation. “This might be related to the intermediate and long-lasting process of bone repair that follows the resolution of inflammation and precedes the development of new bone,” he suggested.

The effect on the SIJ may precede the spinal damage, so it’s important to look at how anti-inflammatory treatment might affect the SIJ, Dr. Poddubnyy said in an interview. Results from the SIJ analysis, which were presented by Murat Torgutalp, MD, suggested that there might be a 2-year time lag between TNFi treatment and being able to see something on x-rays.

“Everybody in the past focused on the spine, considering that spinal changes are functionally more relevant than changes in the SIJ,” Dr. Poddubnyy observed.

Structural damage in the spine and SIJ in radiographic axSpA probably occur by different processes, he explained. While it’s more to do with new bone formation in the spine, it’s more to do with erosive damage followed by repair in the SIJ. “It is very likely that in the majority of patients we see that those two processes are somehow disconnected in time,” he suggested.

The GESPIC cohort provides a good base from which to examine the effects of TNF inhibitors on radiographic progression in patients with axSpA for several reasons, observed Dr. Poddubnyy. For one it was established in 2000, so “well before the introduction of TNF-alpha inhibitors.” That means that almost all patients would have been put on TNF inhibitors while enrolled in the cohort, he said, “so we could really follow up them prospectively for a few years.” In fact, just nine patients had been treated with TNF inhibitors at baseline.

Spinal findings

Although TNF inhibitors are widely accepted to be effective anti-inflammatory drugs that can relieve patients’ spinal symptoms, there were inconclusive data on whether they can also have an impact on radiographic progression.

To look at the possible immediate or later effect of TNF inhibitors on spinal radiographic progression, the GESPIC investigators looked at sets of radiographs, taken at least 2 years apart over a 10-year period, from 266 patients, 77 of whom who had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for at least 12 months or more. Overall, there were 103 2-year intervals covered by TNF inhibitor treatment of any duration, and 78 intervals in which treatment had lasted for at least 12 months.

“This cohort included patients with quite early disease, including both nonradiographic and radiographic forms,” Dr. Poddubnyy said, adding that some patients had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for up to 10 years.

While there were no significant changes in radiographic progression as measured using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) between patients who had and who had not received at least 12 months’ TNF inhibitor therapy in the first 2 years, there was a substantial difference after 4 years.

The mSASSS change in scores over 2 years in patients who were and were not treated with a TNF inhibitor for 12 months or more were a respective 0.35 and 0.81 (P = .047) considering treatment in the previous 2-year treatment period, and 0.33 and 0.77 (also P = .047) considering treatment in the prior 2-year treatment period and the current 2-year period.

“Our interpretation is that within the first 2 years we see a resolution of inflammation, a process of repair, maybe even a process of bone formation, but then if you continue this inflammation control for longer than 2 years, then we see the effect on structural damage,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

SIJ findings

The SIJ analysis included 301 patients who had at least two sets of radiographs taken every 2 years over a 10-year follow-up period, 87 (28.9%) of whom had been treated with at least one TNF inhibitor during follow-up.

Radiographic SIJ progression was defined as the change in the sacroiliitis sum score over 2 years. Calculations considered both the current 2-year period and the previous 2-year period, as well as any use of TNF inhibitors or more than 12 months’ use.

There were no significant differences in sacroiliitis sum scores comparing people who were and were not treated with TNF inhibitors for at least 12 months in the current 2-year period. However, when the previous 2-year period was looked at there was a significant difference in the score between those who had and had not been treated for 12 or more months (0.15 vs. 0.27, respectively; P = .024).

“These data indicate that TNF inhibitors have a late effect,” Dr. Torgutalp said. “You cannot observe the effect of the TNF inhibitor on radiographic progression in the same interval, you have to wait to see this effect in the next interval,” he explained. That means that when a patient uses a TNF inhibitor, you must wait to see the effect on SIJ progression in the subsequent 2 years, he qualified.

Lessons for practice

“If we control inflammation, we might control structural damage progression,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

If this is the case, then it is likely that other drugs that control inflammation in axSpA will have a similar effect, such as those that target interleukin-17 or Janus kinases. This is something in the future to look at in the GESPIC cohort once enough patient-years of data are available.

Early treatment is probably important, Dr. Poddubnyy suggested, “because in patients with early disease we can expect not that much structural damage at baseline.” Starting treatment early, at the inflammatory stage rather than at the stage where there was a lot of damage already there, could yield better results, he proposed.

