MDedge Rheumatology

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”

Dr. van Vollenhoven asked: “Could the practice of stopping these drugs upon COVID infection have a negative impact on the course?” To which Dr. Sparks responded: “The different half-life of drugs would be a promising avenue to look at, to see whether increases in disease activity might have imparted some of the effects we saw.”
 

Performing the analysis

As of April 12, 2021, the GRA Physician Registry contained the records of more than 15,000 patients. Dr. Sparks, collaborator Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates limited their analysis to 2,869 patients with RA who had been treated with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) at the time they were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We wanted to limit it to a single disease and also limit it to drugs that are considered for that disease,” Dr. Sparks explained in an interview.

“Because patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often treated sequentially, we wanted to further limit the analysis to patients who were on advanced therapies so that they were at a similar disease state, and also had the opportunity to receive advanced therapies.”

This approach hopefully minimizes the possibility of confounding by indication, Dr. Sparks said.

Most of the patients included in the analysis had received a TNFi (n = 1,388), and they were used as the control arm of the analysis. Outcomes associated with treatment with the other b/tsDMARDs, which included abatacept (n = 237), rituximab (n = 364), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i; n = 317), and JAKi (n = 563), were then compared with TNFi.

Baseline characteristics of patients were broadly similar across the groups. The mean age was 56.7 years and 80.8% of the study population was female. There were a few expected differences among users of rituximab versus TNFi, notably a higher percentage of patients with interstitial lung disease (11% vs. 1.4% of TNFi users) or cancer (7.4% vs. 0.9%) among patients treated with rituximab since it is commonly used in these patients, Dr. Sparks said.

“We did perform a sensitivity analysis where we restricted the population to not having ILD or cancer and we actually found really similar findings,” he added.

Four COVID-19 outcomes assessed

The researchers used a four-point ordinal scale modeled after one set by the World Health Organization to assess four COVID-19 outcomes: not hospitalized, hospitalized without oxygenation, hospitalized with oxygenation or ventilation, and death.

Odds ratios (ORs) comparing rituximab to TNFi for these four COVID-19 outcomes were a respective 4.53, 2.87, 4.05, and 4.57. The ORs for JAKi versus TNFi were a respective 2.4, 1.55, 2.03, and 2.04.

“We found no consistent associations of abatacept or interleukin-6 inhibitors with COVID-19 severity, compared to TNF inhibitors,” which is reassuring, Dr. Sparks said.

ORs for the four COVID-19 outcomes with abatacept were a respective 1.18, 1.12, 1.41, and 1.46, and for IL-6i were 0.84, 0.72, 0.75, and 1.13.

Rituximab use in patients with RA who develop COVID-19

So, should rituximab be stopped in patients with RA if they develop COVID-19? “This is an important question and one that would be decided on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Sparks said. “Of course, the drug has a very long half-life, so risk mitigation strategies are still of utmost importance,” he added.

“I think everyone’s a bit reticent to want to start rituximab in this environment, but it might also make me pause about starting a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Sparks added. “Given that this is a first finding, I’m not sure I would necessarily change patients who are doing well on these medications. I think what it really makes me want to do is to try to obviously vaccinate the patients on JAK inhibitors as they do have a short half-life.”

More observational studies would be helpful, Dr. Sparks said, adding that “the most pressing need is to try to figure out how to protect our patients with rituximab.”

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry is supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Dr. Sparks disclosed serving as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. Dr. Wallace disclosed receiving grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and serving as a consultant for Viela Bio and Medpace for work unrelated to this study.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”

Dr. van Vollenhoven asked: “Could the practice of stopping these drugs upon COVID infection have a negative impact on the course?” To which Dr. Sparks responded: “The different half-life of drugs would be a promising avenue to look at, to see whether increases in disease activity might have imparted some of the effects we saw.”
 

Performing the analysis

As of April 12, 2021, the GRA Physician Registry contained the records of more than 15,000 patients. Dr. Sparks, collaborator Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates limited their analysis to 2,869 patients with RA who had been treated with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) at the time they were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We wanted to limit it to a single disease and also limit it to drugs that are considered for that disease,” Dr. Sparks explained in an interview.

“Because patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often treated sequentially, we wanted to further limit the analysis to patients who were on advanced therapies so that they were at a similar disease state, and also had the opportunity to receive advanced therapies.”

This approach hopefully minimizes the possibility of confounding by indication, Dr. Sparks said.

Most of the patients included in the analysis had received a TNFi (n = 1,388), and they were used as the control arm of the analysis. Outcomes associated with treatment with the other b/tsDMARDs, which included abatacept (n = 237), rituximab (n = 364), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i; n = 317), and JAKi (n = 563), were then compared with TNFi.

Baseline characteristics of patients were broadly similar across the groups. The mean age was 56.7 years and 80.8% of the study population was female. There were a few expected differences among users of rituximab versus TNFi, notably a higher percentage of patients with interstitial lung disease (11% vs. 1.4% of TNFi users) or cancer (7.4% vs. 0.9%) among patients treated with rituximab since it is commonly used in these patients, Dr. Sparks said.

“We did perform a sensitivity analysis where we restricted the population to not having ILD or cancer and we actually found really similar findings,” he added.

Four COVID-19 outcomes assessed

The researchers used a four-point ordinal scale modeled after one set by the World Health Organization to assess four COVID-19 outcomes: not hospitalized, hospitalized without oxygenation, hospitalized with oxygenation or ventilation, and death.

Odds ratios (ORs) comparing rituximab to TNFi for these four COVID-19 outcomes were a respective 4.53, 2.87, 4.05, and 4.57. The ORs for JAKi versus TNFi were a respective 2.4, 1.55, 2.03, and 2.04.

“We found no consistent associations of abatacept or interleukin-6 inhibitors with COVID-19 severity, compared to TNF inhibitors,” which is reassuring, Dr. Sparks said.

ORs for the four COVID-19 outcomes with abatacept were a respective 1.18, 1.12, 1.41, and 1.46, and for IL-6i were 0.84, 0.72, 0.75, and 1.13.

Rituximab use in patients with RA who develop COVID-19

So, should rituximab be stopped in patients with RA if they develop COVID-19? “This is an important question and one that would be decided on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Sparks said. “Of course, the drug has a very long half-life, so risk mitigation strategies are still of utmost importance,” he added.

“I think everyone’s a bit reticent to want to start rituximab in this environment, but it might also make me pause about starting a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Sparks added. “Given that this is a first finding, I’m not sure I would necessarily change patients who are doing well on these medications. I think what it really makes me want to do is to try to obviously vaccinate the patients on JAK inhibitors as they do have a short half-life.”

More observational studies would be helpful, Dr. Sparks said, adding that “the most pressing need is to try to figure out how to protect our patients with rituximab.”

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry is supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Dr. Sparks disclosed serving as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. Dr. Wallace disclosed receiving grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and serving as a consultant for Viela Bio and Medpace for work unrelated to this study.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”

Dr. van Vollenhoven asked: “Could the practice of stopping these drugs upon COVID infection have a negative impact on the course?” To which Dr. Sparks responded: “The different half-life of drugs would be a promising avenue to look at, to see whether increases in disease activity might have imparted some of the effects we saw.”
 

Performing the analysis

As of April 12, 2021, the GRA Physician Registry contained the records of more than 15,000 patients. Dr. Sparks, collaborator Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates limited their analysis to 2,869 patients with RA who had been treated with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) at the time they were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We wanted to limit it to a single disease and also limit it to drugs that are considered for that disease,” Dr. Sparks explained in an interview.

“Because patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often treated sequentially, we wanted to further limit the analysis to patients who were on advanced therapies so that they were at a similar disease state, and also had the opportunity to receive advanced therapies.”

This approach hopefully minimizes the possibility of confounding by indication, Dr. Sparks said.

Most of the patients included in the analysis had received a TNFi (n = 1,388), and they were used as the control arm of the analysis. Outcomes associated with treatment with the other b/tsDMARDs, which included abatacept (n = 237), rituximab (n = 364), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i; n = 317), and JAKi (n = 563), were then compared with TNFi.

Baseline characteristics of patients were broadly similar across the groups. The mean age was 56.7 years and 80.8% of the study population was female. There were a few expected differences among users of rituximab versus TNFi, notably a higher percentage of patients with interstitial lung disease (11% vs. 1.4% of TNFi users) or cancer (7.4% vs. 0.9%) among patients treated with rituximab since it is commonly used in these patients, Dr. Sparks said.

“We did perform a sensitivity analysis where we restricted the population to not having ILD or cancer and we actually found really similar findings,” he added.

