Clinical Edge Journal Scan

The theme of this month's round-up is women's health, specifically as it relates to migraine. Three recent studies have highlighted the connection between estrogen and migraine, in terms of the potential increase in risk for certain conditions, such as gestational hypertension and endometriosis, and the use of potential therapies, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications to treat menstrual migraine.

Although most practitioners know that there is a deep connection between vascular risk and migraine, most are unfamiliar with the specific interplay between these two conditions. Antihypertensive medications are common preventive treatments for migraine, and migraine itself has been associated with an increased risk for specific vascular issues in pregnancy, most notably venous sinus thrombosis. Crowe and colleagues specifically looked at whether women with migraine experience a higher risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

This was a UK-based prospective cohort study using a large longitudinal database called the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Over 1 million live-born or stillborn deliveries were analyzed from 1993 through 2020. The data were linked to diagnosis and prescription codes for migraine that were filled or documented before 20 weeks of gestation and compared with diagnosis codes for hypertensive disorders that occurred from week 20 through the pregnancy and delivery. Regression models were then used to estimate risk ratios and CI. Only single pregnancies were counted because multiple pregnancies already are associated with a higher risk for most other vascular conditions.

Any history of migraine prior to pregnancy was associated with an increased risk for gestational hypertension, eclampsia, and preeclampsia (relative risk 1.17). The greatest risk was higher frequency. Migraine that persisted into the first trimester led to a relative risk of 1.84. The use of migraine medications, especially vasoconstrictive-type medications, was also associated with a higher risk compared with women without migraine.

Women with migraine frequently present before family planning to discuss the potential risks and options of migraine treatment during pregnancy. In addition to discussing the most appropriate preventive and acute medications, it would be appropriate also to discuss any potential red flag symptoms that may occur during pregnancy. This discussion should include hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as per this study.

Since the advent of CGRP antagonist treatments for migraine, many practitioners and patients have been curious to know whether specific features of migraine are better treated with this class of medication. There are now both acute and preventive CGRP antagonists, both as small molecule agents and monoclonal antibodies (mAb). Menstrual migraines specifically can be a more difficult-to-treat subtype, and often when other triggers are negated, hormonal fluctuation can still be a significant problem for many patients. Verhagen and colleagues set out to determine whether CGRP mAb are more or less effective for menstrually associated migraine.

This analysis was post hoc, using data from a single-arm study investigating the efficacy of two of the CGRP mAb medications: erenumab and fremanezumab. Patients were included if they had a history of migraine with > 8 monthly migraine days and at least one antihypertensive or antiepileptic preventive treatment for migraine had previously failed. Any other prophylactic medications were tapered before starting this trial; patients were given a validated electronic diary, and adherence to this diary had to be > 80%. Women were also excluded if they did not have regular menses (for instance, if they were on continuous hormonal contraception) or they were postmenopausal. Logistic regression was used to compare the preventive effect of these medications on perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine attacks.

A total of 45 women were included in this observation. The relative reduction in total monthly migraine days was 31.4%; 28% were noted during and around menses, 32% were during other times of the menstrual cycle. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant difference between these two periods of time, and the ratio remained statistically similar as well.

It appears that the relative reduction in monthly migraine days did not fluctuate when the patient was treated with a CGRP antagonist mAb. Although other classes of preventive medication, specifically onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), may affect menstrually associated migraine less potently, it appears that the CGRP antagonist class may be just as effective regardless of the underlying migraine trigger. It would definitely be worth considering a CGRP antagonist trial, or the addition of a CGRP mAb, if menstrual migraine remains significant despite otherwise effective preventive treatment.

Migraine is strongly affected by fluctuations in estrogen, and women with endometriosis often experience headaches associated with their severe attacks. Pasquini and colleagues specifically looked to see if the headache associated with endometriosis could be better diagnosed. Specifically, were these women experiencing migraine or another headache disorder?

This was a consecutive case-control series of 131 women admitted to a specialty endometriosis clinic. They were given a validated headache questionnaire that was reviewed by a neurologist to determine a diagnosis of migraine vs a diagnosis of another headache disorder. The case group included women with a history of endometriosis who were previously diagnosed with migraine, while the control group consisted of women with endometriosis only who did not have a history of headache.

Diagnosis of migraine was made in 53.4% of all patients: 18.6% of those experienced pure menstrual migraine (defined as migraine only occurring perimenstrually), 46% had some menstrually associated migraine symptoms, and 36% had purely non-menstrual migraine. Painful periods and dysuria were more frequent in patients with endometriosis and migraine compared with those without migraine. Other menstrually related conditions, including the duration of endometriosis, the phenotype of endometriosis, the presence of other systemic comorbidities, or heavy menstrual bleeding did not seem to differ significantly between the migraine and non-migraine groups.

Women of reproductive age consistently are seen most often for migraine and other headache conditions. Much of this is related to menstrual migraine and the effect that hormonal fluctuation has on migraine frequency and severity. Most practitioners work closely with their patient's gynecologist to determine which hormonal treatments and migraine treatments are most appropriate and safe for each individual situation. This study in particular sheds light on the particular phenotypes of headache pain and the specific headache diagnosis that most women with endometriosis experience.

The theme of this month's round-up is women's health, specifically as it relates to migraine. Three recent studies have highlighted the connection between estrogen and migraine, in terms of the potential increase in risk for certain conditions, such as gestational hypertension and endometriosis, and the use of potential therapies, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications to treat menstrual migraine.