“As a clinician, as a researcher, I would be really interested in demonstrating in a prospective, clinical trial that treating patients to target, achieving a remission, would be associated with retardation of structural damage progression. This has only been shown in observational studies so far, so this is an open question.”

Questions on adjustments made for confounding factors

Questions on the spinal presentation included whether there were any differences in NSAID use, to which Dr. Poddubnyy responded, “Patients on TNF inhibitors normally reduce NSAIDs. We adjusted, therefore, for NSAID use.”

The SIJ presentation garnered more questioning. Dr. Torgutalp qualified that both radiographic and nonradiographic patients had been included in the analysis, and “we observe the same effect.”

Asked how clinically relevant the findings were, he noted that, “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first data for sacroiliac joint progression.” The data for spinal progression seem to “reconcile the results from previous investigators,” where there had been some conflicting data on whether 2 or 4 years’ TNF-inhibitor therapy had any effect on radiographic progression.

“I don’t think you’ve adjusted for the baseline level of damage of the SIJ?” queried Pedro Machado, MD, of University College London Hospital. “As you know, in the spine, but also at the SIJ level, the baseline level of damage is usually one of the strongest predictors of further damage.”

This is not something that was adjusted for, Dr. Torgutalp conceded. “We will do it for further analysis,” he said.

Since 2010, GESPIC has been supported by grants from AbbVie. Dr. Poddubnyy reported financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Torgutalp had no relevant disclosures.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors reduce both spinal and sacroiliac radiographic progression in early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the effects take time.

According to data from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort (GESPIC), it could take 2-4 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitor treatment before x-rays will show any sign of a benefit in either the spine or sacroiliac joints (SIJ).

“The association between anti-TNF treatment and the retardation of radiographic spinal progression in spondyloarthritis appears to be time-shifted,” GESPIC study investigator Denis Poddubnyy, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reporting the spinal findings, Dr. Poddubnyy, who is head of the rheumatology department at Campus Benjamin Franklin of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin noted that “at least 4 years of observation is required” to see an effect of TNF inhibitors on new bone formation. “This might be related to the intermediate and long-lasting process of bone repair that follows the resolution of inflammation and precedes the development of new bone,” he suggested.

The effect on the SIJ may precede the spinal damage, so it’s important to look at how anti-inflammatory treatment might affect the SIJ, Dr. Poddubnyy said in an interview. Results from the SIJ analysis, which were presented by Murat Torgutalp, MD, suggested that there might be a 2-year time lag between TNFi treatment and being able to see something on x-rays.

“Everybody in the past focused on the spine, considering that spinal changes are functionally more relevant than changes in the SIJ,” Dr. Poddubnyy observed.

Structural damage in the spine and SIJ in radiographic axSpA probably occur by different processes, he explained. While it’s more to do with new bone formation in the spine, it’s more to do with erosive damage followed by repair in the SIJ. “It is very likely that in the majority of patients we see that those two processes are somehow disconnected in time,” he suggested.

The GESPIC cohort provides a good base from which to examine the effects of TNF inhibitors on radiographic progression in patients with axSpA for several reasons, observed Dr. Poddubnyy. For one it was established in 2000, so “well before the introduction of TNF-alpha inhibitors.” That means that almost all patients would have been put on TNF inhibitors while enrolled in the cohort, he said, “so we could really follow up them prospectively for a few years.” In fact, just nine patients had been treated with TNF inhibitors at baseline.

Spinal findings

Although TNF inhibitors are widely accepted to be effective anti-inflammatory drugs that can relieve patients’ spinal symptoms, there were inconclusive data on whether they can also have an impact on radiographic progression.

To look at the possible immediate or later effect of TNF inhibitors on spinal radiographic progression, the GESPIC investigators looked at sets of radiographs, taken at least 2 years apart over a 10-year period, from 266 patients, 77 of whom who had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for at least 12 months or more. Overall, there were 103 2-year intervals covered by TNF inhibitor treatment of any duration, and 78 intervals in which treatment had lasted for at least 12 months.

“This cohort included patients with quite early disease, including both nonradiographic and radiographic forms,” Dr. Poddubnyy said, adding that some patients had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for up to 10 years.