Four COVID-19 outcomes assessed

The researchers used a four-point ordinal scale modeled after one set by the World Health Organization to assess four COVID-19 outcomes: not hospitalized, hospitalized without oxygenation, hospitalized with oxygenation or ventilation, and death.

Odds ratios (ORs) comparing rituximab to TNFi for these four COVID-19 outcomes were a respective 4.53, 2.87, 4.05, and 4.57. The ORs for JAKi versus TNFi were a respective 2.4, 1.55, 2.03, and 2.04.

“We found no consistent associations of abatacept or interleukin-6 inhibitors with COVID-19 severity, compared to TNF inhibitors,” which is reassuring, Dr. Sparks said.

ORs for the four COVID-19 outcomes with abatacept were a respective 1.18, 1.12, 1.41, and 1.46, and for IL-6i were 0.84, 0.72, 0.75, and 1.13.

Rituximab use in patients with RA who develop COVID-19

So, should rituximab be stopped in patients with RA if they develop COVID-19? “This is an important question and one that would be decided on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Sparks said. “Of course, the drug has a very long half-life, so risk mitigation strategies are still of utmost importance,” he added.

“I think everyone’s a bit reticent to want to start rituximab in this environment, but it might also make me pause about starting a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Sparks added. “Given that this is a first finding, I’m not sure I would necessarily change patients who are doing well on these medications. I think what it really makes me want to do is to try to obviously vaccinate the patients on JAK inhibitors as they do have a short half-life.”

More observational studies would be helpful, Dr. Sparks said, adding that “the most pressing need is to try to figure out how to protect our patients with rituximab.”

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry is supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Dr. Sparks disclosed serving as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. Dr. Wallace disclosed receiving grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and serving as a consultant for Viela Bio and Medpace for work unrelated to this study.

Women with osteoporosis, low bone density, or a previous vertebral fracture show significant increases in the risk of hearing loss compared to those without osteoporosis, according to a new study with more than 3 decades of follow-up.

The use of bisphosphonate therapy did not alter the risk, the researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large longitudinal study to evaluate the relations of bone density, bisphosphonate use, fractures, and risk of hearing loss,” reported Sharon Curhan, MD, and colleagues in research published online in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.

“In this large nationwide longitudinal study of nearly 144,000 women with up to 34 years of follow-up, we found that osteoporosis or low bone density was independently associated with higher risk of incident moderate or worse hearing loss,” the authors wrote.

“The magnitude of the elevated risk was similar among women who did and did not use bisphosphonates,” they added.
 

Participants were from the nurses’ health study and NHS II

With recent research suggesting a potential link between bisphosphonate use and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss in mice, Dr. Curhan, of the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues turned to the large longitudinal cohorts of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), conducted from 1982 to 2016, and the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), from 1995 to 2017.

In total, the primary analysis included 60,821 women in the NHS and 83,078 in the NHS II.

Women in the NHS were aged 36-61 years at baseline and 70-95 years at the end of follow-up, while in the NHS II, women were aged 31-48 years at baseline and 53-70 years at the end of follow-up.

After multivariate adjustment for key factors including age, race/ethnicity, oral hormone use, and a variety of other factors, women in the NHS with osteoporosis had an increased risk of moderate or worse hearing loss, as self-reported every 2 years, compared to those without osteoporosis (relative risk, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.19).

And in the NHS II, which also included data on low bone density, the risk of self-reported hearing loss was higher among those with osteoporosis or low bone density (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

No significant differences were observed in hearing loss risk based on whether women were treated with bisphosphonates, with the mean duration of use of the medication being 5.8 years in the NHS and 3.4 years in the NHS II.

Those who sustained a vertebral fracture also had a higher risk of hearing loss in both studies (NHS: RR, 1.31; NHS II: RR, 1.39).

However, the increased risk of hearing loss was not observed with hip fracture.

“Our findings of up to a 40% higher risk among women with vertebral fracture, but not hip fracture, were intriguing and merit further study,” the authors noted.

“The discordant findings between these skeletal sites may reflect differences in composition and metabolism of bones in the spine and hip and could provide insight into the pathophysiological changes in the ear that may lead to hearing loss,” they added.
 

Audiometric subanalysis

In an analysis of a subcohort of 3,749 women looking at audiometric thresholds for a more precise measure of hearing loss, women with osteoporosis or low bone density continued to show significantly worse hearing loss when treated with bisphosphonates compared to those without osteoporosis or low bone density.

However, there were no significant hearing loss differences among those with osteoporosis who did not take bisphosphonates versus those without osteoporosis.

The authors speculate that the use of bisphosphonates could have been indicative of more severe osteoporosis, hence the poorer audiometric thresholds.

In an interview, Dr. Curhan said the details of bisphosphonate use, such as type and duration, and their role in hearing loss should be further evaluated.

“Possibly, a potential influence of bisphosphonates on the relation of osteoporosis and hearing loss in humans may depend on the type, dose, and timing of bisphosphonate administration,” she observed. “This is an important question for further study.”
 

Mechanisms: Bone loss may extend to ear structures

In terms of the mechanisms linking osteoporosis itself to hearing loss, the authors noted that bone loss, in addition to compromising more prominent skeletal sites, could logically extend to bone-related structures in the ear.

“Bone mass at peripheral sites is correlated with bone mass at central sites, such as hip and spine, with correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.7,” they explained. “Plausibly, systemic bone demineralization could involve the temporal bone, the otic capsule, and the middle ear ossicles.”

They noted that hearing loss has been linked to other pathologic bone disorders, including otosclerosis and Paget disease.

Furthermore, imbalances in bone formation and resorption in osteoporosis may lead to alterations in ionic metabolism, which can lead to hearing loss.

Looking ahead, Dr. Curhan and colleagues plan to further examine whether calcium and vitamin D, which are associated with the prevention of osteoporosis, have a role in preventing hearing loss.

In the meantime, the findings underscore that clinicians treating patients with osteoporosis should routinely check patients’ hearing, Dr. Curhan said.

“Undetected and untreated hearing loss can adversely impact social interactions, physical and mental well-being, and daily life,” she said.

“Early detection of hearing loss offers greater opportunity for successful management and to learn strategies for rehabilitation and prevention of further progression.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health.
 

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

Women with osteoporosis, low bone density, or a previous vertebral fracture show significant increases in the risk of hearing loss compared to those without osteoporosis, according to a new study with more than 3 decades of follow-up.

The use of bisphosphonate therapy did not alter the risk, the researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large longitudinal study to evaluate the relations of bone density, bisphosphonate use, fractures, and risk of hearing loss,” reported Sharon Curhan, MD, and colleagues in research published online in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.

“In this large nationwide longitudinal study of nearly 144,000 women with up to 34 years of follow-up, we found that osteoporosis or low bone density was independently associated with higher risk of incident moderate or worse hearing loss,” the authors wrote.

“The magnitude of the elevated risk was similar among women who did and did not use bisphosphonates,” they added.
 

Participants were from the nurses’ health study and NHS II

With recent research suggesting a potential link between bisphosphonate use and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss in mice, Dr. Curhan, of the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues turned to the large longitudinal cohorts of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), conducted from 1982 to 2016, and the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), from 1995 to 2017.

In total, the primary analysis included 60,821 women in the NHS and 83,078 in the NHS II.

Women in the NHS were aged 36-61 years at baseline and 70-95 years at the end of follow-up, while in the NHS II, women were aged 31-48 years at baseline and 53-70 years at the end of follow-up.

After multivariate adjustment for key factors including age, race/ethnicity, oral hormone use, and a variety of other factors, women in the NHS with osteoporosis had an increased risk of moderate or worse hearing loss, as self-reported every 2 years, compared to those without osteoporosis (relative risk, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.19).

And in the NHS II, which also included data on low bone density, the risk of self-reported hearing loss was higher among those with osteoporosis or low bone density (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

No significant differences were observed in hearing loss risk based on whether women were treated with bisphosphonates, with the mean duration of use of the medication being 5.8 years in the NHS and 3.4 years in the NHS II.

Those who sustained a vertebral fracture also had a higher risk of hearing loss in both studies (NHS: RR, 1.31; NHS II: RR, 1.39).

However, the increased risk of hearing loss was not observed with hip fracture.

“Our findings of up to a 40% higher risk among women with vertebral fracture, but not hip fracture, were intriguing and merit further study,” the authors noted.

“The discordant findings between these skeletal sites may reflect differences in composition and metabolism of bones in the spine and hip and could provide insight into the pathophysiological changes in the ear that may lead to hearing loss,” they added.
 

Audiometric subanalysis

In an analysis of a subcohort of 3,749 women looking at audiometric thresholds for a more precise measure of hearing loss, women with osteoporosis or low bone density continued to show significantly worse hearing loss when treated with bisphosphonates compared to those without osteoporosis or low bone density.