Although most practitioners know that there is a deep connection between vascular risk and migraine, most are unfamiliar with the specific interplay between these two conditions. Antihypertensive medications are common preventive treatments for migraine, and migraine itself has been associated with an increased risk for specific vascular issues in pregnancy, most notably venous sinus thrombosis. Crowe and colleagues specifically looked at whether women with migraine experience a higher risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

This was a UK-based prospective cohort study using a large longitudinal database called the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Over 1 million live-born or stillborn deliveries were analyzed from 1993 through 2020. The data were linked to diagnosis and prescription codes for migraine that were filled or documented before 20 weeks of gestation and compared with diagnosis codes for hypertensive disorders that occurred from week 20 through the pregnancy and delivery. Regression models were then used to estimate risk ratios and CI. Only single pregnancies were counted because multiple pregnancies already are associated with a higher risk for most other vascular conditions.

Any history of migraine prior to pregnancy was associated with an increased risk for gestational hypertension, eclampsia, and preeclampsia (relative risk 1.17). The greatest risk was higher frequency. Migraine that persisted into the first trimester led to a relative risk of 1.84. The use of migraine medications, especially vasoconstrictive-type medications, was also associated with a higher risk compared with women without migraine.

Women with migraine frequently present before family planning to discuss the potential risks and options of migraine treatment during pregnancy. In addition to discussing the most appropriate preventive and acute medications, it would be appropriate also to discuss any potential red flag symptoms that may occur during pregnancy. This discussion should include hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as per this study.

Since the advent of CGRP antagonist treatments for migraine, many practitioners and patients have been curious to know whether specific features of migraine are better treated with this class of medication. There are now both acute and preventive CGRP antagonists, both as small molecule agents and monoclonal antibodies (mAb). Menstrual migraines specifically can be a more difficult-to-treat subtype, and often when other triggers are negated, hormonal fluctuation can still be a significant problem for many patients. Verhagen and colleagues set out to determine whether CGRP mAb are more or less effective for menstrually associated migraine.

This analysis was post hoc, using data from a single-arm study investigating the efficacy of two of the CGRP mAb medications: erenumab and fremanezumab. Patients were included if they had a history of migraine with > 8 monthly migraine days and at least one antihypertensive or antiepileptic preventive treatment for migraine had previously failed. Any other prophylactic medications were tapered before starting this trial; patients were given a validated electronic diary, and adherence to this diary had to be > 80%. Women were also excluded if they did not have regular menses (for instance, if they were on continuous hormonal contraception) or they were postmenopausal. Logistic regression was used to compare the preventive effect of these medications on perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine attacks.

A total of 45 women were included in this observation. The relative reduction in total monthly migraine days was 31.4%; 28% were noted during and around menses, 32% were during other times of the menstrual cycle. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant difference between these two periods of time, and the ratio remained statistically similar as well.

It appears that the relative reduction in monthly migraine days did not fluctuate when the patient was treated with a CGRP antagonist mAb. Although other classes of preventive medication, specifically onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), may affect menstrually associated migraine less potently, it appears that the CGRP antagonist class may be just as effective regardless of the underlying migraine trigger. It would definitely be worth considering a CGRP antagonist trial, or the addition of a CGRP mAb, if menstrual migraine remains significant despite otherwise effective preventive treatment.

Migraine is strongly affected by fluctuations in estrogen, and women with endometriosis often experience headaches associated with their severe attacks. Pasquini and colleagues specifically looked to see if the headache associated with endometriosis could be better diagnosed. Specifically, were these women experiencing migraine or another headache disorder?

This was a consecutive case-control series of 131 women admitted to a specialty endometriosis clinic. They were given a validated headache questionnaire that was reviewed by a neurologist to determine a diagnosis of migraine vs a diagnosis of another headache disorder. The case group included women with a history of endometriosis who were previously diagnosed with migraine, while the control group consisted of women with endometriosis only who did not have a history of headache.

Diagnosis of migraine was made in 53.4% of all patients: 18.6% of those experienced pure menstrual migraine (defined as migraine only occurring perimenstrually), 46% had some menstrually associated migraine symptoms, and 36% had purely non-menstrual migraine. Painful periods and dysuria were more frequent in patients with endometriosis and migraine compared with those without migraine. Other menstrually related conditions, including the duration of endometriosis, the phenotype of endometriosis, the presence of other systemic comorbidities, or heavy menstrual bleeding did not seem to differ significantly between the migraine and non-migraine groups.

Women of reproductive age consistently are seen most often for migraine and other headache conditions. Much of this is related to menstrual migraine and the effect that hormonal fluctuation has on migraine frequency and severity. Most practitioners work closely with their patient's gynecologist to determine which hormonal treatments and migraine treatments are most appropriate and safe for each individual situation. This study in particular sheds light on the particular phenotypes of headache pain and the specific headache diagnosis that most women with endometriosis experience.

The theme of this month's round-up is women's health, specifically as it relates to migraine. Three recent studies have highlighted the connection between estrogen and migraine, in terms of the potential increase in risk for certain conditions, such as gestational hypertension and endometriosis, and the use of potential therapies, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications to treat menstrual migraine.

