Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.

mdrheum
Main menu
MD Rheumatology Main Menu
Explore menu
MD Rheumatology Explore Menu
Proclivity ID
18853001
Unpublish
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
div[contains(@class, 'medstat-accordion-set article-series')]
Altmetric
Click for Credit Button Label
Click For Credit
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Disqus Exclude
Best Practices
CE/CME
Education Center
Medical Education Library
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
News
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
Publication LayerRX Default ID
975
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Expire Announcement Bar
Wed, 12/18/2024 - 09:39
Use larger logo size
On
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Challenge Center
Disable Inline Native ads
survey writer start date
Wed, 12/18/2024 - 09:39

MRI-detected tenosynovitis can predict early RA

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected tenosynovitis is highly predictive of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), irrespective of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) status.

Major finding: The sensitivity of imaging-detected tenosynovitis was high for both, ACPA-positive RA (88%) and ACPA-negative RA (82%). The sensitivity of MRI-detected tenosynovitis for RA was significantly higher than that for psoriatic arthritis (65%; P = .001), peripheral spondylarthritis (53%; P less than .001), reactive arthritis (36%; P less than .001), and self-limiting undifferentiated arthritis (42%; P less than .001).

Study details: The data come from a large cross-sectional MRI study of 1,211 consecutive patients with early arthritis who underwent contrast-enhanced 1.5T MRI of hand and foot at diagnosis.

Disclosures: The study received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Matthijssen XME et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Feb 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219302.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected tenosynovitis is highly predictive of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), irrespective of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) status.

Major finding: The sensitivity of imaging-detected tenosynovitis was high for both, ACPA-positive RA (88%) and ACPA-negative RA (82%). The sensitivity of MRI-detected tenosynovitis for RA was significantly higher than that for psoriatic arthritis (65%; P = .001), peripheral spondylarthritis (53%; P less than .001), reactive arthritis (36%; P less than .001), and self-limiting undifferentiated arthritis (42%; P less than .001).

Study details: The data come from a large cross-sectional MRI study of 1,211 consecutive patients with early arthritis who underwent contrast-enhanced 1.5T MRI of hand and foot at diagnosis.

Disclosures: The study received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Matthijssen XME et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Feb 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219302.

Key clinical point: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected tenosynovitis is highly predictive of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), irrespective of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) status.

Major finding: The sensitivity of imaging-detected tenosynovitis was high for both, ACPA-positive RA (88%) and ACPA-negative RA (82%). The sensitivity of MRI-detected tenosynovitis for RA was significantly higher than that for psoriatic arthritis (65%; P = .001), peripheral spondylarthritis (53%; P less than .001), reactive arthritis (36%; P less than .001), and self-limiting undifferentiated arthritis (42%; P less than .001).

Study details: The data come from a large cross-sectional MRI study of 1,211 consecutive patients with early arthritis who underwent contrast-enhanced 1.5T MRI of hand and foot at diagnosis.

Disclosures: The study received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Matthijssen XME et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Feb 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219302.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:15
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:15
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Nonsurgical periodontal treatment could improve disease activity in RA patients with periodontitis

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: Nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) was associated with a significant reduction in disease activity score (DAS28), tender joint counts (TJC), swollen joint counts (SJC), visual analogical scale (VAS), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontitis.

Major finding: NSPT significantly reduced DAS28 (P less than .001), TJC (P less than .001), SJC (P = .008), VAS (P = .02), and CRP (P = .01) in patients with RA and periodontitis.

Study details: Data come from a meta-analysis of 9 studies that compared RA-related indicator changes between NSPT and no treatment groups.

Disclosures: The work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China, and the Science and Technology Foundation of Tianjin Health Commission, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun J et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jan 29. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03807-w.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) was associated with a significant reduction in disease activity score (DAS28), tender joint counts (TJC), swollen joint counts (SJC), visual analogical scale (VAS), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontitis.

Major finding: NSPT significantly reduced DAS28 (P less than .001), TJC (P less than .001), SJC (P = .008), VAS (P = .02), and CRP (P = .01) in patients with RA and periodontitis.

Study details: Data come from a meta-analysis of 9 studies that compared RA-related indicator changes between NSPT and no treatment groups.

Disclosures: The work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China, and the Science and Technology Foundation of Tianjin Health Commission, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun J et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jan 29. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03807-w.

Key clinical point: Nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) was associated with a significant reduction in disease activity score (DAS28), tender joint counts (TJC), swollen joint counts (SJC), visual analogical scale (VAS), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontitis.

Major finding: NSPT significantly reduced DAS28 (P less than .001), TJC (P less than .001), SJC (P = .008), VAS (P = .02), and CRP (P = .01) in patients with RA and periodontitis.

Study details: Data come from a meta-analysis of 9 studies that compared RA-related indicator changes between NSPT and no treatment groups.

Disclosures: The work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin, China, and the Science and Technology Foundation of Tianjin Health Commission, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sun J et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jan 29. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03807-w.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:00
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:00
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:00
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

MIS-C follow-up proves challenging across pediatric hospitals

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 08/26/2021 - 15:50

The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.

Geber86/Getty Images

But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.

The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.

“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”

Dr. Samina S. Bhumbra


By July, the American College of Rheumatology had issued interim clinical guidance for management that most children’s hospitals have followed or slightly adapted. But ACR guidelines could not address how each institution should handle outpatient follow-up visits, especially since those visits required, again, at least cardiology and rheumatology if not infectious disease or other specialties as well.

“When their kids are admitted to the hospital, to be told at discharge you have to be followed up by all these specialists is a lot to handle,” Dr. Bhumbra said. But just as it’s difficult for parents to deal with the need to see several different doctors after discharge, it can be difficult at some institutions for physicians to design a follow-up schedule that can accommodate families, especially families who live far from the hospital in the first place.

“Some of our follow-up is disjointed because all of our clinics had never been on the same day just because of staff availability,” Dr. Bhumbra said. “But it can be a 2- to 3-hour drive for some of our patients, depending on how far they’re coming.”