While there were no significant changes in radiographic progression as measured using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) between patients who had and who had not received at least 12 months’ TNF inhibitor therapy in the first 2 years, there was a substantial difference after 4 years.

The mSASSS change in scores over 2 years in patients who were and were not treated with a TNF inhibitor for 12 months or more were a respective 0.35 and 0.81 (P = .047) considering treatment in the previous 2-year treatment period, and 0.33 and 0.77 (also P = .047) considering treatment in the prior 2-year treatment period and the current 2-year period.

“Our interpretation is that within the first 2 years we see a resolution of inflammation, a process of repair, maybe even a process of bone formation, but then if you continue this inflammation control for longer than 2 years, then we see the effect on structural damage,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

SIJ findings

The SIJ analysis included 301 patients who had at least two sets of radiographs taken every 2 years over a 10-year follow-up period, 87 (28.9%) of whom had been treated with at least one TNF inhibitor during follow-up.

Radiographic SIJ progression was defined as the change in the sacroiliitis sum score over 2 years. Calculations considered both the current 2-year period and the previous 2-year period, as well as any use of TNF inhibitors or more than 12 months’ use.

There were no significant differences in sacroiliitis sum scores comparing people who were and were not treated with TNF inhibitors for at least 12 months in the current 2-year period. However, when the previous 2-year period was looked at there was a significant difference in the score between those who had and had not been treated for 12 or more months (0.15 vs. 0.27, respectively; P = .024).

“These data indicate that TNF inhibitors have a late effect,” Dr. Torgutalp said. “You cannot observe the effect of the TNF inhibitor on radiographic progression in the same interval, you have to wait to see this effect in the next interval,” he explained. That means that when a patient uses a TNF inhibitor, you must wait to see the effect on SIJ progression in the subsequent 2 years, he qualified.

Lessons for practice

“If we control inflammation, we might control structural damage progression,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

If this is the case, then it is likely that other drugs that control inflammation in axSpA will have a similar effect, such as those that target interleukin-17 or Janus kinases. This is something in the future to look at in the GESPIC cohort once enough patient-years of data are available.

Early treatment is probably important, Dr. Poddubnyy suggested, “because in patients with early disease we can expect not that much structural damage at baseline.” Starting treatment early, at the inflammatory stage rather than at the stage where there was a lot of damage already there, could yield better results, he proposed.

“As a clinician, as a researcher, I would be really interested in demonstrating in a prospective, clinical trial that treating patients to target, achieving a remission, would be associated with retardation of structural damage progression. This has only been shown in observational studies so far, so this is an open question.”

Questions on adjustments made for confounding factors

Questions on the spinal presentation included whether there were any differences in NSAID use, to which Dr. Poddubnyy responded, “Patients on TNF inhibitors normally reduce NSAIDs. We adjusted, therefore, for NSAID use.”

The SIJ presentation garnered more questioning. Dr. Torgutalp qualified that both radiographic and nonradiographic patients had been included in the analysis, and “we observe the same effect.”

Asked how clinically relevant the findings were, he noted that, “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first data for sacroiliac joint progression.” The data for spinal progression seem to “reconcile the results from previous investigators,” where there had been some conflicting data on whether 2 or 4 years’ TNF-inhibitor therapy had any effect on radiographic progression.

“I don’t think you’ve adjusted for the baseline level of damage of the SIJ?” queried Pedro Machado, MD, of University College London Hospital. “As you know, in the spine, but also at the SIJ level, the baseline level of damage is usually one of the strongest predictors of further damage.”

This is not something that was adjusted for, Dr. Torgutalp conceded. “We will do it for further analysis,” he said.

Since 2010, GESPIC has been supported by grants from AbbVie. Dr. Poddubnyy reported financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Torgutalp had no relevant disclosures.

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

In the approach to treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), methotrexate monotherapy is often followed by addition of a biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for best disease outcomes. Combination DMARDs therapy with methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine (triple therapy) has been proposed as an alternative to biologic therapy. Combination methotrexate and leflunomide is not as frequently addressed in the literature, perhaps due in part to concerns about hepatotoxicity. Bredemeier et al address safety concerns regarding combination methotrexate and leflunomide in the treatment of patients with RA. In this multicenter Brazilian registry study, they compared adverse events (including infection) among patients receiving bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Patients treated with combination methotrexate and leflunomide had comparable rates of adverse effects as patients treated with either medication alone; infectious and serious adverse events were fewer compared to patients treated with bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Given this reassuring information, further study of the efficacy and durability of combination methotrexate and leflunomide therapy would be helpful to firmly establish its place in treatment of RA, especially among newer biologic choices.