Although most practitioners know that there is a deep connection between vascular risk and migraine, most are unfamiliar with the specific interplay between these two conditions. Antihypertensive medications are common preventive treatments for migraine, and migraine itself has been associated with an increased risk for specific vascular issues in pregnancy, most notably venous sinus thrombosis. Crowe and colleagues specifically looked at whether women with migraine experience a higher risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

This was a UK-based prospective cohort study using a large longitudinal database called the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Over 1 million live-born or stillborn deliveries were analyzed from 1993 through 2020. The data were linked to diagnosis and prescription codes for migraine that were filled or documented before 20 weeks of gestation and compared with diagnosis codes for hypertensive disorders that occurred from week 20 through the pregnancy and delivery. Regression models were then used to estimate risk ratios and CI. Only single pregnancies were counted because multiple pregnancies already are associated with a higher risk for most other vascular conditions.

Any history of migraine prior to pregnancy was associated with an increased risk for gestational hypertension, eclampsia, and preeclampsia (relative risk 1.17). The greatest risk was higher frequency. Migraine that persisted into the first trimester led to a relative risk of 1.84. The use of migraine medications, especially vasoconstrictive-type medications, was also associated with a higher risk compared with women without migraine.

Women with migraine frequently present before family planning to discuss the potential risks and options of migraine treatment during pregnancy. In addition to discussing the most appropriate preventive and acute medications, it would be appropriate also to discuss any potential red flag symptoms that may occur during pregnancy. This discussion should include hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as per this study.

Since the advent of CGRP antagonist treatments for migraine, many practitioners and patients have been curious to know whether specific features of migraine are better treated with this class of medication. There are now both acute and preventive CGRP antagonists, both as small molecule agents and monoclonal antibodies (mAb). Menstrual migraines specifically can be a more difficult-to-treat subtype, and often when other triggers are negated, hormonal fluctuation can still be a significant problem for many patients. Verhagen and colleagues set out to determine whether CGRP mAb are more or less effective for menstrually associated migraine.

This analysis was post hoc, using data from a single-arm study investigating the efficacy of two of the CGRP mAb medications: erenumab and fremanezumab. Patients were included if they had a history of migraine with > 8 monthly migraine days and at least one antihypertensive or antiepileptic preventive treatment for migraine had previously failed. Any other prophylactic medications were tapered before starting this trial; patients were given a validated electronic diary, and adherence to this diary had to be > 80%. Women were also excluded if they did not have regular menses (for instance, if they were on continuous hormonal contraception) or they were postmenopausal. Logistic regression was used to compare the preventive effect of these medications on perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine attacks.

A total of 45 women were included in this observation. The relative reduction in total monthly migraine days was 31.4%; 28% were noted during and around menses, 32% were during other times of the menstrual cycle. Sensitivity analysis showed no significant difference between these two periods of time, and the ratio remained statistically similar as well.

It appears that the relative reduction in monthly migraine days did not fluctuate when the patient was treated with a CGRP antagonist mAb. Although other classes of preventive medication, specifically onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), may affect menstrually associated migraine less potently, it appears that the CGRP antagonist class may be just as effective regardless of the underlying migraine trigger. It would definitely be worth considering a CGRP antagonist trial, or the addition of a CGRP mAb, if menstrual migraine remains significant despite otherwise effective preventive treatment.

Migraine is strongly affected by fluctuations in estrogen, and women with endometriosis often experience headaches associated with their severe attacks. Pasquini and colleagues specifically looked to see if the headache associated with endometriosis could be better diagnosed. Specifically, were these women experiencing migraine or another headache disorder?

This was a consecutive case-control series of 131 women admitted to a specialty endometriosis clinic. They were given a validated headache questionnaire that was reviewed by a neurologist to determine a diagnosis of migraine vs a diagnosis of another headache disorder. The case group included women with a history of endometriosis who were previously diagnosed with migraine, while the control group consisted of women with endometriosis only who did not have a history of headache.

Diagnosis of migraine was made in 53.4% of all patients: 18.6% of those experienced pure menstrual migraine (defined as migraine only occurring perimenstrually), 46% had some menstrually associated migraine symptoms, and 36% had purely non-menstrual migraine. Painful periods and dysuria were more frequent in patients with endometriosis and migraine compared with those without migraine. Other menstrually related conditions, including the duration of endometriosis, the phenotype of endometriosis, the presence of other systemic comorbidities, or heavy menstrual bleeding did not seem to differ significantly between the migraine and non-migraine groups.

Women of reproductive age consistently are seen most often for migraine and other headache conditions. Much of this is related to menstrual migraine and the effect that hormonal fluctuation has on migraine frequency and severity. Most practitioners work closely with their patient's gynecologist to determine which hormonal treatments and migraine treatments are most appropriate and safe for each individual situation. This study in particular sheds light on the particular phenotypes of headache pain and the specific headache diagnosis that most women with endometriosis experience.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is both a clinically and molecularly heterogenous disease. The International Prognostic Index (IPI), which is based on clinical and laboratory variables, is still currently used to delineate risk at the time of diagnosis. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma can also further be classified into either germinal center B-cell (GCB) or activated B-cell (ABC) subtype, also known as the cell-of-origin classification (COO), which has been prognostic in prior studies.¹ COO is based on gene expression profiling (GEP), though it can be estimated by immunohistochemistry.