Many of them can’t make that drive more than once in the same month, much less the same week.

“If you have multiple visits, it makes it more likely that they’re not showing up,” said Ryan M. Serrano, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Riley and assistant professor of pediatrics at Indiana University. Riley used telehealth when possible, especially if families could get labs done near home. But pediatric echocardiograms require technicians who have experience with children, so families need to come to the hospital.

Dr. Ryan M. Serrano


Children’s hospitals have therefore had to adapt scheduling strategies or develop pediatric specialty clinics to coordinate across the multiple departments and accommodate a complex follow-up regimen that is still evolving as physicians learn more about MIS-C.
 

 

 

Determining a follow-up regimen

Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.

“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.

Dr. Melissa S. Oliver

“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”

At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Matthew Elias


Patients get an EKG and echocardiogram at 2 weeks and, if their condition is stable, 6 weeks after discharge. After that, it depends on the patient’s clinical situation. Patients with moderately diminished left ventricular systolic function are recommended to get an MRI scan 3 months after discharge and, if old enough, exercise stress tests. Otherwise, they are seen at 6 months, but that appointment is optional for those whose prior echos have consistently been normal.

Other institutions, including Riley, are following a similar schedule of 2-week, 6-week, and 6-month postdischarge follow-ups, and most plan to do a 1-year follow-up as well, although that 1-year mark hasn’t arrived yet for most. Most do rheumatology labs at the 2-week appointment and use that to determine steroids management and whether labs are needed at the 6-week appointment. If labs have normalized, they aren’t done at 6 months. Small variations in follow-up management exist across institutions, but all are remaining open to changes. Riley, for example, is considering MRI screening for ongoing cardiac inflammation at 6 months to a year for all patients, Dr. Serrano said.
 

The dedicated clinic model

The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.

Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?

“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.

After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.

“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”



The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.

“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.

“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.

Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.

Dr. Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel


“Getting someone to come back once is hard enough,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Getting them to come back twice is impossible.”

Infectious disease is less involved at Texas Children’s, so it’s primarily Dr. Sexson Tejtel and her rheumatologist colleague who see the patients. They hold the clinic once a week, twice if needed.

“It does make the appointment a little longer, but I think the patients appreciate that everything can be addressed with that one visit,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Being in the hospital as long as some of these kids are is so hard, so making any of that easy as possible is so helpful.” A single appointment also allows the doctors to work together on what labs are needed so that children don’t need multiple labs drawn.

At the appointment, she and the rheumatologist enter the patient’s room and take the patient’s history together.

“It’s nice because it makes the family not to have to repeat things and tell the same story over and over,” she said. “Sometimes I ask questions that then the rheumatologist jumps off of, and then sometimes he’ll ask questions, and I’ll think, ‘Ooh, I’ll ask more questions about that.’ ”

In fact, this team approach at all clinics has made her a more thoughtful, well-rounded physician, she said.

“I have learned so much going to all of my multidisciplinary clinics, and I think I’m able to better care for my patients because I’m not just thinking about it from a cardiac perspective,” she said. “It takes some work, but it’s not hard and I think it is beneficial both for the patient and for the physician. This team approach is definitely where we’re trying to live right now.”
 

 

 

Separate but coordinated appointments

A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.

“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.

Dr. Sanjeev K. Swami


So CHOP coordinates appointments individually for each patient, depending on where the patient lives and sometimes stacking them on the same day when possible. Sometimes infectious disease or rheumatology use telehealth, and CHOP, like the other hospitals, prioritizes cardiology, especially for the patients who had cardiac abnormalities in the hospital, Dr. Swami said.

“All three of our groups try to be as flexible as possible. We’ve had a really good collaboration between our groups,” he said, and spreading out follow-up allows specialists to ask about concerns raised at previous appointments, ensuring stronger continuity of care.

“We can make sure things are getting followed up on,” Dr. Swami said. “I think that has been beneficial to make sure things aren’t falling through the cracks.”

CHOP cardiologist Dr. Elias said that ongoing communication, among providers and with families, has been absolutely crucial.

“Everyone’s been talking so frequently about our MIS-C patients while inpatient that by the time they’re an outpatient, it seems to work smoothly, where families are hearing similar items but with a different flair, one from infectious, one from rheumatology, and one from cardiology,” he said.

Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Mo., also has multiple satellite clinics and follows a model similar to that of CHOP. They discussed having a dedicated multidisciplinary team for each MIS-C patient, but even the logistics of that were difficult, said Emily J. Fox, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Dr. Emily J. Fox


Instead, Children’s Mercy tries to coordinate follow-up appointments to be on the same day and often use telehealth for the rheumatology appointments. Families that live closer to the hospital’s location in Joplin, Mo., go in for their cardiology appointment there, and then Dr. Fox conducts a telehealth appointment with the help of nurses in Joplin.

“We really do try hard, especially since these kids are in the hospital for a long time, to make the coordination as easy as possible,” Dr. Fox said. “This was all was very new, especially in the beginning, but I think at least our group is getting a little bit more comfortable in managing these patients.”
 

 

 

Looking ahead

The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.

“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”

So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”

Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.



“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”

Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.

“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”

Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Publications
Topics
Sections

The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.

Geber86/Getty Images

But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.

The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.

“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”

Dr. Samina S. Bhumbra


By July, the American College of Rheumatology had issued interim clinical guidance for management that most children’s hospitals have followed or slightly adapted. But ACR guidelines could not address how each institution should handle outpatient follow-up visits, especially since those visits required, again, at least cardiology and rheumatology if not infectious disease or other specialties as well.

“When their kids are admitted to the hospital, to be told at discharge you have to be followed up by all these specialists is a lot to handle,” Dr. Bhumbra said. But just as it’s difficult for parents to deal with the need to see several different doctors after discharge, it can be difficult at some institutions for physicians to design a follow-up schedule that can accommodate families, especially families who live far from the hospital in the first place.