Tofacitinib and tocilizumab, for example, have been under investigation for safety and efficacy, alone and in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). Prior studies have suggested that tofacitinib is more effective in bDMARD-naïve patients than patients who have had inadequate efficacy with one or more bDMARDs. In this multicenter Japanese cohort study, Mori et al examine RA outcomes in new users of tofacitinib and tocilizumab. Clinical disease activity index (CDAI) responses and remission rates were significantly better among bDMARD-naïve patients receiving tofacitinib compared to those receiving tocilizumab; interestingly, this difference was not seen in patients who had previously received bDMARDs. Interpretation of these results is somewhat hampered by the use of the lower every-other-week tocilizimab injection dose, but they still raise the question as to whether timing and sequence of biologics can affect future response to therapy.

The role of conventional DMARDs has also been questioned in the converse role: tapering of therapy. Lillegraven et al compare tapering of csDMARDs to continuing therapy in this randomized multicenter Norwegian study. The possibility of biologic tapering in RA has previously been addressed with some evidence of success in the form of reduced frequency of administration. Unfortunately, despite being in stable remission, patients assigned to reduce csDMARDs to half-dose had more flares than those continuing therapy, suggesting that reducing csDMARDs to half-dose in RA patients in remission may not be easily accomplished. Whether this changes in patients with prolonged or “deep” remission is as yet unknown.

Finally, with all of these options for tailored therapy, how does our treatment of early RA fare? Combe et al report the 10-year outcomes of a French early RA cohort (ESPOIR), including patients with RA for <6 months recruited from 2003-2005. 521 patients were followed; at year 10, half were in DAS28 remission, and 14% in drug-free remission. Compared to outcomes from an earlier community- based study, patients in the ESPOIR cohort have better outcomes, possibly due to more aggressive treatment for RA, use of bDMARDs, or perhaps even earlier identification of patients for treatment. Due to the sizeable proportion of patients in drug-free remission, the impact of stringency of entry criteria should be considered, and a comparison to a later cohort with patients identified using 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria would be of great interest.

In the approach to treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), methotrexate monotherapy is often followed by addition of a biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for best disease outcomes. Combination DMARDs therapy with methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine (triple therapy) has been proposed as an alternative to biologic therapy. Combination methotrexate and leflunomide is not as frequently addressed in the literature, perhaps due in part to concerns about hepatotoxicity. Bredemeier et al address safety concerns regarding combination methotrexate and leflunomide in the treatment of patients with RA. In this multicenter Brazilian registry study, they compared adverse events (including infection) among patients receiving bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Patients treated with combination methotrexate and leflunomide had comparable rates of adverse effects as patients treated with either medication alone; infectious and serious adverse events were fewer compared to patients treated with bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Given this reassuring information, further study of the efficacy and durability of combination methotrexate and leflunomide therapy would be helpful to firmly establish its place in treatment of RA, especially among newer biologic choices.

Tofacitinib and tocilizumab, for example, have been under investigation for safety and efficacy, alone and in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). Prior studies have suggested that tofacitinib is more effective in bDMARD-naïve patients than patients who have had inadequate efficacy with one or more bDMARDs. In this multicenter Japanese cohort study, Mori et al examine RA outcomes in new users of tofacitinib and tocilizumab. Clinical disease activity index (CDAI) responses and remission rates were significantly better among bDMARD-naïve patients receiving tofacitinib compared to those receiving tocilizumab; interestingly, this difference was not seen in patients who had previously received bDMARDs. Interpretation of these results is somewhat hampered by the use of the lower every-other-week tocilizimab injection dose, but they still raise the question as to whether timing and sequence of biologics can affect future response to therapy.

The role of conventional DMARDs has also been questioned in the converse role: tapering of therapy. Lillegraven et al compare tapering of csDMARDs to continuing therapy in this randomized multicenter Norwegian study. The possibility of biologic tapering in RA has previously been addressed with some evidence of success in the form of reduced frequency of administration. Unfortunately, despite being in stable remission, patients assigned to reduce csDMARDs to half-dose had more flares than those continuing therapy, suggesting that reducing csDMARDs to half-dose in RA patients in remission may not be easily accomplished. Whether this changes in patients with prolonged or “deep” remission is as yet unknown.