Although these classifications are available, treatment of DLBCL has largely remained uniform over the past few decades. Despite encouraging preclinical data and early trials, large randomized studies had not demonstrated an advantage of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone (R-CHOP) plus X over R-CHOP alone.^2,3 The REMoDL-B trial, which included 801 adult patients with DLBCL, including patients with ABC, GCB, or molecular high grade (MHG) classification by GEP. Patients received one cycle of R-CHOP and were randomly assigned to R-CHOP (n = 407) alone or bortezomib–R-CHOP (n = 394) for cycles 2-6. Initial reports did not demonstrate any clear benefit of the addition of bortezomib.⁴ More recently, however, 5-year follow-up data demonstrate that the addition of bortezomib confers an advantage over R-CHOP in patients with ABC and MHG DLBCL (Davies et al). Bortezomib–R-CHOP vs R-CHOP significantly improved 60-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.65; P = .041) and MHG (aHR 0.46; P = .011) groups and overall survival (OS) in the ABC group (aHR 0.58; P = .032). The GCB group showed no significant difference in PFS or OS.

Despite the results of REMoDL-B, it is unlikely that this study will change practice. GEP is not readily available and with the approval of polatuzumab (pola)–R-CHP, based on the results of POLARIX trial, there is new option available for patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL with a high IPI. A recent meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials (Sheng et al) involving 8376 patients with previously untreated ABC- or GCB-type DLBCL who received pola–R-CHP or other regimens was also recently performed. This study showed that pola–R-CHP prolonged PFS in patients with ABC-type DLBCL compared with bortezomib–R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52; P = .02); ibrutinib–R-CHOP (HR 0.43; P = .001); lenalidomide–R-CHOP (HR 0.51; P = .009); Obinutuzumab–CHOP (HR 0.46; P = .008); R-CHOP (HR 0.40; P < .001); and bortezomib, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide (HR 0.44; P = .07). Pola–R-CHP had no PFS benefit in patients with GCB-type DLBCL. Although it is difficult to directly compare trials, these data suggest that pola–R-CHP is active in ABC subtype DLBCL.

Together, these trials suggest that there still may be a role for more personalized therapy in DLBCL, though there may be room for improvement. Recent studies have suggested more complex genomic underpinnings in DLBCL beyond COO, which will hopefully be studied in the context of DLBCL trials.⁵

In the second line, patients with primary refractory or early relapse of DLBCL now have the option of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, based on the results of the ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies.^6,7 Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) was also found to have a manageable safety profile in older patients with large B-cell lymphoma who were not transplant candidates in the PILOT study, leading to approval in this setting.⁸ More recently, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was found to be an effective second-line therapy with a manageable safety profile for patients aged ≥ 65 years as well (Westin et al). These findings are from a preplanned analysis of 109 patients aged ≥ 65 years from ZUMA-7 who were randomly assigned to receive second-line axi-cel (n = 51) or standard of care (SOC) (n = 58; two or three cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation). At a median follow-up of 24.3 months, the median event-free survival was significantly longer with axi-cel vs SOC; 21.5 vs 2.5 months; HR, 0.276; descriptive P < .0001). Rates of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were 94% and 82% with axi-cel and SOC, respectively. Although these patients were considered transplant eligible, this study demonstrates that axi-cel can be safely administered to older patients.

Additional References

1.         Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan WC, et al; Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project. The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1937-1947. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012914

2.         Younes A, Sehn LH, Johnson P, et al; PHOENIX investigators. Randomized phase III trial of ibrutinib and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1285-1295. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02403

3.         Nowakowski GS, Chiappella A, Gascoyne RD, et al; ROBUST Trial Investigators. ROBUST: a phase III study of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP versus placebo plus R-CHOP in previously untreated patients with ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1317-1328. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01366

4.         Davies A, Cummin TE, Barrans S, et al. Gene-expression profiling of bortezomib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (REMoDL-B): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:649-662. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30935-5

5.         Crombie JL, Armand P. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma's new genomics: the bridge and the chasm. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3565-3574. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01501

6.         Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al for All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133

7.         Abramson JS, Solomon SR, Arnason JE, et al; TRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of phase 3 TRANSFORM study. Blood. 2023:141:1675-1684. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022018730

8.         Sehgal A, Hoda D, Riedell PA, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PILOT): an open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1066-1077. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00339-4

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is both a clinically and molecularly heterogenous disease. The International Prognostic Index (IPI), which is based on clinical and laboratory variables, is still currently used to delineate risk at the time of diagnosis. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma can also further be classified into either germinal center B-cell (GCB) or activated B-cell (ABC) subtype, also known as the cell-of-origin classification (COO), which has been prognostic in prior studies.¹ COO is based on gene expression profiling (GEP), though it can be estimated by immunohistochemistry.

Although these classifications are available, treatment of DLBCL has largely remained uniform over the past few decades. Despite encouraging preclinical data and early trials, large randomized studies had not demonstrated an advantage of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone (R-CHOP) plus X over R-CHOP alone.^2,3 The REMoDL-B trial, which included 801 adult patients with DLBCL, including patients with ABC, GCB, or molecular high grade (MHG) classification by GEP. Patients received one cycle of R-CHOP and were randomly assigned to R-CHOP (n = 407) alone or bortezomib–R-CHOP (n = 394) for cycles 2-6. Initial reports did not demonstrate any clear benefit of the addition of bortezomib.⁴ More recently, however, 5-year follow-up data demonstrate that the addition of bortezomib confers an advantage over R-CHOP in patients with ABC and MHG DLBCL (Davies et al). Bortezomib–R-CHOP vs R-CHOP significantly improved 60-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.65; P = .041) and MHG (aHR 0.46; P = .011) groups and overall survival (OS) in the ABC group (aHR 0.58; P = .032). The GCB group showed no significant difference in PFS or OS.