However, there were no significant hearing loss differences among those with osteoporosis who did not take bisphosphonates versus those without osteoporosis.

The authors speculate that the use of bisphosphonates could have been indicative of more severe osteoporosis, hence the poorer audiometric thresholds.

In an interview, Dr. Curhan said the details of bisphosphonate use, such as type and duration, and their role in hearing loss should be further evaluated.

“Possibly, a potential influence of bisphosphonates on the relation of osteoporosis and hearing loss in humans may depend on the type, dose, and timing of bisphosphonate administration,” she observed. “This is an important question for further study.”
 

Mechanisms: Bone loss may extend to ear structures

In terms of the mechanisms linking osteoporosis itself to hearing loss, the authors noted that bone loss, in addition to compromising more prominent skeletal sites, could logically extend to bone-related structures in the ear.

“Bone mass at peripheral sites is correlated with bone mass at central sites, such as hip and spine, with correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.7,” they explained. “Plausibly, systemic bone demineralization could involve the temporal bone, the otic capsule, and the middle ear ossicles.”

They noted that hearing loss has been linked to other pathologic bone disorders, including otosclerosis and Paget disease.

Furthermore, imbalances in bone formation and resorption in osteoporosis may lead to alterations in ionic metabolism, which can lead to hearing loss.

Looking ahead, Dr. Curhan and colleagues plan to further examine whether calcium and vitamin D, which are associated with the prevention of osteoporosis, have a role in preventing hearing loss.

In the meantime, the findings underscore that clinicians treating patients with osteoporosis should routinely check patients’ hearing, Dr. Curhan said.

“Undetected and untreated hearing loss can adversely impact social interactions, physical and mental well-being, and daily life,” she said.

“Early detection of hearing loss offers greater opportunity for successful management and to learn strategies for rehabilitation and prevention of further progression.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health.
 

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

Women with osteoporosis, low bone density, or a previous vertebral fracture show significant increases in the risk of hearing loss compared to those without osteoporosis, according to a new study with more than 3 decades of follow-up.

The use of bisphosphonate therapy did not alter the risk, the researchers found.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large longitudinal study to evaluate the relations of bone density, bisphosphonate use, fractures, and risk of hearing loss,” reported Sharon Curhan, MD, and colleagues in research published online in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society.

“In this large nationwide longitudinal study of nearly 144,000 women with up to 34 years of follow-up, we found that osteoporosis or low bone density was independently associated with higher risk of incident moderate or worse hearing loss,” the authors wrote.

“The magnitude of the elevated risk was similar among women who did and did not use bisphosphonates,” they added.
 

Participants were from the nurses’ health study and NHS II

With recent research suggesting a potential link between bisphosphonate use and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss in mice, Dr. Curhan, of the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues turned to the large longitudinal cohorts of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), conducted from 1982 to 2016, and the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), from 1995 to 2017.

In total, the primary analysis included 60,821 women in the NHS and 83,078 in the NHS II.

Women in the NHS were aged 36-61 years at baseline and 70-95 years at the end of follow-up, while in the NHS II, women were aged 31-48 years at baseline and 53-70 years at the end of follow-up.

After multivariate adjustment for key factors including age, race/ethnicity, oral hormone use, and a variety of other factors, women in the NHS with osteoporosis had an increased risk of moderate or worse hearing loss, as self-reported every 2 years, compared to those without osteoporosis (relative risk, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.19).

And in the NHS II, which also included data on low bone density, the risk of self-reported hearing loss was higher among those with osteoporosis or low bone density (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

No significant differences were observed in hearing loss risk based on whether women were treated with bisphosphonates, with the mean duration of use of the medication being 5.8 years in the NHS and 3.4 years in the NHS II.

Those who sustained a vertebral fracture also had a higher risk of hearing loss in both studies (NHS: RR, 1.31; NHS II: RR, 1.39).

However, the increased risk of hearing loss was not observed with hip fracture.

“Our findings of up to a 40% higher risk among women with vertebral fracture, but not hip fracture, were intriguing and merit further study,” the authors noted.

“The discordant findings between these skeletal sites may reflect differences in composition and metabolism of bones in the spine and hip and could provide insight into the pathophysiological changes in the ear that may lead to hearing loss,” they added.
 

Audiometric subanalysis

In an analysis of a subcohort of 3,749 women looking at audiometric thresholds for a more precise measure of hearing loss, women with osteoporosis or low bone density continued to show significantly worse hearing loss when treated with bisphosphonates compared to those without osteoporosis or low bone density.

However, there were no significant hearing loss differences among those with osteoporosis who did not take bisphosphonates versus those without osteoporosis.

The authors speculate that the use of bisphosphonates could have been indicative of more severe osteoporosis, hence the poorer audiometric thresholds.

In an interview, Dr. Curhan said the details of bisphosphonate use, such as type and duration, and their role in hearing loss should be further evaluated.

“Possibly, a potential influence of bisphosphonates on the relation of osteoporosis and hearing loss in humans may depend on the type, dose, and timing of bisphosphonate administration,” she observed. “This is an important question for further study.”
 

Mechanisms: Bone loss may extend to ear structures

In terms of the mechanisms linking osteoporosis itself to hearing loss, the authors noted that bone loss, in addition to compromising more prominent skeletal sites, could logically extend to bone-related structures in the ear.

“Bone mass at peripheral sites is correlated with bone mass at central sites, such as hip and spine, with correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.7,” they explained. “Plausibly, systemic bone demineralization could involve the temporal bone, the otic capsule, and the middle ear ossicles.”

They noted that hearing loss has been linked to other pathologic bone disorders, including otosclerosis and Paget disease.

Furthermore, imbalances in bone formation and resorption in osteoporosis may lead to alterations in ionic metabolism, which can lead to hearing loss.

Looking ahead, Dr. Curhan and colleagues plan to further examine whether calcium and vitamin D, which are associated with the prevention of osteoporosis, have a role in preventing hearing loss.

In the meantime, the findings underscore that clinicians treating patients with osteoporosis should routinely check patients’ hearing, Dr. Curhan said.

“Undetected and untreated hearing loss can adversely impact social interactions, physical and mental well-being, and daily life,” she said.

“Early detection of hearing loss offers greater opportunity for successful management and to learn strategies for rehabilitation and prevention of further progression.”

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health.
 

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

A group of 117 people who work at the Houston Methodist Health System has filed a lawsuit against the medical center, objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.

Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.

Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.

“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.

Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.

The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.

The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.

That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.

The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.

The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.

It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.

Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.

Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.

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

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) has included more drugs and data and is moving toward a slightly more stepped approach to treating some forms of psoriatic disease in the latest iteration of their recommendations.

“There’s been an explosion over the last few years in terms of the number of medications,” available to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview ahead of presenting the draft recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The good thing about having more drugs is you’ve got more choice, but actually it makes these recommendations even more important because it becomes more complicated to choose optimal treatment for individuals,” added Dr. Coates, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford (England).

“We’ve been waiting for a while now for the new GRAPPA recommendations,” Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, of Sorbonne University and Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, said in a separate interview.

New overarching principle and position statements

The goal of the recommendations hasn’t really changed since the first iteration of the guidelines in 2009, Dr. Coates noted in her presentation. They are intended to provide clinicians with recommendations “based on the best available evidence” for the management of patients with psoriatic disease.

To that end, a through process was followed, starting with the setting of PICO (Patient/population/problem; intervention; comparison; outcome) questions followed by systematic literature searches, data extraction, and review that assess the quality of evidence and then grade it accordingly before using it to inform the recommendation statements.

There is a new overarching principle that says: “These recommendations, which include the most current data concerning the optimal assessment of and therapeutic approached to psoriatic arthritis, present contextual considerations to empower shared decision making.”

The other overarching principles remain the same as in the 2015 version, with “minor wording changes particularly around the comorbidities overarching principle,” Dr. Coates said.

Also new are two position statements. “One of them is specifically around biosimilars, because that’s been a big shift since 2015,” Dr. Coates said. “It has basic rules about what evidence there should be, what we should consider when we’re using them, and patient involvement and decision making.”

The second statement covers “similar advice on tapering or discontinuing therapy – what we do when people are doing really well, how we should stop or taper, and which drugs we should choose to stop along with shared decision making with patients.”

GRAPPA intentionally gives clinicians more freedom

While there may be data to show differences in efficacy and side effects between the various drugs cited in the recommendations, “GRAPPA makes the choice to not prioritize one drug over another,” Dr. Gossec said. This decision gives “a lot of freedom then to the physician to make the decision.”