Finally, with all of these options for tailored therapy, how does our treatment of early RA fare? Combe et al report the 10-year outcomes of a French early RA cohort (ESPOIR), including patients with RA for <6 months recruited from 2003-2005. 521 patients were followed; at year 10, half were in DAS28 remission, and 14% in drug-free remission. Compared to outcomes from an earlier community- based study, patients in the ESPOIR cohort have better outcomes, possibly due to more aggressive treatment for RA, use of bDMARDs, or perhaps even earlier identification of patients for treatment. Due to the sizeable proportion of patients in drug-free remission, the impact of stringency of entry criteria should be considered, and a comparison to a later cohort with patients identified using 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria would be of great interest.

In the approach to treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), methotrexate monotherapy is often followed by addition of a biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for best disease outcomes. Combination DMARDs therapy with methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine (triple therapy) has been proposed as an alternative to biologic therapy. Combination methotrexate and leflunomide is not as frequently addressed in the literature, perhaps due in part to concerns about hepatotoxicity. Bredemeier et al address safety concerns regarding combination methotrexate and leflunomide in the treatment of patients with RA. In this multicenter Brazilian registry study, they compared adverse events (including infection) among patients receiving bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Patients treated with combination methotrexate and leflunomide had comparable rates of adverse effects as patients treated with either medication alone; infectious and serious adverse events were fewer compared to patients treated with bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Given this reassuring information, further study of the efficacy and durability of combination methotrexate and leflunomide therapy would be helpful to firmly establish its place in treatment of RA, especially among newer biologic choices.

Tofacitinib and tocilizumab, for example, have been under investigation for safety and efficacy, alone and in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). Prior studies have suggested that tofacitinib is more effective in bDMARD-naïve patients than patients who have had inadequate efficacy with one or more bDMARDs. In this multicenter Japanese cohort study, Mori et al examine RA outcomes in new users of tofacitinib and tocilizumab. Clinical disease activity index (CDAI) responses and remission rates were significantly better among bDMARD-naïve patients receiving tofacitinib compared to those receiving tocilizumab; interestingly, this difference was not seen in patients who had previously received bDMARDs. Interpretation of these results is somewhat hampered by the use of the lower every-other-week tocilizimab injection dose, but they still raise the question as to whether timing and sequence of biologics can affect future response to therapy.

The role of conventional DMARDs has also been questioned in the converse role: tapering of therapy. Lillegraven et al compare tapering of csDMARDs to continuing therapy in this randomized multicenter Norwegian study. The possibility of biologic tapering in RA has previously been addressed with some evidence of success in the form of reduced frequency of administration. Unfortunately, despite being in stable remission, patients assigned to reduce csDMARDs to half-dose had more flares than those continuing therapy, suggesting that reducing csDMARDs to half-dose in RA patients in remission may not be easily accomplished. Whether this changes in patients with prolonged or “deep” remission is as yet unknown.

Finally, with all of these options for tailored therapy, how does our treatment of early RA fare? Combe et al report the 10-year outcomes of a French early RA cohort (ESPOIR), including patients with RA for <6 months recruited from 2003-2005. 521 patients were followed; at year 10, half were in DAS28 remission, and 14% in drug-free remission. Compared to outcomes from an earlier community- based study, patients in the ESPOIR cohort have better outcomes, possibly due to more aggressive treatment for RA, use of bDMARDs, or perhaps even earlier identification of patients for treatment. Due to the sizeable proportion of patients in drug-free remission, the impact of stringency of entry criteria should be considered, and a comparison to a later cohort with patients identified using 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria would be of great interest.

Key clinical point: Rheumatologists mostly preferred tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) for the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate. Abatacept seemed to be the more preferred option for patients with pulmonary involvement or a high risk for infection.

Major finding: TNFi was the preferred strategy in 80% of vignettes, except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity where abatacept was the first choice (global BW score: TNFi, 0.53 and abatacept, 0.38). Tocilizumab was the third most preferred strategy, chosen in 83% of the cases (global BW score: 0.11).

Study details: This was a noninterventional multicenter study involving 64 hypothetical clinical vignettes of patients with RA with an inadequate response to methotrexate. These case vignettes were presented to 211 French rheumatologists to elicit their therapeutic preferences.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors declared receiving research grants, consultancy fees, and/or being employees and/or shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company and FAST4.