Despite the results of REMoDL-B, it is unlikely that this study will change practice. GEP is not readily available and with the approval of polatuzumab (pola)–R-CHP, based on the results of POLARIX trial, there is new option available for patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL with a high IPI. A recent meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials (Sheng et al) involving 8376 patients with previously untreated ABC- or GCB-type DLBCL who received pola–R-CHP or other regimens was also recently performed. This study showed that pola–R-CHP prolonged PFS in patients with ABC-type DLBCL compared with bortezomib–R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52; P = .02); ibrutinib–R-CHOP (HR 0.43; P = .001); lenalidomide–R-CHOP (HR 0.51; P = .009); Obinutuzumab–CHOP (HR 0.46; P = .008); R-CHOP (HR 0.40; P < .001); and bortezomib, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide (HR 0.44; P = .07). Pola–R-CHP had no PFS benefit in patients with GCB-type DLBCL. Although it is difficult to directly compare trials, these data suggest that pola–R-CHP is active in ABC subtype DLBCL.

Together, these trials suggest that there still may be a role for more personalized therapy in DLBCL, though there may be room for improvement. Recent studies have suggested more complex genomic underpinnings in DLBCL beyond COO, which will hopefully be studied in the context of DLBCL trials.⁵

In the second line, patients with primary refractory or early relapse of DLBCL now have the option of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, based on the results of the ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies.^6,7 Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) was also found to have a manageable safety profile in older patients with large B-cell lymphoma who were not transplant candidates in the PILOT study, leading to approval in this setting.⁸ More recently, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was found to be an effective second-line therapy with a manageable safety profile for patients aged ≥ 65 years as well (Westin et al). These findings are from a preplanned analysis of 109 patients aged ≥ 65 years from ZUMA-7 who were randomly assigned to receive second-line axi-cel (n = 51) or standard of care (SOC) (n = 58; two or three cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation). At a median follow-up of 24.3 months, the median event-free survival was significantly longer with axi-cel vs SOC; 21.5 vs 2.5 months; HR, 0.276; descriptive P < .0001). Rates of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were 94% and 82% with axi-cel and SOC, respectively. Although these patients were considered transplant eligible, this study demonstrates that axi-cel can be safely administered to older patients.

Additional References

1.         Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan WC, et al; Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project. The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1937-1947. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012914

2.         Younes A, Sehn LH, Johnson P, et al; PHOENIX investigators. Randomized phase III trial of ibrutinib and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1285-1295. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02403

3.         Nowakowski GS, Chiappella A, Gascoyne RD, et al; ROBUST Trial Investigators. ROBUST: a phase III study of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP versus placebo plus R-CHOP in previously untreated patients with ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1317-1328. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01366

4.         Davies A, Cummin TE, Barrans S, et al. Gene-expression profiling of bortezomib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (REMoDL-B): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:649-662. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30935-5

5.         Crombie JL, Armand P. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma's new genomics: the bridge and the chasm. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3565-3574. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01501

6.         Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al for All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133

7.         Abramson JS, Solomon SR, Arnason JE, et al; TRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of phase 3 TRANSFORM study. Blood. 2023:141:1675-1684. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022018730

8.         Sehgal A, Hoda D, Riedell PA, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PILOT): an open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1066-1077. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00339-4

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is both a clinically and molecularly heterogenous disease. The International Prognostic Index (IPI), which is based on clinical and laboratory variables, is still currently used to delineate risk at the time of diagnosis. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma can also further be classified into either germinal center B-cell (GCB) or activated B-cell (ABC) subtype, also known as the cell-of-origin classification (COO), which has been prognostic in prior studies.¹ COO is based on gene expression profiling (GEP), though it can be estimated by immunohistochemistry.

Although these classifications are available, treatment of DLBCL has largely remained uniform over the past few decades. Despite encouraging preclinical data and early trials, large randomized studies had not demonstrated an advantage of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone (R-CHOP) plus X over R-CHOP alone.^2,3 The REMoDL-B trial, which included 801 adult patients with DLBCL, including patients with ABC, GCB, or molecular high grade (MHG) classification by GEP. Patients received one cycle of R-CHOP and were randomly assigned to R-CHOP (n = 407) alone or bortezomib–R-CHOP (n = 394) for cycles 2-6. Initial reports did not demonstrate any clear benefit of the addition of bortezomib.⁴ More recently, however, 5-year follow-up data demonstrate that the addition of bortezomib confers an advantage over R-CHOP in patients with ABC and MHG DLBCL (Davies et al). Bortezomib–R-CHOP vs R-CHOP significantly improved 60-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.65; P = .041) and MHG (aHR 0.46; P = .011) groups and overall survival (OS) in the ABC group (aHR 0.58; P = .032). The GCB group showed no significant difference in PFS or OS.

Despite the results of REMoDL-B, it is unlikely that this study will change practice. GEP is not readily available and with the approval of polatuzumab (pola)–R-CHP, based on the results of POLARIX trial, there is new option available for patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL with a high IPI. A recent meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials (Sheng et al) involving 8376 patients with previously untreated ABC- or GCB-type DLBCL who received pola–R-CHP or other regimens was also recently performed. This study showed that pola–R-CHP prolonged PFS in patients with ABC-type DLBCL compared with bortezomib–R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52; P = .02); ibrutinib–R-CHOP (HR 0.43; P = .001); lenalidomide–R-CHOP (HR 0.51; P = .009); Obinutuzumab–CHOP (HR 0.46; P = .008); R-CHOP (HR 0.40; P < .001); and bortezomib, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide (HR 0.44; P = .07). Pola–R-CHP had no PFS benefit in patients with GCB-type DLBCL. Although it is difficult to directly compare trials, these data suggest that pola–R-CHP is active in ABC subtype DLBCL.