“Some of our follow-up is disjointed because all of our clinics had never been on the same day just because of staff availability,” Dr. Bhumbra said. “But it can be a 2- to 3-hour drive for some of our patients, depending on how far they’re coming.”

Many of them can’t make that drive more than once in the same month, much less the same week.

“If you have multiple visits, it makes it more likely that they’re not showing up,” said Ryan M. Serrano, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Riley and assistant professor of pediatrics at Indiana University. Riley used telehealth when possible, especially if families could get labs done near home. But pediatric echocardiograms require technicians who have experience with children, so families need to come to the hospital.

Dr. Ryan M. Serrano


Children’s hospitals have therefore had to adapt scheduling strategies or develop pediatric specialty clinics to coordinate across the multiple departments and accommodate a complex follow-up regimen that is still evolving as physicians learn more about MIS-C.
 

 

 

Determining a follow-up regimen

Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.

“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.

Dr. Melissa S. Oliver

“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”

At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Matthew Elias


Patients get an EKG and echocardiogram at 2 weeks and, if their condition is stable, 6 weeks after discharge. After that, it depends on the patient’s clinical situation. Patients with moderately diminished left ventricular systolic function are recommended to get an MRI scan 3 months after discharge and, if old enough, exercise stress tests. Otherwise, they are seen at 6 months, but that appointment is optional for those whose prior echos have consistently been normal.

Other institutions, including Riley, are following a similar schedule of 2-week, 6-week, and 6-month postdischarge follow-ups, and most plan to do a 1-year follow-up as well, although that 1-year mark hasn’t arrived yet for most. Most do rheumatology labs at the 2-week appointment and use that to determine steroids management and whether labs are needed at the 6-week appointment. If labs have normalized, they aren’t done at 6 months. Small variations in follow-up management exist across institutions, but all are remaining open to changes. Riley, for example, is considering MRI screening for ongoing cardiac inflammation at 6 months to a year for all patients, Dr. Serrano said.
 

The dedicated clinic model

The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.

Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?

“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.

After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.

“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”



The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.

“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.

“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.

Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.

Dr. Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel


“Getting someone to come back once is hard enough,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Getting them to come back twice is impossible.”

Infectious disease is less involved at Texas Children’s, so it’s primarily Dr. Sexson Tejtel and her rheumatologist colleague who see the patients. They hold the clinic once a week, twice if needed.

“It does make the appointment a little longer, but I think the patients appreciate that everything can be addressed with that one visit,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Being in the hospital as long as some of these kids are is so hard, so making any of that easy as possible is so helpful.” A single appointment also allows the doctors to work together on what labs are needed so that children don’t need multiple labs drawn.

At the appointment, she and the rheumatologist enter the patient’s room and take the patient’s history together.

“It’s nice because it makes the family not to have to repeat things and tell the same story over and over,” she said. “Sometimes I ask questions that then the rheumatologist jumps off of, and then sometimes he’ll ask questions, and I’ll think, ‘Ooh, I’ll ask more questions about that.’ ”

In fact, this team approach at all clinics has made her a more thoughtful, well-rounded physician, she said.

“I have learned so much going to all of my multidisciplinary clinics, and I think I’m able to better care for my patients because I’m not just thinking about it from a cardiac perspective,” she said. “It takes some work, but it’s not hard and I think it is beneficial both for the patient and for the physician. This team approach is definitely where we’re trying to live right now.”
 

 

 

Separate but coordinated appointments

A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.

“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.

Dr. Sanjeev K. Swami


So CHOP coordinates appointments individually for each patient, depending on where the patient lives and sometimes stacking them on the same day when possible. Sometimes infectious disease or rheumatology use telehealth, and CHOP, like the other hospitals, prioritizes cardiology, especially for the patients who had cardiac abnormalities in the hospital, Dr. Swami said.

“All three of our groups try to be as flexible as possible. We’ve had a really good collaboration between our groups,” he said, and spreading out follow-up allows specialists to ask about concerns raised at previous appointments, ensuring stronger continuity of care.

“We can make sure things are getting followed up on,” Dr. Swami said. “I think that has been beneficial to make sure things aren’t falling through the cracks.”

CHOP cardiologist Dr. Elias said that ongoing communication, among providers and with families, has been absolutely crucial.

“Everyone’s been talking so frequently about our MIS-C patients while inpatient that by the time they’re an outpatient, it seems to work smoothly, where families are hearing similar items but with a different flair, one from infectious, one from rheumatology, and one from cardiology,” he said.

Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Mo., also has multiple satellite clinics and follows a model similar to that of CHOP. They discussed having a dedicated multidisciplinary team for each MIS-C patient, but even the logistics of that were difficult, said Emily J. Fox, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Dr. Emily J. Fox


Instead, Children’s Mercy tries to coordinate follow-up appointments to be on the same day and often use telehealth for the rheumatology appointments. Families that live closer to the hospital’s location in Joplin, Mo., go in for their cardiology appointment there, and then Dr. Fox conducts a telehealth appointment with the help of nurses in Joplin.

“We really do try hard, especially since these kids are in the hospital for a long time, to make the coordination as easy as possible,” Dr. Fox said. “This was all was very new, especially in the beginning, but I think at least our group is getting a little bit more comfortable in managing these patients.”
 

 

 

Looking ahead

The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.

“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”

So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”

Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.



“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”

Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.

“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”

Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The discovery of any novel disease or condition means a steep learning curve as physicians must develop protocols for diagnosis, management, and follow-up on the fly in the midst of admitting and treating patients. Medical society task forces and committees often release interim guidance during the learning process, but each institution ultimately has to determine what works for them based on their resources, clinical experience, and patient population.

Geber86/Getty Images

But when the novel condition demands the involvement of multiple different specialties, the challenge of management grows even more complex – as does follow-up after patients are discharged. Such has been the story with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a complication of COVID-19 that shares some features with Kawasaki disease.