One important change according to Dr. Gossec is that oral “NSAIDs have clearly been put back as first-line treatment, before going on to disease-modifying drugs for most of the musculoskeletal manifestations. She added that for skin manifestations, topical NSAIDs were recommended, but that NSAIDs were more recommended for IBD and uveitis of course.

“I feel that’s a big step towards more of a step-up approach,” Dr. Gossec said. “The old recommendations were not clear that you would precede an NSAID before moving on to a disease-modifying drug. So, I think that makes it a little bit more similar to the 2019 EULAR recommendations.” The use of csDMARDs such as methotrexate has also been “pushed up a notch” in peripheral arthritis, she said.

What’s next?

There are a few fine tunings still to be made before the final recommendations are published. They also have to be discussed at the meeting of the GRAPPA task force, which consists of rheumatologists, dermatologists, and patient representatives.

Besides the recommendations manuscript, there will be individual papers detailing the evidence underpinning the recommendations in each of the eight domains, Dr. Coates noted. Those “will look at relative efficacy in detail,” she said. “There will be a lot more discussion/evidence summary included” to help with drug selection.

“We also plan to have some case studies to illustrate how the recommendations can be used, similar to that included in the 2015 recommendations,” she added.

Paul Studenic, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Medical University of Vienna, tweeted that the GRAPPA recommendations showed treatment “needs to be tailored to the patient” taking “comorbidities as well as the heterogeneity of features of the clinical presentation into account.”

He said in an interview: “The third edition of the GRAPPA is a huge collaborative effort.” The new overarching principle put the recommendations in the context of shared decision making and, he added, they emphasize an “integrated management plan taking not only ‘classical’-related manifestations like uveitis into account but [also] a spectrum of comorbidities and reproductive health.”

GRAPPA is a not-for-profit organization and receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Currently this includes AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sun Pharma with Galapagos and Nordic Bioscience as Innovation Partners. Dr. Coates acknowledged receiving research funding, honoraria, speaker fees or all of these from most of the aforementioned companies.

Dr. Gossec has received research funding or other support from numerous pharmaceutical companies and is a member of GRAPPA and the task force that developed the EULAR guidelines on the pharmacological management of psoriatic arthritis.

Dr. Studenic had nothing to disclose.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) has included more drugs and data and is moving toward a slightly more stepped approach to treating some forms of psoriatic disease in the latest iteration of their recommendations.

“There’s been an explosion over the last few years in terms of the number of medications,” available to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview ahead of presenting the draft recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The good thing about having more drugs is you’ve got more choice, but actually it makes these recommendations even more important because it becomes more complicated to choose optimal treatment for individuals,” added Dr. Coates, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford (England).

“We’ve been waiting for a while now for the new GRAPPA recommendations,” Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, of Sorbonne University and Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, said in a separate interview.

New overarching principle and position statements

The goal of the recommendations hasn’t really changed since the first iteration of the guidelines in 2009, Dr. Coates noted in her presentation. They are intended to provide clinicians with recommendations “based on the best available evidence” for the management of patients with psoriatic disease.

To that end, a through process was followed, starting with the setting of PICO (Patient/population/problem; intervention; comparison; outcome) questions followed by systematic literature searches, data extraction, and review that assess the quality of evidence and then grade it accordingly before using it to inform the recommendation statements.

There is a new overarching principle that says: “These recommendations, which include the most current data concerning the optimal assessment of and therapeutic approached to psoriatic arthritis, present contextual considerations to empower shared decision making.”

The other overarching principles remain the same as in the 2015 version, with “minor wording changes particularly around the comorbidities overarching principle,” Dr. Coates said.

Also new are two position statements. “One of them is specifically around biosimilars, because that’s been a big shift since 2015,” Dr. Coates said. “It has basic rules about what evidence there should be, what we should consider when we’re using them, and patient involvement and decision making.”

The second statement covers “similar advice on tapering or discontinuing therapy – what we do when people are doing really well, how we should stop or taper, and which drugs we should choose to stop along with shared decision making with patients.”

GRAPPA intentionally gives clinicians more freedom

While there may be data to show differences in efficacy and side effects between the various drugs cited in the recommendations, “GRAPPA makes the choice to not prioritize one drug over another,” Dr. Gossec said. This decision gives “a lot of freedom then to the physician to make the decision.”

One important change according to Dr. Gossec is that oral “NSAIDs have clearly been put back as first-line treatment, before going on to disease-modifying drugs for most of the musculoskeletal manifestations. She added that for skin manifestations, topical NSAIDs were recommended, but that NSAIDs were more recommended for IBD and uveitis of course.

“I feel that’s a big step towards more of a step-up approach,” Dr. Gossec said. “The old recommendations were not clear that you would precede an NSAID before moving on to a disease-modifying drug. So, I think that makes it a little bit more similar to the 2019 EULAR recommendations.” The use of csDMARDs such as methotrexate has also been “pushed up a notch” in peripheral arthritis, she said.

What’s next?

There are a few fine tunings still to be made before the final recommendations are published. They also have to be discussed at the meeting of the GRAPPA task force, which consists of rheumatologists, dermatologists, and patient representatives.

Besides the recommendations manuscript, there will be individual papers detailing the evidence underpinning the recommendations in each of the eight domains, Dr. Coates noted. Those “will look at relative efficacy in detail,” she said. “There will be a lot more discussion/evidence summary included” to help with drug selection.

“We also plan to have some case studies to illustrate how the recommendations can be used, similar to that included in the 2015 recommendations,” she added.

Paul Studenic, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Medical University of Vienna, tweeted that the GRAPPA recommendations showed treatment “needs to be tailored to the patient” taking “comorbidities as well as the heterogeneity of features of the clinical presentation into account.”

He said in an interview: “The third edition of the GRAPPA is a huge collaborative effort.” The new overarching principle put the recommendations in the context of shared decision making and, he added, they emphasize an “integrated management plan taking not only ‘classical’-related manifestations like uveitis into account but [also] a spectrum of comorbidities and reproductive health.”

GRAPPA is a not-for-profit organization and receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Currently this includes AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sun Pharma with Galapagos and Nordic Bioscience as Innovation Partners. Dr. Coates acknowledged receiving research funding, honoraria, speaker fees or all of these from most of the aforementioned companies.

Dr. Gossec has received research funding or other support from numerous pharmaceutical companies and is a member of GRAPPA and the task force that developed the EULAR guidelines on the pharmacological management of psoriatic arthritis.

Dr. Studenic had nothing to disclose.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) has included more drugs and data and is moving toward a slightly more stepped approach to treating some forms of psoriatic disease in the latest iteration of their recommendations.

“There’s been an explosion over the last few years in terms of the number of medications,” available to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview ahead of presenting the draft recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The good thing about having more drugs is you’ve got more choice, but actually it makes these recommendations even more important because it becomes more complicated to choose optimal treatment for individuals,” added Dr. Coates, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Oxford (England).

“We’ve been waiting for a while now for the new GRAPPA recommendations,” Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, of Sorbonne University and Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, said in a separate interview.

New overarching principle and position statements

The goal of the recommendations hasn’t really changed since the first iteration of the guidelines in 2009, Dr. Coates noted in her presentation. They are intended to provide clinicians with recommendations “based on the best available evidence” for the management of patients with psoriatic disease.

To that end, a through process was followed, starting with the setting of PICO (Patient/population/problem; intervention; comparison; outcome) questions followed by systematic literature searches, data extraction, and review that assess the quality of evidence and then grade it accordingly before using it to inform the recommendation statements.

There is a new overarching principle that says: “These recommendations, which include the most current data concerning the optimal assessment of and therapeutic approached to psoriatic arthritis, present contextual considerations to empower shared decision making.”

The other overarching principles remain the same as in the 2015 version, with “minor wording changes particularly around the comorbidities overarching principle,” Dr. Coates said.

Also new are two position statements. “One of them is specifically around biosimilars, because that’s been a big shift since 2015,” Dr. Coates said. “It has basic rules about what evidence there should be, what we should consider when we’re using them, and patient involvement and decision making.”

The second statement covers “similar advice on tapering or discontinuing therapy – what we do when people are doing really well, how we should stop or taper, and which drugs we should choose to stop along with shared decision making with patients.”

GRAPPA intentionally gives clinicians more freedom

While there may be data to show differences in efficacy and side effects between the various drugs cited in the recommendations, “GRAPPA makes the choice to not prioritize one drug over another,” Dr. Gossec said. This decision gives “a lot of freedom then to the physician to make the decision.”

One important change according to Dr. Gossec is that oral “NSAIDs have clearly been put back as first-line treatment, before going on to disease-modifying drugs for most of the musculoskeletal manifestations. She added that for skin manifestations, topical NSAIDs were recommended, but that NSAIDs were more recommended for IBD and uveitis of course.