Together, these trials suggest that there still may be a role for more personalized therapy in DLBCL, though there may be room for improvement. Recent studies have suggested more complex genomic underpinnings in DLBCL beyond COO, which will hopefully be studied in the context of DLBCL trials.⁵

In the second line, patients with primary refractory or early relapse of DLBCL now have the option of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, based on the results of the ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies.^6,7 Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) was also found to have a manageable safety profile in older patients with large B-cell lymphoma who were not transplant candidates in the PILOT study, leading to approval in this setting.⁸ More recently, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was found to be an effective second-line therapy with a manageable safety profile for patients aged ≥ 65 years as well (Westin et al). These findings are from a preplanned analysis of 109 patients aged ≥ 65 years from ZUMA-7 who were randomly assigned to receive second-line axi-cel (n = 51) or standard of care (SOC) (n = 58; two or three cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation). At a median follow-up of 24.3 months, the median event-free survival was significantly longer with axi-cel vs SOC; 21.5 vs 2.5 months; HR, 0.276; descriptive P < .0001). Rates of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were 94% and 82% with axi-cel and SOC, respectively. Although these patients were considered transplant eligible, this study demonstrates that axi-cel can be safely administered to older patients.

Additional References

1.         Rosenwald A, Wright G, Chan WC, et al; Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project. The use of molecular profiling to predict survival after chemotherapy for diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1937-1947. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012914

2.         Younes A, Sehn LH, Johnson P, et al; PHOENIX investigators. Randomized phase III trial of ibrutinib and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1285-1295. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02403

3.         Nowakowski GS, Chiappella A, Gascoyne RD, et al; ROBUST Trial Investigators. ROBUST: a phase III study of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP versus placebo plus R-CHOP in previously untreated patients with ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1317-1328. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01366

4.         Davies A, Cummin TE, Barrans S, et al. Gene-expression profiling of bortezomib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (REMoDL-B): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:649-662. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30935-5

5.         Crombie JL, Armand P. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma's new genomics: the bridge and the chasm. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3565-3574. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01501

6.         Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al for All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133

7.         Abramson JS, Solomon SR, Arnason JE, et al; TRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of phase 3 TRANSFORM study. Blood. 2023:141:1675-1684. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022018730

8.         Sehgal A, Hoda D, Riedell PA, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PILOT): an open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1066-1077. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00339-4

A cohort study by Minami and colleagues assessed the association between surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy) and change in frailty status in older patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) undergoing locoregional therapy. The study included 31,084 women, age ≥ 65 years, with ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 9962) or stage I hormone receptor–positive (HR+) and ERBB2+ (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive [HER2+]) BC (n = 21,122), of which 22.6% and 77.4% of patients underwent mastectomy and lumpectomy, respectively. The study showed that older patients who underwent mastectomy vs lumpectomy were more likely to experience worse frailty (adjusted odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.23-1.39). Additionally, women who were robust vs having moderate to severe frailty at baseline, ≥ 75 years vs 65-69 years, or African American/Black vs non-Hispanic White, had significantly higher odds of decline. Given that prior data have shown comparable survival between lumpectomy and mastectomy, careful and thoughtful treatment considerations are needed before deciding to intensify surgical management in this population, even in women who do not appear frail at baseline.

Low-dose tamoxifen continues to prevent BC recurrence in breast noninvasive neoplasia

Low-dose tamoxifen is a treatment option for women with noninvasive BC, especially if the patient was not able to tolerate the standard dose of 20 mg daily. The phase 3 TAM-01 trial included 500 women with intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast who were randomly assigned to receive low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg once daily) or placebo. The 10-year follow-up analysis by Lazzeroni and colleagues showed that treatment with low-dose tamoxifen for 3 years continued to prevent a BC recurrence for at least 7 years after treatment cessation. After a median follow-up of 9.7 years, fewer cases of both invasive and in situ BC (hazard ratio 0.58; log-rank P = .03) and contralateral BC (hazard ratio 0.36; P = .025) were reported in the tamoxifen vs placebo group. These results are meaningful, especially in a setting of an optimal safety profile, where patients on low-dose tamoxifen were experiencing similar menopausal symptoms to placebo, and serious adverse events, such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, were not increased during low-dose tamoxifen therapy. This is different from the threefold increased risk reported with standard dosing.