The similarities to Kawasaki provided physicians a place to start in developing appropriate treatment regimens and involved a similar interdisciplinary team from, at the least, cardiology and rheumatology, plus infectious disease since MIS-C results from COVID-19.

“It literally has it in the name – multisystem essentially hints that there are multiple specialties involved, multiple hands in the pot trying to manage the kids, and so each specialty has their own kind of unique role in the patient’s care even on the outpatient side,” said Samina S. Bhumbra, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University in Indianapolis. “This isn’t a disease that falls under one specialty.”

Dr. Samina S. Bhumbra


By July, the American College of Rheumatology had issued interim clinical guidance for management that most children’s hospitals have followed or slightly adapted. But ACR guidelines could not address how each institution should handle outpatient follow-up visits, especially since those visits required, again, at least cardiology and rheumatology if not infectious disease or other specialties as well.

“When their kids are admitted to the hospital, to be told at discharge you have to be followed up by all these specialists is a lot to handle,” Dr. Bhumbra said. But just as it’s difficult for parents to deal with the need to see several different doctors after discharge, it can be difficult at some institutions for physicians to design a follow-up schedule that can accommodate families, especially families who live far from the hospital in the first place.

“Some of our follow-up is disjointed because all of our clinics had never been on the same day just because of staff availability,” Dr. Bhumbra said. “But it can be a 2- to 3-hour drive for some of our patients, depending on how far they’re coming.”

Many of them can’t make that drive more than once in the same month, much less the same week.

“If you have multiple visits, it makes it more likely that they’re not showing up,” said Ryan M. Serrano, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Riley and assistant professor of pediatrics at Indiana University. Riley used telehealth when possible, especially if families could get labs done near home. But pediatric echocardiograms require technicians who have experience with children, so families need to come to the hospital.

Dr. Ryan M. Serrano


Children’s hospitals have therefore had to adapt scheduling strategies or develop pediatric specialty clinics to coordinate across the multiple departments and accommodate a complex follow-up regimen that is still evolving as physicians learn more about MIS-C.
 

 

 

Determining a follow-up regimen

Even before determining how to coordinate appointments, hospitals had to decide what follow-up itself should be.

“How long do we follow these patients and how often do we follow them?” said Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University.

Dr. Melissa S. Oliver

“We’re seeing that a lot of our patients rapidly respond when they get appropriate therapy, but we don’t know about long-term outcomes yet. We’re all still learning.”

At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, infectious disease follows up 4-6 weeks post discharge. The cardiology division came up with a follow-up plan that has evolved over time, said Matthew Elias, MD, an attending cardiologist at CHOP’s Cardiac Center and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Matthew Elias


Patients get an EKG and echocardiogram at 2 weeks and, if their condition is stable, 6 weeks after discharge. After that, it depends on the patient’s clinical situation. Patients with moderately diminished left ventricular systolic function are recommended to get an MRI scan 3 months after discharge and, if old enough, exercise stress tests. Otherwise, they are seen at 6 months, but that appointment is optional for those whose prior echos have consistently been normal.

Other institutions, including Riley, are following a similar schedule of 2-week, 6-week, and 6-month postdischarge follow-ups, and most plan to do a 1-year follow-up as well, although that 1-year mark hasn’t arrived yet for most. Most do rheumatology labs at the 2-week appointment and use that to determine steroids management and whether labs are needed at the 6-week appointment. If labs have normalized, they aren’t done at 6 months. Small variations in follow-up management exist across institutions, but all are remaining open to changes. Riley, for example, is considering MRI screening for ongoing cardiac inflammation at 6 months to a year for all patients, Dr. Serrano said.
 

The dedicated clinic model

The two challenges Riley needed to address were the lack of a clear consensus on what MIS-C follow-up should look like and the need for continuity of care, Dr. Serrano said.

Regular discussion in departmental meetings at Riley “progressed from how do we take care of them and what treatments do we give them to how do we follow them and manage them in outpatient,” Dr. Oliver said. In the inpatient setting, they had an interdisciplinary team, but how could they maintain that for outpatients without overwhelming the families?

“I think the main challenge is for the families to identify who is leading the care for them,” said Martha M. Rodriguez, MD, a rheumatologist at Riley and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Indiana University. That sometimes led to families picking which follow-up appointments they would attend and which they would skip if they could not make them all – and sometimes they skipped the more important ones. “They would go to the appointment with me and then miss the cardiology appointments and the echocardiogram, which was more important to follow any abnormalities in the heart,” Dr. Rodriguez said.

After trying to coordinate separate follow-up appointments for months, Riley ultimately decided to form a dedicated clinic for MIS-C follow-up – a “one-stop shop” single appointment at each follow-up, Dr. Bhumbra said, that covers labs, EKG, echocardiogram, and any other necessary tests.

“Our goal with the clinic is to make life easier for the families and to be able to coordinate the appointments,” Dr. Rodriguez said. “They will be able to see the three of us, and it would be easier for us to communicate with each other about their plan.”



The clinic began Feb. 11 and occurs twice a month. Though it’s just begun, Dr. Oliver said the first clinic went well, and it’s helping them figure out the role each specialty needs to play in follow-up care.

“For us with rheumatology, after lab values have returned to normal and they’re off steroids, sometimes we think there isn’t much more we can contribute to,” she said. And then there are the patients who didn’t see any rheumatologists while inpatients.

“That’s what we’re trying to figure out as well,” Dr. Oliver said. “Should we be seeing every single kid regardless of whether we were involved in their inpatient [stay] or only seeing the ones we’ve seen?” She expects the coming months will help them work that out.

Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston also uses a dedicated clinic, but they set it up before the first MIS-C patient came through the doors, said Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s. The hospital already has other types of multidisciplinary clinics, and they anticipated the challenge of getting families to come to too many appointments in a short period of time.

Dr. Sara Kristen Sexson Tejtel


“Getting someone to come back once is hard enough,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Getting them to come back twice is impossible.”