“I feel that’s a big step towards more of a step-up approach,” Dr. Gossec said. “The old recommendations were not clear that you would precede an NSAID before moving on to a disease-modifying drug. So, I think that makes it a little bit more similar to the 2019 EULAR recommendations.” The use of csDMARDs such as methotrexate has also been “pushed up a notch” in peripheral arthritis, she said.

What’s next?

There are a few fine tunings still to be made before the final recommendations are published. They also have to be discussed at the meeting of the GRAPPA task force, which consists of rheumatologists, dermatologists, and patient representatives.

Besides the recommendations manuscript, there will be individual papers detailing the evidence underpinning the recommendations in each of the eight domains, Dr. Coates noted. Those “will look at relative efficacy in detail,” she said. “There will be a lot more discussion/evidence summary included” to help with drug selection.

“We also plan to have some case studies to illustrate how the recommendations can be used, similar to that included in the 2015 recommendations,” she added.

Paul Studenic, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Medical University of Vienna, tweeted that the GRAPPA recommendations showed treatment “needs to be tailored to the patient” taking “comorbidities as well as the heterogeneity of features of the clinical presentation into account.”

He said in an interview: “The third edition of the GRAPPA is a huge collaborative effort.” The new overarching principle put the recommendations in the context of shared decision making and, he added, they emphasize an “integrated management plan taking not only ‘classical’-related manifestations like uveitis into account but [also] a spectrum of comorbidities and reproductive health.”

GRAPPA is a not-for-profit organization and receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Currently this includes AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sun Pharma with Galapagos and Nordic Bioscience as Innovation Partners. Dr. Coates acknowledged receiving research funding, honoraria, speaker fees or all of these from most of the aforementioned companies.

Dr. Gossec has received research funding or other support from numerous pharmaceutical companies and is a member of GRAPPA and the task force that developed the EULAR guidelines on the pharmacological management of psoriatic arthritis.

Dr. Studenic had nothing to disclose.

Secondhand smoke exposure in both childhood and adulthood is associated with an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women, according to a study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“These results suggest that smoking by-products, whether actively or passively inhaled or absorbed, could generate autoimmunity, at least towards antigens involved in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis,” said Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, of the center for research in epidemiology and population health at the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif and of Beaujon Hospital at the University of Paris in Clichy, France.

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

Secondhand smoke exposure in both childhood and adulthood is associated with an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women, according to a study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“These results suggest that smoking by-products, whether actively or passively inhaled or absorbed, could generate autoimmunity, at least towards antigens involved in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis,” said Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, of the center for research in epidemiology and population health at the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif and of Beaujon Hospital at the University of Paris in Clichy, France.

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

Secondhand smoke exposure in both childhood and adulthood is associated with an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in women, according to a study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“These results suggest that smoking by-products, whether actively or passively inhaled or absorbed, could generate autoimmunity, at least towards antigens involved in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis,” said Yann Nguyen, MD, MPH, of the center for research in epidemiology and population health at the University of Paris-Saclay in Villejuif and of Beaujon Hospital at the University of Paris in Clichy, France.

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

As researchers learn more about the genetic etiology of immunopathology, they have been able to more clearly understand rare but debilitating autoinflammatory conditions in ways that have improved identification and management of these diseases. At this year’s European Congress of Rheumatology, two researchers outlined new recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for the management of two groups of such autoinflammatory diseases: interleukin-1-mediated and Type-I interferonopathies, and suspected macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

These are the first recommendations from EULAR for these diseases, according to Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, chair of the EULAR scientific program committee and scientific director of the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health in Madrid.

“They are rare diseases and there is a great need to standardize diagnosis and care for the safety and outcome of the patients,” Dr. Carmona said in an interview. “These diseases need deep expertise and so the experts are trying, they are still preliminary, to add clarity to their management.” Dr. Carmona was not involved with the development of the guidelines and moderated the session during which they were presented.

“The rapidly emerging knowledge of the genetic causes of novel systemic autoinflammatory diseases, which present typically in early childhood with severe and chronic systemic and organ-specific inflammation, linked the disease pathogenesis to the pathologic production of major proinflammatory cytokines,” presenter Raphaela Goldbach-Mansky, MD, a senior investigator and chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told congress attendees. This greater understanding led to the “targeted and anticytokine treatments that have changed patients’ lives,” she said.

The guidelines relied on the products of three working groups for each disease type. After meeting to come up with clinical questions, the groups each conducted systematic literature reviews through EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for publications dated from 1970 to August 2020 that excluded non-English-language studies, case reports, and animal model or basic science studies. They then met again to develop final consensus statements.

The interferonopathy and interleukin (IL)-1-mediated systemic autoinflammatory diseases (SAIDs) working groups met throughout 2020, and the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/ macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) working group met in March and April of 2021.

“One needs a lot of experience with these diseases to even think about them,” Dr. Carmona said. “We haven’t been presented yet with all the details of the recommendations, but we hope they are clear because they are much needed.”

She noted that these preliminary recommendations are based on the best available evidence to date along with expertise from multidisciplinary panels.

“We need to be acquainted with these recommendations, as the majority of us, either if we are pediatric or adult rheumatologists, will face some problem with these diseases at some point,” Dr. Carmona said.

IL-1-mediated SAIDs

Recommendations for IL-1-mediated SAIDs focused on mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS), cryopyrinopathies (CAPS), and deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist (DIRA). Presentation of these conditions involves chronic or intermittent flares of systemic and organ inflammation that can cause progressive organ damage, morbidity, and increased mortality if not treated. Diagnosis requires a multidisciplinary team whose evaluation should include disease-related complications and long-term care plans.

Diagnostic workup should include genetic testing using next-generation sequencing as this “facilitates initiation of targeted treatments, genetic counseling, and informs prognosis” for patients with CAPS, TRAPS, MKD, and DIRA, Erkan Demirkaya, MD, a scientist at the Children’s Health Research Institute and professor of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, told attendees. Evaluation should also include clinical workup that focuses on the extent of inflammatory organ involvement, and screening for disease- and treatment-related comorbidities.

“The goal of therapy is to control clinical signs and symptoms and normalize laboratory biomarkers of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Demirkaya said. Long-term monitoring goals should focus on the following:

• “Adequate treatment adjusted to the needs of the growing child and prevention of systemic and organ-specific inflammatory manifestations;
• Fostering of self-management skills and medical decision-making;
• Initiating a transition program to adult specialist care in adolescent patients.”

Type-1 interferonopathies

The recommendations for this disease group focused on chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperatures (CANDLE)/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS), STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI), and Aicardi-Goutières syndrome (AGS).

These patients similarly present with chronic and organ-specific inflammation that leads to progressive organ damage, morbidity, and higher mortality risk when not managed. Each of these diseases requires a confirmed genetic diagnosis so that treatments can be targeted and the patient receives appropriate genetic counseling, screening for complications, and information on prognosis, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said.

Treatment goals for type-1 interferonopathies are to “reduce systematic and organ inflammation to prevent or limit the development of progression of organ injury or damage and to improve quality of life,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky told attendees.

Each patient requires a multidisciplinary care provider team that conducts long-term monitoring of disease activity, damage to specific organs, and any treatment-related complications.
 

Management of HLH/MAS

Early recognition and management of HLH and MAS can be challenging because systemic hyperinflammation exists along an immunopathologic continuum with typically nonspecific clinical and laboratory findings, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, but holistic, longitudinal consideration of these findings “are recognizable and warrant prompt diagnostic evaluation.” Even if the patient does not meet all specific diagnostic criteria for HLH/MAS, it may be necessary to begin therapies, she said.

One important point to consider is that “systemic hyperinflammation can be associated with hyperferritinemia and can progress to life-threatening HLH/MAS,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said. Further, although “systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS can occur in nearly any inflammatory state,” certain common triggers and predisposing conditions can indicate the need to consider these conditions and begin appropriate treatment if needed. Part of effective management of systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS is determining any modifiable factors contributing to the disease and mitigating or treating those.

HLH/MAS requires urgent intervention based on the patient’s degree of inflammation and extent of organ dysfunction, the recommendations state. Treatment goals include preventing or limiting immunopathology, preserving the integrity of the diagnostic workup, and minimizing therapy-related toxicity.

Dr. Carmona, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky, and Dr. Demirkaya have reported no relevant financial relationships.


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

As researchers learn more about the genetic etiology of immunopathology, they have been able to more clearly understand rare but debilitating autoinflammatory conditions in ways that have improved identification and management of these diseases. At this year’s European Congress of Rheumatology, two researchers outlined new recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for the management of two groups of such autoinflammatory diseases: interleukin-1-mediated and Type-I interferonopathies, and suspected macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

These are the first recommendations from EULAR for these diseases, according to Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, chair of the EULAR scientific program committee and scientific director of the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health in Madrid.