Worse survival in BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers receiving ET in HR+/HER2− BC

Inconsistent data have been reported on the prognostic impact of BRCA1/2 mutation in HR+ BC. A retrospective study by Frenel and colleagues included 13,776 patients with metastatic BC (MBC) from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) MBC database, of which 676 and 170 patients were germline BRCA wild-type (gBRCAwt) and germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm) carriers, respectively. They looked at outcomes and first-line endocrine treatment efficacy in patients with HR+/HER2- MBC, treated in a pre–cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors era. The results showed that gBRCAm carriers had shorter overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; P = .024) and progression-free survival (PFS; aHR 1.21; P = .017) compared with gBRCAwt carriers. Furthermore, among those treated with front-line endocrine therapy, gBRCAm patients had lower adjusted OS (aHR [95% CI] 1.54 [1.03-2.32]) and PFS (aHR [95% CI] 1.58 [1.17-2.12]) compared with gBRCAwt patients. Outcomes were similar for gBRCAm patients who received first-line chemotherapy compared with the gBRCAwt group (OS: aHR [95% CI] 1.12 [0.88-1.41]; first-line PFS: aHR [95% CI] 1.09 [0.90-1.31]). A previous retrospective study by Lambertini and colleagues, focusing on young patients with gBRCAm, also showed a tendency for a worse distant recurrence-free interval (aHR 1.39; 95% CI  0.94-2.05) in patients with HR+ BC. Additional studies are needed, especially in the setting of an evolving treatment landscape that includes CDK4/6 inhibitors and poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

A cohort study by Minami and colleagues assessed the association between surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy) and change in frailty status in older patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) undergoing locoregional therapy. The study included 31,084 women, age ≥ 65 years, with ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 9962) or stage I hormone receptor–positive (HR+) and ERBB2+ (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive [HER2+]) BC (n = 21,122), of which 22.6% and 77.4% of patients underwent mastectomy and lumpectomy, respectively. The study showed that older patients who underwent mastectomy vs lumpectomy were more likely to experience worse frailty (adjusted odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.23-1.39). Additionally, women who were robust vs having moderate to severe frailty at baseline, ≥ 75 years vs 65-69 years, or African American/Black vs non-Hispanic White, had significantly higher odds of decline. Given that prior data have shown comparable survival between lumpectomy and mastectomy, careful and thoughtful treatment considerations are needed before deciding to intensify surgical management in this population, even in women who do not appear frail at baseline.

Low-dose tamoxifen continues to prevent BC recurrence in breast noninvasive neoplasia

Low-dose tamoxifen is a treatment option for women with noninvasive BC, especially if the patient was not able to tolerate the standard dose of 20 mg daily. The phase 3 TAM-01 trial included 500 women with intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast who were randomly assigned to receive low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg once daily) or placebo. The 10-year follow-up analysis by Lazzeroni and colleagues showed that treatment with low-dose tamoxifen for 3 years continued to prevent a BC recurrence for at least 7 years after treatment cessation. After a median follow-up of 9.7 years, fewer cases of both invasive and in situ BC (hazard ratio 0.58; log-rank P = .03) and contralateral BC (hazard ratio 0.36; P = .025) were reported in the tamoxifen vs placebo group. These results are meaningful, especially in a setting of an optimal safety profile, where patients on low-dose tamoxifen were experiencing similar menopausal symptoms to placebo, and serious adverse events, such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, were not increased during low-dose tamoxifen therapy. This is different from the threefold increased risk reported with standard dosing.

Worse survival in BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers receiving ET in HR+/HER2− BC

Inconsistent data have been reported on the prognostic impact of BRCA1/2 mutation in HR+ BC. A retrospective study by Frenel and colleagues included 13,776 patients with metastatic BC (MBC) from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) MBC database, of which 676 and 170 patients were germline BRCA wild-type (gBRCAwt) and germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm) carriers, respectively. They looked at outcomes and first-line endocrine treatment efficacy in patients with HR+/HER2- MBC, treated in a pre–cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors era. The results showed that gBRCAm carriers had shorter overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; P = .024) and progression-free survival (PFS; aHR 1.21; P = .017) compared with gBRCAwt carriers. Furthermore, among those treated with front-line endocrine therapy, gBRCAm patients had lower adjusted OS (aHR [95% CI] 1.54 [1.03-2.32]) and PFS (aHR [95% CI] 1.58 [1.17-2.12]) compared with gBRCAwt patients. Outcomes were similar for gBRCAm patients who received first-line chemotherapy compared with the gBRCAwt group (OS: aHR [95% CI] 1.12 [0.88-1.41]; first-line PFS: aHR [95% CI] 1.09 [0.90-1.31]). A previous retrospective study by Lambertini and colleagues, focusing on young patients with gBRCAm, also showed a tendency for a worse distant recurrence-free interval (aHR 1.39; 95% CI  0.94-2.05) in patients with HR+ BC. Additional studies are needed, especially in the setting of an evolving treatment landscape that includes CDK4/6 inhibitors and poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

A cohort study by Minami and colleagues assessed the association between surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy) and change in frailty status in older patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) undergoing locoregional therapy. The study included 31,084 women, age ≥ 65 years, with ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 9962) or stage I hormone receptor–positive (HR+) and ERBB2+ (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive [HER2+]) BC (n = 21,122), of which 22.6% and 77.4% of patients underwent mastectomy and lumpectomy, respectively. The study showed that older patients who underwent mastectomy vs lumpectomy were more likely to experience worse frailty (adjusted odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.23-1.39). Additionally, women who were robust vs having moderate to severe frailty at baseline, ≥ 75 years vs 65-69 years, or African American/Black vs non-Hispanic White, had significantly higher odds of decline. Given that prior data have shown comparable survival between lumpectomy and mastectomy, careful and thoughtful treatment considerations are needed before deciding to intensify surgical management in this population, even in women who do not appear frail at baseline.