Infectious disease is less involved at Texas Children’s, so it’s primarily Dr. Sexson Tejtel and her rheumatologist colleague who see the patients. They hold the clinic once a week, twice if needed.

“It does make the appointment a little longer, but I think the patients appreciate that everything can be addressed with that one visit,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “Being in the hospital as long as some of these kids are is so hard, so making any of that easy as possible is so helpful.” A single appointment also allows the doctors to work together on what labs are needed so that children don’t need multiple labs drawn.

At the appointment, she and the rheumatologist enter the patient’s room and take the patient’s history together.

“It’s nice because it makes the family not to have to repeat things and tell the same story over and over,” she said. “Sometimes I ask questions that then the rheumatologist jumps off of, and then sometimes he’ll ask questions, and I’ll think, ‘Ooh, I’ll ask more questions about that.’ ”

In fact, this team approach at all clinics has made her a more thoughtful, well-rounded physician, she said.

“I have learned so much going to all of my multidisciplinary clinics, and I think I’m able to better care for my patients because I’m not just thinking about it from a cardiac perspective,” she said. “It takes some work, but it’s not hard and I think it is beneficial both for the patient and for the physician. This team approach is definitely where we’re trying to live right now.”
 

 

 

Separate but coordinated appointments

A dedicated clinic isn’t the answer for all institutions, however. At Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the size of the networks and all its satellites made a one-stop shop impractical.

“We talked about a consolidated clinic early on, when MIS-C was first emerging and all our groups were collaborating and coming up with our inpatient and outpatient care pathways,” said Sanjeev K. Swami, MD, an infectious disease pediatrician at CHOP and associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania. But timing varies on when each specialist wants to see the families return, and existing clinic schedules and locations varied too much.

Dr. Sanjeev K. Swami


So CHOP coordinates appointments individually for each patient, depending on where the patient lives and sometimes stacking them on the same day when possible. Sometimes infectious disease or rheumatology use telehealth, and CHOP, like the other hospitals, prioritizes cardiology, especially for the patients who had cardiac abnormalities in the hospital, Dr. Swami said.

“All three of our groups try to be as flexible as possible. We’ve had a really good collaboration between our groups,” he said, and spreading out follow-up allows specialists to ask about concerns raised at previous appointments, ensuring stronger continuity of care.

“We can make sure things are getting followed up on,” Dr. Swami said. “I think that has been beneficial to make sure things aren’t falling through the cracks.”

CHOP cardiologist Dr. Elias said that ongoing communication, among providers and with families, has been absolutely crucial.

“Everyone’s been talking so frequently about our MIS-C patients while inpatient that by the time they’re an outpatient, it seems to work smoothly, where families are hearing similar items but with a different flair, one from infectious, one from rheumatology, and one from cardiology,” he said.

Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Mo., also has multiple satellite clinics and follows a model similar to that of CHOP. They discussed having a dedicated multidisciplinary team for each MIS-C patient, but even the logistics of that were difficult, said Emily J. Fox, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Dr. Emily J. Fox


Instead, Children’s Mercy tries to coordinate follow-up appointments to be on the same day and often use telehealth for the rheumatology appointments. Families that live closer to the hospital’s location in Joplin, Mo., go in for their cardiology appointment there, and then Dr. Fox conducts a telehealth appointment with the help of nurses in Joplin.

“We really do try hard, especially since these kids are in the hospital for a long time, to make the coordination as easy as possible,” Dr. Fox said. “This was all was very new, especially in the beginning, but I think at least our group is getting a little bit more comfortable in managing these patients.”
 

 

 

Looking ahead

The biggest question that still looms is what happens to these children, if anything, down the line.

“What was unique about this was this was a new disease we were all learning about together with no baseline,” Dr. Swami said. “None of us had ever seen this condition before.”

So far, the prognosis for the vast majority of children is good. “Most of these kids survive, most of them are doing well, and they almost all recover,” Dr. Serrano said. Labs tend to normalize by 6 weeks post discharge, if not much earlier, and not much cardiac involvement is showing up at later follow-ups. But not even a year has passed, so there’s plenty to learn. “We don’t know if there’s long-term risk. I would not be surprised if 20 years down the road we’re finding out things about this that we had no idea” about, Dr. Serrano said. “Everybody wants answers, and nobody has any, and the answers we have may end up being wrong. That’s how it goes when you’re dealing with something you’ve never seen.”

Research underway will ideally begin providing those answers soon. CHOP is a participating site in an NIH-NHLBI–sponsored study, called COVID MUSIC, that is tracking long-term outcomes for MIS-C at 30 centers across the United States and Canada for 5 years.



“That will really definitely be helpful in answering some of the questions about long-term outcomes,” Dr. Elias said. “We hope this is going to be a transient issue and that patients won’t have any long-term manifestations, but we don’t know that yet.”

Meanwhile, one benefit that has come out of the pandemic is strong collaboration, Dr. Bhumbra said.

“The biggest thing we’re all eagerly waiting and hoping for is standard guidelines on how best to follow-up on these kids, but I know that’s a ways away,” Dr. Bhumbra said. So for now, each institution is doing what it can to develop protocols that they feel best serve the patients’ needs, such as Riley’s new dedicated MIS-C clinic. “It takes a village to take care of these kids, and MIS-C has proven that having a clinic with all three specialties at one clinic is going to be great for the families.”

Dr. Fox serves on a committee for Pfizer unrelated to MIS-C. No other doctors interviewed for this story had relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Anti-TNF responding RA: Tocilizumab bests rituximab in reducing disease activity

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: Tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab for reducing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors stratified for synovial B-cell status.

Major finding: At 16 weeks, the rituximab group vs. the tocilizumab group showed no significant difference in the rate of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%; 45% vs. 56%; P = .31). However, the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for both CDAI50% (63% vs. 36%; P = .035) and CDAI­major treatment response (50% vs. 12%, P = .0012).