Source: Senbel E et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00311-1.

Key clinical point: Rheumatologists mostly preferred tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) for the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate. Abatacept seemed to be the more preferred option for patients with pulmonary involvement or a high risk for infection.

Major finding: TNFi was the preferred strategy in 80% of vignettes, except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity where abatacept was the first choice (global BW score: TNFi, 0.53 and abatacept, 0.38). Tocilizumab was the third most preferred strategy, chosen in 83% of the cases (global BW score: 0.11).

Study details: This was a noninterventional multicenter study involving 64 hypothetical clinical vignettes of patients with RA with an inadequate response to methotrexate. These case vignettes were presented to 211 French rheumatologists to elicit their therapeutic preferences.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors declared receiving research grants, consultancy fees, and/or being employees and/or shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company and FAST4.

Source: Senbel E et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00311-1.

Key clinical point: Rheumatologists mostly preferred tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) for the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate. Abatacept seemed to be the more preferred option for patients with pulmonary involvement or a high risk for infection.

Major finding: TNFi was the preferred strategy in 80% of vignettes, except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity where abatacept was the first choice (global BW score: TNFi, 0.53 and abatacept, 0.38). Tocilizumab was the third most preferred strategy, chosen in 83% of the cases (global BW score: 0.11).

Study details: This was a noninterventional multicenter study involving 64 hypothetical clinical vignettes of patients with RA with an inadequate response to methotrexate. These case vignettes were presented to 211 French rheumatologists to elicit their therapeutic preferences.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors declared receiving research grants, consultancy fees, and/or being employees and/or shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company and FAST4.

Source: Senbel E et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00311-1.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have distinct clinical and biomechanical factors that place them at an increased risk for falls.

Major finding: The fallers vs. nonfallers were older (P = .05), had significantly higher pain scores (P less than .01), experienced dizziness (P less than .01), and were taking psychotropic medications (P = .02). The fallers vs. nonfallers had significantly higher anteroposterior sway (P = .03) and sway range (P = .02) and medial-lateral sway (P = .01) and sway range (P = .02) when standing with eyes open and a greater asymmetry during isometric extension at 90° (P = .05) and 60° (P = .02).

Study details: This was a nested case-control biomechanical analysis of 436 patients (aged 60 years or older) with RA who completed a 1-year prospective survey of falls.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit, and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Smith TO et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 26. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab388.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have distinct clinical and biomechanical factors that place them at an increased risk for falls.

Major finding: The fallers vs. nonfallers were older (P = .05), had significantly higher pain scores (P less than .01), experienced dizziness (P less than .01), and were taking psychotropic medications (P = .02). The fallers vs. nonfallers had significantly higher anteroposterior sway (P = .03) and sway range (P = .02) and medial-lateral sway (P = .01) and sway range (P = .02) when standing with eyes open and a greater asymmetry during isometric extension at 90° (P = .05) and 60° (P = .02).

Study details: This was a nested case-control biomechanical analysis of 436 patients (aged 60 years or older) with RA who completed a 1-year prospective survey of falls.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit, and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Smith TO et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 26. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab388.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have distinct clinical and biomechanical factors that place them at an increased risk for falls.

Major finding: The fallers vs. nonfallers were older (P = .05), had significantly higher pain scores (P less than .01), experienced dizziness (P less than .01), and were taking psychotropic medications (P = .02). The fallers vs. nonfallers had significantly higher anteroposterior sway (P = .03) and sway range (P = .02) and medial-lateral sway (P = .01) and sway range (P = .02) when standing with eyes open and a greater asymmetry during isometric extension at 90° (P = .05) and 60° (P = .02).

Study details: This was a nested case-control biomechanical analysis of 436 patients (aged 60 years or older) with RA who completed a 1-year prospective survey of falls.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit, and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Smith TO et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 26. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab388.

Key clinical point: Obese patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were less likely to achieve remission and more likely to experience intensive exposure to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) than patients with normal body mass index (BMI).

Major finding: At 6 months, obese patients vs. those with normal BMI were less likely to achieve disease activity score 28 remission (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.69) and more likely to be treated with combination csDMARD therapy than monotherapy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.45).

Study details: The findings are from a real-world analysis of 1,313 patients diagnosed with RA collected from the METEOR database.