“They are rare diseases and there is a great need to standardize diagnosis and care for the safety and outcome of the patients,” Dr. Carmona said in an interview. “These diseases need deep expertise and so the experts are trying, they are still preliminary, to add clarity to their management.” Dr. Carmona was not involved with the development of the guidelines and moderated the session during which they were presented.

“The rapidly emerging knowledge of the genetic causes of novel systemic autoinflammatory diseases, which present typically in early childhood with severe and chronic systemic and organ-specific inflammation, linked the disease pathogenesis to the pathologic production of major proinflammatory cytokines,” presenter Raphaela Goldbach-Mansky, MD, a senior investigator and chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told congress attendees. This greater understanding led to the “targeted and anticytokine treatments that have changed patients’ lives,” she said.

The guidelines relied on the products of three working groups for each disease type. After meeting to come up with clinical questions, the groups each conducted systematic literature reviews through EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for publications dated from 1970 to August 2020 that excluded non-English-language studies, case reports, and animal model or basic science studies. They then met again to develop final consensus statements.

The interferonopathy and interleukin (IL)-1-mediated systemic autoinflammatory diseases (SAIDs) working groups met throughout 2020, and the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/ macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) working group met in March and April of 2021.

“One needs a lot of experience with these diseases to even think about them,” Dr. Carmona said. “We haven’t been presented yet with all the details of the recommendations, but we hope they are clear because they are much needed.”

She noted that these preliminary recommendations are based on the best available evidence to date along with expertise from multidisciplinary panels.

“We need to be acquainted with these recommendations, as the majority of us, either if we are pediatric or adult rheumatologists, will face some problem with these diseases at some point,” Dr. Carmona said.

IL-1-mediated SAIDs

Recommendations for IL-1-mediated SAIDs focused on mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS), cryopyrinopathies (CAPS), and deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist (DIRA). Presentation of these conditions involves chronic or intermittent flares of systemic and organ inflammation that can cause progressive organ damage, morbidity, and increased mortality if not treated. Diagnosis requires a multidisciplinary team whose evaluation should include disease-related complications and long-term care plans.

Diagnostic workup should include genetic testing using next-generation sequencing as this “facilitates initiation of targeted treatments, genetic counseling, and informs prognosis” for patients with CAPS, TRAPS, MKD, and DIRA, Erkan Demirkaya, MD, a scientist at the Children’s Health Research Institute and professor of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, told attendees. Evaluation should also include clinical workup that focuses on the extent of inflammatory organ involvement, and screening for disease- and treatment-related comorbidities.

“The goal of therapy is to control clinical signs and symptoms and normalize laboratory biomarkers of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Demirkaya said. Long-term monitoring goals should focus on the following:

• “Adequate treatment adjusted to the needs of the growing child and prevention of systemic and organ-specific inflammatory manifestations;
• Fostering of self-management skills and medical decision-making;
• Initiating a transition program to adult specialist care in adolescent patients.”

Type-1 interferonopathies

The recommendations for this disease group focused on chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperatures (CANDLE)/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS), STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI), and Aicardi-Goutières syndrome (AGS).

These patients similarly present with chronic and organ-specific inflammation that leads to progressive organ damage, morbidity, and higher mortality risk when not managed. Each of these diseases requires a confirmed genetic diagnosis so that treatments can be targeted and the patient receives appropriate genetic counseling, screening for complications, and information on prognosis, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said.

Treatment goals for type-1 interferonopathies are to “reduce systematic and organ inflammation to prevent or limit the development of progression of organ injury or damage and to improve quality of life,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky told attendees.

Each patient requires a multidisciplinary care provider team that conducts long-term monitoring of disease activity, damage to specific organs, and any treatment-related complications.
 

Management of HLH/MAS

Early recognition and management of HLH and MAS can be challenging because systemic hyperinflammation exists along an immunopathologic continuum with typically nonspecific clinical and laboratory findings, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, but holistic, longitudinal consideration of these findings “are recognizable and warrant prompt diagnostic evaluation.” Even if the patient does not meet all specific diagnostic criteria for HLH/MAS, it may be necessary to begin therapies, she said.

One important point to consider is that “systemic hyperinflammation can be associated with hyperferritinemia and can progress to life-threatening HLH/MAS,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said. Further, although “systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS can occur in nearly any inflammatory state,” certain common triggers and predisposing conditions can indicate the need to consider these conditions and begin appropriate treatment if needed. Part of effective management of systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS is determining any modifiable factors contributing to the disease and mitigating or treating those.

HLH/MAS requires urgent intervention based on the patient’s degree of inflammation and extent of organ dysfunction, the recommendations state. Treatment goals include preventing or limiting immunopathology, preserving the integrity of the diagnostic workup, and minimizing therapy-related toxicity.

Dr. Carmona, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky, and Dr. Demirkaya have reported no relevant financial relationships.


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

As researchers learn more about the genetic etiology of immunopathology, they have been able to more clearly understand rare but debilitating autoinflammatory conditions in ways that have improved identification and management of these diseases. At this year’s European Congress of Rheumatology, two researchers outlined new recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for the management of two groups of such autoinflammatory diseases: interleukin-1-mediated and Type-I interferonopathies, and suspected macrophage activation syndrome and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.

These are the first recommendations from EULAR for these diseases, according to Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, chair of the EULAR scientific program committee and scientific director of the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health in Madrid.

“They are rare diseases and there is a great need to standardize diagnosis and care for the safety and outcome of the patients,” Dr. Carmona said in an interview. “These diseases need deep expertise and so the experts are trying, they are still preliminary, to add clarity to their management.” Dr. Carmona was not involved with the development of the guidelines and moderated the session during which they were presented.

“The rapidly emerging knowledge of the genetic causes of novel systemic autoinflammatory diseases, which present typically in early childhood with severe and chronic systemic and organ-specific inflammation, linked the disease pathogenesis to the pathologic production of major proinflammatory cytokines,” presenter Raphaela Goldbach-Mansky, MD, a senior investigator and chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told congress attendees. This greater understanding led to the “targeted and anticytokine treatments that have changed patients’ lives,” she said.

The guidelines relied on the products of three working groups for each disease type. After meeting to come up with clinical questions, the groups each conducted systematic literature reviews through EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for publications dated from 1970 to August 2020 that excluded non-English-language studies, case reports, and animal model or basic science studies. They then met again to develop final consensus statements.

The interferonopathy and interleukin (IL)-1-mediated systemic autoinflammatory diseases (SAIDs) working groups met throughout 2020, and the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/ macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) working group met in March and April of 2021.

“One needs a lot of experience with these diseases to even think about them,” Dr. Carmona said. “We haven’t been presented yet with all the details of the recommendations, but we hope they are clear because they are much needed.”

She noted that these preliminary recommendations are based on the best available evidence to date along with expertise from multidisciplinary panels.

“We need to be acquainted with these recommendations, as the majority of us, either if we are pediatric or adult rheumatologists, will face some problem with these diseases at some point,” Dr. Carmona said.

IL-1-mediated SAIDs

Recommendations for IL-1-mediated SAIDs focused on mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS), cryopyrinopathies (CAPS), and deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist (DIRA). Presentation of these conditions involves chronic or intermittent flares of systemic and organ inflammation that can cause progressive organ damage, morbidity, and increased mortality if not treated. Diagnosis requires a multidisciplinary team whose evaluation should include disease-related complications and long-term care plans.

Diagnostic workup should include genetic testing using next-generation sequencing as this “facilitates initiation of targeted treatments, genetic counseling, and informs prognosis” for patients with CAPS, TRAPS, MKD, and DIRA, Erkan Demirkaya, MD, a scientist at the Children’s Health Research Institute and professor of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, told attendees. Evaluation should also include clinical workup that focuses on the extent of inflammatory organ involvement, and screening for disease- and treatment-related comorbidities.

“The goal of therapy is to control clinical signs and symptoms and normalize laboratory biomarkers of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Demirkaya said. Long-term monitoring goals should focus on the following:

• “Adequate treatment adjusted to the needs of the growing child and prevention of systemic and organ-specific inflammatory manifestations;
• Fostering of self-management skills and medical decision-making;
• Initiating a transition program to adult specialist care in adolescent patients.”

Type-1 interferonopathies

The recommendations for this disease group focused on chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperatures (CANDLE)/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (PRAAS), STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI), and Aicardi-Goutières syndrome (AGS).