Study details: The data come from a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 trial involving 164 patients randomly assigned to receive either 2 1 gm rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (n=83) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (n=81).

Disclosures: The study received funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. MH Buch, A Nerviani, VC Romão, P Verschueren, B Dasgupta, A Cauli, PC Taylor, CJ Edwards, J Isaacs, E Choy, C Pitzalism, P Sasieni, MJ Lewis, and F Humby reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies and/or research organizations. C Pitzalis reported a patent relevant to the work. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Humby F et al. Lancet. 2021 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32341-2.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab for reducing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors stratified for synovial B-cell status.

Major finding: At 16 weeks, the rituximab group vs. the tocilizumab group showed no significant difference in the rate of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%; 45% vs. 56%; P = .31). However, the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for both CDAI50% (63% vs. 36%; P = .035) and CDAI­major treatment response (50% vs. 12%, P = .0012).

Study details: The data come from a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 trial involving 164 patients randomly assigned to receive either 2 1 gm rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (n=83) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (n=81).

Disclosures: The study received funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. MH Buch, A Nerviani, VC Romão, P Verschueren, B Dasgupta, A Cauli, PC Taylor, CJ Edwards, J Isaacs, E Choy, C Pitzalism, P Sasieni, MJ Lewis, and F Humby reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies and/or research organizations. C Pitzalis reported a patent relevant to the work. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Humby F et al. Lancet. 2021 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32341-2.

Key clinical point: Tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab for reducing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors stratified for synovial B-cell status.

Major finding: At 16 weeks, the rituximab group vs. the tocilizumab group showed no significant difference in the rate of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%; 45% vs. 56%; P = .31). However, the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for both CDAI50% (63% vs. 36%; P = .035) and CDAI­major treatment response (50% vs. 12%, P = .0012).

Study details: The data come from a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 trial involving 164 patients randomly assigned to receive either 2 1 gm rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (n=83) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (n=81).

Disclosures: The study received funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. MH Buch, A Nerviani, VC Romão, P Verschueren, B Dasgupta, A Cauli, PC Taylor, CJ Edwards, J Isaacs, E Choy, C Pitzalism, P Sasieni, MJ Lewis, and F Humby reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies and/or research organizations. C Pitzalis reported a patent relevant to the work. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Humby F et al. Lancet. 2021 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32341-2.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Younger RA patients at greater fracture risk even before age 50 years

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: This study found an increased risk of first fracture before age 50 years in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosed before this age.

Major finding: Overall, the rate of first fractures occurring before age 50 was significantly higher in patients diagnosed with RA before age 50 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.40). The IRR of first fracture before age 50 was significantly higher in women (1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49) and not in men diagnosed with RA before age 50 (1.15; 95% CI, 0.92-1.43). IRR of subsequent fractures below age 50 was also higher in both men and women but not significantly so.

Study details: A retrospective observational study of RA cases (n = 36,858) and matched controls (n=110,574) from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a grant through the Pfizer competitive I-CRP funding program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Erwin J et al. Osteoporos Int. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-05862-1.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: This study found an increased risk of first fracture before age 50 years in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosed before this age.

Major finding: Overall, the rate of first fractures occurring before age 50 was significantly higher in patients diagnosed with RA before age 50 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.40). The IRR of first fracture before age 50 was significantly higher in women (1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49) and not in men diagnosed with RA before age 50 (1.15; 95% CI, 0.92-1.43). IRR of subsequent fractures below age 50 was also higher in both men and women but not significantly so.

Study details: A retrospective observational study of RA cases (n = 36,858) and matched controls (n=110,574) from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a grant through the Pfizer competitive I-CRP funding program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Erwin J et al. Osteoporos Int. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-05862-1.

Key clinical point: This study found an increased risk of first fracture before age 50 years in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosed before this age.

Major finding: Overall, the rate of first fractures occurring before age 50 was significantly higher in patients diagnosed with RA before age 50 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.40). The IRR of first fracture before age 50 was significantly higher in women (1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49) and not in men diagnosed with RA before age 50 (1.15; 95% CI, 0.92-1.43). IRR of subsequent fractures below age 50 was also higher in both men and women but not significantly so.

Study details: A retrospective observational study of RA cases (n = 36,858) and matched controls (n=110,574) from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a grant through the Pfizer competitive I-CRP funding program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Erwin J et al. Osteoporos Int. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-05862-1.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Impact of female hormonal exposure on risk of RA

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: Early age at first pregnancy (less than 22 years) and early menopause (45 years and earlier) were associated with a higher risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas long-term progestogen use (more than 24 months) before menopause was associated with a reduced risk.

Major finding: The risk of RA was a significantly increased with early age at first pregnancy (less than 22 vs. 27 or more years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; Ptrend = .028) and menopause (45 or less vs. 53 or more years; HR, 1.40; Ptrend = .039). Risk of RA was inversely related to exposure to progestogen only in perimenopause (more than 24 vs. 0 months; multi-adjusted HR, 0.77; Ptrend = .004).

Study details: This study included 78,452 women, with 698 incident cases of RA using data from the French E3N-EPIC cohort study.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a research grant from FOREUM Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Salliot C et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Feb 6. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab101.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Early age at first pregnancy (less than 22 years) and early menopause (45 years and earlier) were associated with a higher risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas long-term progestogen use (more than 24 months) before menopause was associated with a reduced risk.

Major finding: The risk of RA was a significantly increased with early age at first pregnancy (less than 22 vs. 27 or more years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; Ptrend = .028) and menopause (45 or less vs. 53 or more years; HR, 1.40; Ptrend = .039). Risk of RA was inversely related to exposure to progestogen only in perimenopause (more than 24 vs. 0 months; multi-adjusted HR, 0.77; Ptrend = .004).

Study details: This study included 78,452 women, with 698 incident cases of RA using data from the French E3N-EPIC cohort study.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a research grant from FOREUM Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Salliot C et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Feb 6. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab101.