Disclosures: No funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dey M et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab389.

Key clinical point: Obese patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were less likely to achieve remission and more likely to experience intensive exposure to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) than patients with normal body mass index (BMI).

Major finding: At 6 months, obese patients vs. those with normal BMI were less likely to achieve disease activity score 28 remission (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.69) and more likely to be treated with combination csDMARD therapy than monotherapy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.45).

Study details: The findings are from a real-world analysis of 1,313 patients diagnosed with RA collected from the METEOR database.

Disclosures: No funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dey M et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab389.

Key clinical point: Obese patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were less likely to achieve remission and more likely to experience intensive exposure to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) than patients with normal body mass index (BMI).

Major finding: At 6 months, obese patients vs. those with normal BMI were less likely to achieve disease activity score 28 remission (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.69) and more likely to be treated with combination csDMARD therapy than monotherapy (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.45).

Study details: The findings are from a real-world analysis of 1,313 patients diagnosed with RA collected from the METEOR database.

Disclosures: No funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Dey M et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab389.

Key clinical point: Anti-interleukin-6 (aIL-6) receptor antibody was more effective than other biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with knee joint involvement but not in patients without knee joint involvement.

Major finding: At 12 weeks, treatment with aIL-6 significantly increased clinical disease activity index (CDAI) in patients with knee joint involvement compared with other bDMARDs (P = .02). In patients without swollen knee joints, aIL-6 vs. other bDMARDs showed no significant difference in CDAI improvement (P = .61).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 1,059 treatment courses in patients with RA from the ANSWER cohort who were treated with bDMARDs. The patients were categorized into those with (n=275; 323 bDMARDs treatment course) or without (n=561; 736 bDMARDs treatment course) joint knee involvement.

Disclosures: ANSWER Cohort was supported by grants from Abbie G.K., Asahi-Kasei Pharma, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Co., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Eisai Co. Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Sanofi, UCB Japan Co. Ltd., and Teijin Healthcare Limited. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants, consulting fees, speaker fees, and/or honoraria from various sources.

Source: Maeda Y et al. Rheumatol Int. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04862-y.

Key clinical point: Anti-interleukin-6 (aIL-6) receptor antibody was more effective than other biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with knee joint involvement but not in patients without knee joint involvement.

Major finding: At 12 weeks, treatment with aIL-6 significantly increased clinical disease activity index (CDAI) in patients with knee joint involvement compared with other bDMARDs (P = .02). In patients without swollen knee joints, aIL-6 vs. other bDMARDs showed no significant difference in CDAI improvement (P = .61).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 1,059 treatment courses in patients with RA from the ANSWER cohort who were treated with bDMARDs. The patients were categorized into those with (n=275; 323 bDMARDs treatment course) or without (n=561; 736 bDMARDs treatment course) joint knee involvement.

Disclosures: ANSWER Cohort was supported by grants from Abbie G.K., Asahi-Kasei Pharma, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Co., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Eisai Co. Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Sanofi, UCB Japan Co. Ltd., and Teijin Healthcare Limited. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants, consulting fees, speaker fees, and/or honoraria from various sources.

Source: Maeda Y et al. Rheumatol Int. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04862-y.

Key clinical point: Anti-interleukin-6 (aIL-6) receptor antibody was more effective than other biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with knee joint involvement but not in patients without knee joint involvement.

Major finding: At 12 weeks, treatment with aIL-6 significantly increased clinical disease activity index (CDAI) in patients with knee joint involvement compared with other bDMARDs (P = .02). In patients without swollen knee joints, aIL-6 vs. other bDMARDs showed no significant difference in CDAI improvement (P = .61).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 1,059 treatment courses in patients with RA from the ANSWER cohort who were treated with bDMARDs. The patients were categorized into those with (n=275; 323 bDMARDs treatment course) or without (n=561; 736 bDMARDs treatment course) joint knee involvement.

Disclosures: ANSWER Cohort was supported by grants from Abbie G.K., Asahi-Kasei Pharma, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Co., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Eisai Co. Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Sanofi, UCB Japan Co. Ltd., and Teijin Healthcare Limited. The authors including the lead author reported receiving grants, consulting fees, speaker fees, and/or honoraria from various sources.

Source: Maeda Y et al. Rheumatol Int. 2021 Apr 26. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04862-y.