These patients similarly present with chronic and organ-specific inflammation that leads to progressive organ damage, morbidity, and higher mortality risk when not managed. Each of these diseases requires a confirmed genetic diagnosis so that treatments can be targeted and the patient receives appropriate genetic counseling, screening for complications, and information on prognosis, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said.

Treatment goals for type-1 interferonopathies are to “reduce systematic and organ inflammation to prevent or limit the development of progression of organ injury or damage and to improve quality of life,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky told attendees.

Each patient requires a multidisciplinary care provider team that conducts long-term monitoring of disease activity, damage to specific organs, and any treatment-related complications.
 

Management of HLH/MAS

Early recognition and management of HLH and MAS can be challenging because systemic hyperinflammation exists along an immunopathologic continuum with typically nonspecific clinical and laboratory findings, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, but holistic, longitudinal consideration of these findings “are recognizable and warrant prompt diagnostic evaluation.” Even if the patient does not meet all specific diagnostic criteria for HLH/MAS, it may be necessary to begin therapies, she said.

One important point to consider is that “systemic hyperinflammation can be associated with hyperferritinemia and can progress to life-threatening HLH/MAS,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said. Further, although “systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS can occur in nearly any inflammatory state,” certain common triggers and predisposing conditions can indicate the need to consider these conditions and begin appropriate treatment if needed. Part of effective management of systemic hyperinflammation and HLH/MAS is determining any modifiable factors contributing to the disease and mitigating or treating those.

HLH/MAS requires urgent intervention based on the patient’s degree of inflammation and extent of organ dysfunction, the recommendations state. Treatment goals include preventing or limiting immunopathology, preserving the integrity of the diagnostic workup, and minimizing therapy-related toxicity.

Dr. Carmona, Dr. Goldbach-Mansky, and Dr. Demirkaya have reported no relevant financial relationships.


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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who carry a specific allele of the gene MUC5B have about double the risk of developing interstitial lung disease when compared with noncarriers, according to a large Finnish biobank study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The risk difference [or carriers relative to noncarriers] started at about age 65, with a bigger difference [for] men than women,” reported Antti Palomäki, MD, PhD, of the center for rheumatology and clinical immunology at Turku (Finland) University.

The gain-of-function MUC5B variant, which encodes mucin 5B, was first linked to RA-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) more than 3 years ago. At that time, it was already a known genetic risk factor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the general population. The new data confirm the association in a longitudinal analysis of a large biobank and suggest the association might have clinical utility.

“This is not ready for clinical practice at the moment. We do not yet know whether we can change therapy to reduce risk,” Dr. Palomäki said, adding “in the future we can look.”

One question that might be asked in clinical studies using MUC5B as a tool to assess and modify risk of ILD in patients with RA is whether one therapy is better than another in avoiding or delaying development of lung fibrosis. Dr. Palomäki noted that biologics, for example, might be a more favorable choice in patients with RA who are at high risk of developing ILD.


The association of the MUC5B variant with increased ILD incidence in patients with RA was drawn from a data set known as FinnGen, a biobank collection of epidemiologic cohorts and hospital samples with genotypes of about 10% of the Finnish population. Follow-up extends to 46 years in some of these individuals.

When 248,4000 individuals in this data set were evaluated, 5,534 had a diagnosis of RA. Of these, 178 (3.2%) developed ILD. About 20% of both those with and without RA were MUC5B variant carriers, meaning the remainder were not.

Sex and age factor into lifetime risk

In patients with RA, the lifetime rate of ILD among MUC5B variant carriers was 16.8% versus only 6.1% among noncarriers. This finding translated into a hazard ratio for ILD of 2.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.75–2.96) for variant carriers versus noncarriers.

The lifetime rate of ILD in patients with RA was greater in men versus women regardless of carrier status (18.5% vs. 8.5%). For women, the lifetime rate was lower for carriers, although the difference relative to female noncarriers was greater (14.5% vs. 4.7%).

ILD, whether in the general population or in patients with RA, is a disease of advancing age. When Dr. Palomäki showed a graph, the rise in ILD incidence did not start in any population, whether those with or without RA and regardless of carrier status, until about age 55. In those without RA and in noncarriers of the variant, ILD incidence remained low and began a discernible climb at around age 70.

In those who did not have RA but were positive for the variant, the rates rose more than twice as fast, particularly after age 70. In people who had RA but not the variant, the rate of ILD was greater than in patients who carried the variant without RA, starting the climb earlier and rising more steeply with age. In those with RA and the variant, the climb in ILD incidence rose rapidly after age 65 years even though the incidence remained fairly similar between all of these groups at age 60.
 

Putting the findings into context

The need to develop ways to prevent ILD in RA is urgent. ILD is one of the most common extraarticular manifestations of RA, developing in up to 60% of patients with RA in older age groups when evaluated with imaging, according to Dr. Palomäki. Although it develops into a clinically significant complication in only about 10% of these patients, ILD still is a significant cause of illness and death in elderly patients with RA.

In the 2018 study that first linked the MUC5B variant to RA-ILD, the investigators also found that the variant was associated with an increased likelihood of developing the usual interstitial pneumonia type of ILD on imaging. David Schwartz, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary sciences, and critical care and chair of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, was a senior author of that study. He said these findings build on the 2018 study.

“While the gain-of-function MUC5B promoter variant is important in predicting who will develop RA-ILD, these findings also suggest that MUC5B may be involved in the etiology of RA-ILD, at least for those with the MUC5B variant,” he said.

“The study also raises the possibility that there are several subtypes of RA-ILD, and the subtype that is driven by MUC5B may respond differently to RA biologics or therapeutic agents to treat ILD,” he added.

In the discussion following the presentation by Dr. Palomäki, others agreed, with that statement including Dr. Palomäki. He expressed interest in clinical studies comparing different classes of RA therapies for their relative impact on the risk of developing ILD.Dr. Palomäki reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Schwartz is the founder of Eleven P15, which is developing methods for early diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who carry a specific allele of the gene MUC5B have about double the risk of developing interstitial lung disease when compared with noncarriers, according to a large Finnish biobank study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The risk difference [or carriers relative to noncarriers] started at about age 65, with a bigger difference [for] men than women,” reported Antti Palomäki, MD, PhD, of the center for rheumatology and clinical immunology at Turku (Finland) University.

The gain-of-function MUC5B variant, which encodes mucin 5B, was first linked to RA-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) more than 3 years ago. At that time, it was already a known genetic risk factor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the general population. The new data confirm the association in a longitudinal analysis of a large biobank and suggest the association might have clinical utility.

“This is not ready for clinical practice at the moment. We do not yet know whether we can change therapy to reduce risk,” Dr. Palomäki said, adding “in the future we can look.”

One question that might be asked in clinical studies using MUC5B as a tool to assess and modify risk of ILD in patients with RA is whether one therapy is better than another in avoiding or delaying development of lung fibrosis. Dr. Palomäki noted that biologics, for example, might be a more favorable choice in patients with RA who are at high risk of developing ILD.


The association of the MUC5B variant with increased ILD incidence in patients with RA was drawn from a data set known as FinnGen, a biobank collection of epidemiologic cohorts and hospital samples with genotypes of about 10% of the Finnish population. Follow-up extends to 46 years in some of these individuals.

When 248,4000 individuals in this data set were evaluated, 5,534 had a diagnosis of RA. Of these, 178 (3.2%) developed ILD. About 20% of both those with and without RA were MUC5B variant carriers, meaning the remainder were not.

Sex and age factor into lifetime risk

In patients with RA, the lifetime rate of ILD among MUC5B variant carriers was 16.8% versus only 6.1% among noncarriers. This finding translated into a hazard ratio for ILD of 2.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.75–2.96) for variant carriers versus noncarriers.

The lifetime rate of ILD in patients with RA was greater in men versus women regardless of carrier status (18.5% vs. 8.5%). For women, the lifetime rate was lower for carriers, although the difference relative to female noncarriers was greater (14.5% vs. 4.7%).

ILD, whether in the general population or in patients with RA, is a disease of advancing age. When Dr. Palomäki showed a graph, the rise in ILD incidence did not start in any population, whether those with or without RA and regardless of carrier status, until about age 55. In those without RA and in noncarriers of the variant, ILD incidence remained low and began a discernible climb at around age 70.

In those who did not have RA but were positive for the variant, the rates rose more than twice as fast, particularly after age 70. In people who had RA but not the variant, the rate of ILD was greater than in patients who carried the variant without RA, starting the climb earlier and rising more steeply with age. In those with RA and the variant, the climb in ILD incidence rose rapidly after age 65 years even though the incidence remained fairly similar between all of these groups at age 60.
 