Key clinical point: Early age at first pregnancy (less than 22 years) and early menopause (45 years and earlier) were associated with a higher risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas long-term progestogen use (more than 24 months) before menopause was associated with a reduced risk.

Major finding: The risk of RA was a significantly increased with early age at first pregnancy (less than 22 vs. 27 or more years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; Ptrend = .028) and menopause (45 or less vs. 53 or more years; HR, 1.40; Ptrend = .039). Risk of RA was inversely related to exposure to progestogen only in perimenopause (more than 24 vs. 0 months; multi-adjusted HR, 0.77; Ptrend = .004).

Study details: This study included 78,452 women, with 698 incident cases of RA using data from the French E3N-EPIC cohort study.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a research grant from FOREUM Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Salliot C et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Feb 6. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab101.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Modern treatment approach results in LDA and remission in pregnant patients with RA

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: A modern treat-to-target (T2T) approach with the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) resulted in low disease activity (LDA) and remission in 90% of pregnant patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Among patients treated with T2T, 90.4% and 76.1% of patients were in LDA or remission, respectively, in the third trimester. Mean disease activity over time was lower in patients treated with the T2T approach vs. reference cohort (P less than .001).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 309 patients with RA from the PreCARA cohort who wished to conceive or were pregnant. Patients were treated with a T2T approach with the use of TNFi and/or a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs along with obvious pregnancy restrictions. The reference cohort consisted of pregnant patients with RA treated according to the 2002-2010 standards from the PARA study.

Disclosures: This investigator-initiated study was supported by UCB and Dutch Arthritis Foundation (ReumaNederland). The investigators did not report any competing interests.

Source: Smeele HTW et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219547.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: A modern treat-to-target (T2T) approach with the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) resulted in low disease activity (LDA) and remission in 90% of pregnant patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Among patients treated with T2T, 90.4% and 76.1% of patients were in LDA or remission, respectively, in the third trimester. Mean disease activity over time was lower in patients treated with the T2T approach vs. reference cohort (P less than .001).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 309 patients with RA from the PreCARA cohort who wished to conceive or were pregnant. Patients were treated with a T2T approach with the use of TNFi and/or a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs along with obvious pregnancy restrictions. The reference cohort consisted of pregnant patients with RA treated according to the 2002-2010 standards from the PARA study.

Disclosures: This investigator-initiated study was supported by UCB and Dutch Arthritis Foundation (ReumaNederland). The investigators did not report any competing interests.

Source: Smeele HTW et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219547.

Key clinical point: A modern treat-to-target (T2T) approach with the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) resulted in low disease activity (LDA) and remission in 90% of pregnant patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Among patients treated with T2T, 90.4% and 76.1% of patients were in LDA or remission, respectively, in the third trimester. Mean disease activity over time was lower in patients treated with the T2T approach vs. reference cohort (P less than .001).

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 309 patients with RA from the PreCARA cohort who wished to conceive or were pregnant. Patients were treated with a T2T approach with the use of TNFi and/or a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs along with obvious pregnancy restrictions. The reference cohort consisted of pregnant patients with RA treated according to the 2002-2010 standards from the PARA study.

Disclosures: This investigator-initiated study was supported by UCB and Dutch Arthritis Foundation (ReumaNederland). The investigators did not report any competing interests.

Source: Smeele HTW et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Feb 10. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219547.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Safety and efficacy of biosimilar CT-P17 and adalimumab in RA

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: Citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar (CT-P17) and European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab) demonstrated equivalent efficacy and comparable safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: At week 24, CT-P17 and EU-adalimumab groups showed similar 20% improvement by the American College of Rheumatology criteria response rate (82.7%). The 95% confidence interval (CI; −5.94 to 5.94) and 90% CI (−4.98 to 4.98) for estimated treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margin, demonstrating therapeutic equivalence. Overall, safety was similar between both treatment groups.

Study details: This was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study of 648 patients with RA who were randomly allocated to receive 40 mg of either CT-P17 (n=324) or EU-adalimumab (n=324), every 2 weeks until week 48.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Celltrion, Inc. (Incheon, Republic of Korea). The authors reported receiving support, investigator fees, speaking fees, and/or consulting for various pharmaceutical companies including Celltrion, Inc. SJ Lee, YJ Bae, GE Yang, and JK Yoo reported being employees of Celltrion, Inc.

Source: Kay J et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Feb 5. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02394-7.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar (CT-P17) and European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab) demonstrated equivalent efficacy and comparable safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: At week 24, CT-P17 and EU-adalimumab groups showed similar 20% improvement by the American College of Rheumatology criteria response rate (82.7%). The 95% confidence interval (CI; −5.94 to 5.94) and 90% CI (−4.98 to 4.98) for estimated treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margin, demonstrating therapeutic equivalence. Overall, safety was similar between both treatment groups.

Study details: This was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study of 648 patients with RA who were randomly allocated to receive 40 mg of either CT-P17 (n=324) or EU-adalimumab (n=324), every 2 weeks until week 48.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Celltrion, Inc. (Incheon, Republic of Korea). The authors reported receiving support, investigator fees, speaking fees, and/or consulting for various pharmaceutical companies including Celltrion, Inc. SJ Lee, YJ Bae, GE Yang, and JK Yoo reported being employees of Celltrion, Inc.

Source: Kay J et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Feb 5. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02394-7.

Key clinical point: Citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar (CT-P17) and European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab) demonstrated equivalent efficacy and comparable safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: At week 24, CT-P17 and EU-adalimumab groups showed similar 20% improvement by the American College of Rheumatology criteria response rate (82.7%). The 95% confidence interval (CI; −5.94 to 5.94) and 90% CI (−4.98 to 4.98) for estimated treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margin, demonstrating therapeutic equivalence. Overall, safety was similar between both treatment groups.