Putting the findings into context

The need to develop ways to prevent ILD in RA is urgent. ILD is one of the most common extraarticular manifestations of RA, developing in up to 60% of patients with RA in older age groups when evaluated with imaging, according to Dr. Palomäki. Although it develops into a clinically significant complication in only about 10% of these patients, ILD still is a significant cause of illness and death in elderly patients with RA.

In the 2018 study that first linked the MUC5B variant to RA-ILD, the investigators also found that the variant was associated with an increased likelihood of developing the usual interstitial pneumonia type of ILD on imaging. David Schwartz, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary sciences, and critical care and chair of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, was a senior author of that study. He said these findings build on the 2018 study.

“While the gain-of-function MUC5B promoter variant is important in predicting who will develop RA-ILD, these findings also suggest that MUC5B may be involved in the etiology of RA-ILD, at least for those with the MUC5B variant,” he said.

“The study also raises the possibility that there are several subtypes of RA-ILD, and the subtype that is driven by MUC5B may respond differently to RA biologics or therapeutic agents to treat ILD,” he added.

In the discussion following the presentation by Dr. Palomäki, others agreed, with that statement including Dr. Palomäki. He expressed interest in clinical studies comparing different classes of RA therapies for their relative impact on the risk of developing ILD.Dr. Palomäki reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Schwartz is the founder of Eleven P15, which is developing methods for early diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who carry a specific allele of the gene MUC5B have about double the risk of developing interstitial lung disease when compared with noncarriers, according to a large Finnish biobank study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The risk difference [or carriers relative to noncarriers] started at about age 65, with a bigger difference [for] men than women,” reported Antti Palomäki, MD, PhD, of the center for rheumatology and clinical immunology at Turku (Finland) University.

The gain-of-function MUC5B variant, which encodes mucin 5B, was first linked to RA-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) more than 3 years ago. At that time, it was already a known genetic risk factor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the general population. The new data confirm the association in a longitudinal analysis of a large biobank and suggest the association might have clinical utility.

“This is not ready for clinical practice at the moment. We do not yet know whether we can change therapy to reduce risk,” Dr. Palomäki said, adding “in the future we can look.”

One question that might be asked in clinical studies using MUC5B as a tool to assess and modify risk of ILD in patients with RA is whether one therapy is better than another in avoiding or delaying development of lung fibrosis. Dr. Palomäki noted that biologics, for example, might be a more favorable choice in patients with RA who are at high risk of developing ILD.


The association of the MUC5B variant with increased ILD incidence in patients with RA was drawn from a data set known as FinnGen, a biobank collection of epidemiologic cohorts and hospital samples with genotypes of about 10% of the Finnish population. Follow-up extends to 46 years in some of these individuals.

When 248,4000 individuals in this data set were evaluated, 5,534 had a diagnosis of RA. Of these, 178 (3.2%) developed ILD. About 20% of both those with and without RA were MUC5B variant carriers, meaning the remainder were not.

Sex and age factor into lifetime risk

In patients with RA, the lifetime rate of ILD among MUC5B variant carriers was 16.8% versus only 6.1% among noncarriers. This finding translated into a hazard ratio for ILD of 2.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.75–2.96) for variant carriers versus noncarriers.

The lifetime rate of ILD in patients with RA was greater in men versus women regardless of carrier status (18.5% vs. 8.5%). For women, the lifetime rate was lower for carriers, although the difference relative to female noncarriers was greater (14.5% vs. 4.7%).

ILD, whether in the general population or in patients with RA, is a disease of advancing age. When Dr. Palomäki showed a graph, the rise in ILD incidence did not start in any population, whether those with or without RA and regardless of carrier status, until about age 55. In those without RA and in noncarriers of the variant, ILD incidence remained low and began a discernible climb at around age 70.

In those who did not have RA but were positive for the variant, the rates rose more than twice as fast, particularly after age 70. In people who had RA but not the variant, the rate of ILD was greater than in patients who carried the variant without RA, starting the climb earlier and rising more steeply with age. In those with RA and the variant, the climb in ILD incidence rose rapidly after age 65 years even though the incidence remained fairly similar between all of these groups at age 60.
 

Putting the findings into context

The need to develop ways to prevent ILD in RA is urgent. ILD is one of the most common extraarticular manifestations of RA, developing in up to 60% of patients with RA in older age groups when evaluated with imaging, according to Dr. Palomäki. Although it develops into a clinically significant complication in only about 10% of these patients, ILD still is a significant cause of illness and death in elderly patients with RA.

In the 2018 study that first linked the MUC5B variant to RA-ILD, the investigators also found that the variant was associated with an increased likelihood of developing the usual interstitial pneumonia type of ILD on imaging. David Schwartz, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary sciences, and critical care and chair of the department of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, was a senior author of that study. He said these findings build on the 2018 study.

“While the gain-of-function MUC5B promoter variant is important in predicting who will develop RA-ILD, these findings also suggest that MUC5B may be involved in the etiology of RA-ILD, at least for those with the MUC5B variant,” he said.

“The study also raises the possibility that there are several subtypes of RA-ILD, and the subtype that is driven by MUC5B may respond differently to RA biologics or therapeutic agents to treat ILD,” he added.

In the discussion following the presentation by Dr. Palomäki, others agreed, with that statement including Dr. Palomäki. He expressed interest in clinical studies comparing different classes of RA therapies for their relative impact on the risk of developing ILD.Dr. Palomäki reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Schwartz is the founder of Eleven P15, which is developing methods for early diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) adversely affected maternal outcomes in pregnant women; however, there was no adverse effect on neonatal outcomes.

Major finding: The risk for cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.66), preterm birth (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.78), preeclampsia (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13-1.85), and gestational hypertension (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.06) was significantly higher in pregnant women with PsA vs. general population. However, no statistically increased risk for fetal complications was observed in women with PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 16 observational studies including more than 46,909 cases of psoriasis/PsA with over 53,541 pregnancies and more than 4,771,352 healthy controls with over 8,044,996 pregnancies.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. All authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xie W et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 20. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab357.

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) adversely affected maternal outcomes in pregnant women; however, there was no adverse effect on neonatal outcomes.

Major finding: The risk for cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.66), preterm birth (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.78), preeclampsia (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13-1.85), and gestational hypertension (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.06) was significantly higher in pregnant women with PsA vs. general population. However, no statistically increased risk for fetal complications was observed in women with PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 16 observational studies including more than 46,909 cases of psoriasis/PsA with over 53,541 pregnancies and more than 4,771,352 healthy controls with over 8,044,996 pregnancies.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. All authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xie W et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 20. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab357.

Key clinical point: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) adversely affected maternal outcomes in pregnant women; however, there was no adverse effect on neonatal outcomes.

Major finding: The risk for cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.66), preterm birth (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.78), preeclampsia (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13-1.85), and gestational hypertension (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.06) was significantly higher in pregnant women with PsA vs. general population. However, no statistically increased risk for fetal complications was observed in women with PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 16 observational studies including more than 46,909 cases of psoriasis/PsA with over 53,541 pregnancies and more than 4,771,352 healthy controls with over 8,044,996 pregnancies.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. All authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xie W et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 20. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab357.

Key clinical point: Joint tenderness showed poor association with imaging signs of inflammation in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Tender or swollen joint count showed no significant correlations with imaging inflammation sum-scores. Negligible to weak correlation (rho, −0.31 to 0.38) was observed between imaging inflammation sum-scores and the respective clinical joint counts, patient-reported outcomes, and composite scores with no consistently significant results.

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study of 41 patients with active PsA assessed by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for joint swelling.

Disclosures: The study was financially supported by AbbVie. Some of the authors reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and speaker fees from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Felbo SK et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 24. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab384.

Key clinical point: Joint tenderness showed poor association with imaging signs of inflammation in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Tender or swollen joint count showed no significant correlations with imaging inflammation sum-scores. Negligible to weak correlation (rho, −0.31 to 0.38) was observed between imaging inflammation sum-scores and the respective clinical joint counts, patient-reported outcomes, and composite scores with no consistently significant results.

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study of 41 patients with active PsA assessed by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for joint swelling.

Disclosures: The study was financially supported by AbbVie. Some of the authors reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and speaker fees from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Felbo SK et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 24. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab384.

Key clinical point: Joint tenderness showed poor association with imaging signs of inflammation in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Tender or swollen joint count showed no significant correlations with imaging inflammation sum-scores. Negligible to weak correlation (rho, −0.31 to 0.38) was observed between imaging inflammation sum-scores and the respective clinical joint counts, patient-reported outcomes, and composite scores with no consistently significant results.

Study details: This was a cross-sectional study of 41 patients with active PsA assessed by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for joint swelling.

Disclosures: The study was financially supported by AbbVie. Some of the authors reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and speaker fees from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Felbo SK et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Apr 24. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab384.