Study details: This was a randomized, double-blind phase 3 study of 648 patients with RA who were randomly allocated to receive 40 mg of either CT-P17 (n=324) or EU-adalimumab (n=324), every 2 weeks until week 48.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Celltrion, Inc. (Incheon, Republic of Korea). The authors reported receiving support, investigator fees, speaking fees, and/or consulting for various pharmaceutical companies including Celltrion, Inc. SJ Lee, YJ Bae, GE Yang, and JK Yoo reported being employees of Celltrion, Inc.

Source: Kay J et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Feb 5. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02394-7.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:45
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Anti-PAD3 positivity tied to higher disease activity and joint damage in RA

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: Positivity for antipeptidyl-arginine deiminase type-3 (anti-PAD3) antibodies was associated with higher disease activity and joint damage scores in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients positive vs. negative for anti-PAD3 had significantly higher 28-swollen joint count (7.1 vs. 4.3; P less than .0001), 28-joint disease activity score-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (4.2 vs. 3.7; P = .005), and radiographic damage (14.9 vs. 8.8; P = .02).

Study details: Findings are from the assessment of biomarkers in 851 patients with RA and 516 disease controls (axial spondyloarthritis, n=320; psoriatic arthritis, n=196) from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the De Reuter Foundation. M Mahler, C Bentow, and L Martinez-Prat declared being current or former employees at Inova Diagnostics. All the other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lamacchia C et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab050.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Positivity for antipeptidyl-arginine deiminase type-3 (anti-PAD3) antibodies was associated with higher disease activity and joint damage scores in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients positive vs. negative for anti-PAD3 had significantly higher 28-swollen joint count (7.1 vs. 4.3; P less than .0001), 28-joint disease activity score-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (4.2 vs. 3.7; P = .005), and radiographic damage (14.9 vs. 8.8; P = .02).

Study details: Findings are from the assessment of biomarkers in 851 patients with RA and 516 disease controls (axial spondyloarthritis, n=320; psoriatic arthritis, n=196) from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the De Reuter Foundation. M Mahler, C Bentow, and L Martinez-Prat declared being current or former employees at Inova Diagnostics. All the other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lamacchia C et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab050.

Key clinical point: Positivity for antipeptidyl-arginine deiminase type-3 (anti-PAD3) antibodies was associated with higher disease activity and joint damage scores in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients positive vs. negative for anti-PAD3 had significantly higher 28-swollen joint count (7.1 vs. 4.3; P less than .0001), 28-joint disease activity score-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (4.2 vs. 3.7; P = .005), and radiographic damage (14.9 vs. 8.8; P = .02).

Study details: Findings are from the assessment of biomarkers in 851 patients with RA and 516 disease controls (axial spondyloarthritis, n=320; psoriatic arthritis, n=196) from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the De Reuter Foundation. M Mahler, C Bentow, and L Martinez-Prat declared being current or former employees at Inova Diagnostics. All the other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lamacchia C et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab050.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:30
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content

Filgotinib+MTX shows benefit in RA patients with inadequate response to MTX

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 14:45

Key clinical point: Treatment with filgotinib and methotrexate (MTX) reduced signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate response to MTX.

Major finding: Proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria at week 12 was significantly higher with filgotinib 200 mg (76.6%) and 100 mg (69.8%) vs. placebo (49.9%; P for all less than .001). Overall, both filgotinib doses were well tolerated.

Study details: Findings are from FINCH I phase 3 study including 1,755 patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate response to MTX. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily oral filgotinib 200 mg or filgotinib 100 mg, subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo, all with stable background MTX.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Study investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences. MC Genovese, F Matzkies, B Bartok, L Ye, and Y Guo declared being employees and shareholders of Gilead Sciences. JS Sundy, A Jahreis, and N Mozaffarian declared being former employees of Gilead Sciences and may hold shares. C Tasset declared being an employee and shareholder of Galapagos NV. JA Simon, U Kumar U, and S-C Bae report no disclosures.

Source: Combe B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219214.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Treatment with filgotinib and methotrexate (MTX) reduced signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate response to MTX.

Major finding: Proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria at week 12 was significantly higher with filgotinib 200 mg (76.6%) and 100 mg (69.8%) vs. placebo (49.9%; P for all less than .001). Overall, both filgotinib doses were well tolerated.

Study details: Findings are from FINCH I phase 3 study including 1,755 patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate response to MTX. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily oral filgotinib 200 mg or filgotinib 100 mg, subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo, all with stable background MTX.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Study investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences. MC Genovese, F Matzkies, B Bartok, L Ye, and Y Guo declared being employees and shareholders of Gilead Sciences. JS Sundy, A Jahreis, and N Mozaffarian declared being former employees of Gilead Sciences and may hold shares. C Tasset declared being an employee and shareholder of Galapagos NV. JA Simon, U Kumar U, and S-C Bae report no disclosures.

Source: Combe B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219214.

Key clinical point: Treatment with filgotinib and methotrexate (MTX) reduced signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate response to MTX.

Major finding: Proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria at week 12 was significantly higher with filgotinib 200 mg (76.6%) and 100 mg (69.8%) vs. placebo (49.9%; P for all less than .001). Overall, both filgotinib doses were well tolerated.

Study details: Findings are from FINCH I phase 3 study including 1,755 patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and inadequate response to MTX. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily oral filgotinib 200 mg or filgotinib 100 mg, subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo, all with stable background MTX.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Gilead Sciences. Study investigators including the lead author reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences. MC Genovese, F Matzkies, B Bartok, L Ye, and Y Guo declared being employees and shareholders of Gilead Sciences. JS Sundy, A Jahreis, and N Mozaffarian declared being former employees of Gilead Sciences and may hold shares. C Tasset declared being an employee and shareholder of Galapagos NV. JA Simon, U Kumar U, and S-C Bae report no disclosures.

Source: Combe B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219214.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA March 2021
Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:30
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:30
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 03/08/2021 - 13:30
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content