Low-dose tamoxifen continues to prevent BC recurrence in breast noninvasive neoplasia

Low-dose tamoxifen is a treatment option for women with noninvasive BC, especially if the patient was not able to tolerate the standard dose of 20 mg daily. The phase 3 TAM-01 trial included 500 women with intraepithelial neoplasia of the breast who were randomly assigned to receive low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg once daily) or placebo. The 10-year follow-up analysis by Lazzeroni and colleagues showed that treatment with low-dose tamoxifen for 3 years continued to prevent a BC recurrence for at least 7 years after treatment cessation. After a median follow-up of 9.7 years, fewer cases of both invasive and in situ BC (hazard ratio 0.58; log-rank P = .03) and contralateral BC (hazard ratio 0.36; P = .025) were reported in the tamoxifen vs placebo group. These results are meaningful, especially in a setting of an optimal safety profile, where patients on low-dose tamoxifen were experiencing similar menopausal symptoms to placebo, and serious adverse events, such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, were not increased during low-dose tamoxifen therapy. This is different from the threefold increased risk reported with standard dosing.

Worse survival in BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers receiving ET in HR+/HER2− BC

Inconsistent data have been reported on the prognostic impact of BRCA1/2 mutation in HR+ BC. A retrospective study by Frenel and colleagues included 13,776 patients with metastatic BC (MBC) from the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) MBC database, of which 676 and 170 patients were germline BRCA wild-type (gBRCAwt) and germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm) carriers, respectively. They looked at outcomes and first-line endocrine treatment efficacy in patients with HR+/HER2- MBC, treated in a pre–cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors era. The results showed that gBRCAm carriers had shorter overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; P = .024) and progression-free survival (PFS; aHR 1.21; P = .017) compared with gBRCAwt carriers. Furthermore, among those treated with front-line endocrine therapy, gBRCAm patients had lower adjusted OS (aHR [95% CI] 1.54 [1.03-2.32]) and PFS (aHR [95% CI] 1.58 [1.17-2.12]) compared with gBRCAwt patients. Outcomes were similar for gBRCAm patients who received first-line chemotherapy compared with the gBRCAwt group (OS: aHR [95% CI] 1.12 [0.88-1.41]; first-line PFS: aHR [95% CI] 1.09 [0.90-1.31]). A previous retrospective study by Lambertini and colleagues, focusing on young patients with gBRCAm, also showed a tendency for a worse distant recurrence-free interval (aHR 1.39; 95% CI  0.94-2.05) in patients with HR+ BC. Additional studies are needed, especially in the setting of an evolving treatment landscape that includes CDK4/6 inhibitors and poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.

Although rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well understood to be associated with cigarette smoking as well as with a risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD), its association with airway diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and with allergic disorders such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis, is unknown. Kim and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using information from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey by 334 respondents with RA and over 13,000 respondents without RA and analyzed the association of RA with asthma and asthma-related comorbidities. The prevalence of asthma was higher in respondents with RA (7.5% vs 2.8%; P < .001), but the prevalence of other allergic disorders and COPD wassimilar between groups. This finding in a small group of respondents is not striking and its importance is unclear compared with other nonallergic pulmonary disorders. Inferring a mechanistic connection to T-helper (Th) 1- vs Th2 immunity would thus be premature.

Baker and colleagues examined the risk for RA-associated ILD in patients taking different therapies for RA, a topic of great interest due to the frequency of this complication as well as uncertainty regarding its association with medications, including anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and methotrexate. Using a claims database, they performed a retrospective study of patients with RA without existing ILD who were treated with a biologic (b) or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD; abatacept, adalimumab, rituximab, tocilizumab, and tofacitinib). In over 28,000 patients with RA, incidence ratios for ILD were > 1 for all bDMARD, while the incidence ratio for ILD with tofacitinib was 1.47. As the group of patients treated with tofacitinib was the smallest, the reliability of this result is uncertain and thus not strong enough to suggest a protective effect or preference for this medication in patients with known ILD. However, prospective studies looking at ILD in RA patients taking tofacitinib would be of interest.

Kristensen and colleagues also looked at risks associated with tofacitinib and anti-TNF agents, in particular cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and venous thromboembolism, using data from the open-label randomized ORAL Surveillance study, which looked at patients taking 5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, adalimumab, or etanercept. The 10 mg dose was reduced to 5 mg twice daily after it was found that rates of pulmonary embolism were higher in the group taking the higher dose. Age and smoking are also known to be risk factors for malignancy and cardiovascular disease in patients with RA, and these findings carried through in this analysis as well. Within the study, patients taking tofacitinib over age 65 who had ever smoked had a higher risk for cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, malignancy, venous thromboembolism, and death compared with patients on anti-TNF therapy, while patients taking tofacitinib who were younger than 65 and had never smoked had a risk similar to those on anti-TNF therapy.The study confirms prior knowledge regarding the risks of tofacitinib in different patient populations, suggesting that caution should be used with this medication in older patients and those who smoke.

Although rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well understood to be associated with cigarette smoking as well as with a risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD), its association with airway diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and with allergic disorders such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis, is unknown. Kim and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using information from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey by 334 respondents with RA and over 13,000 respondents without RA and analyzed the association of RA with asthma and asthma-related comorbidities. The prevalence of asthma was higher in respondents with RA (7.5% vs 2.8%; P < .001), but the prevalence of other allergic disorders and COPD wassimilar between groups. This finding in a small group of respondents is not striking and its importance is unclear compared with other nonallergic pulmonary disorders. Inferring a mechanistic connection to T-helper (Th) 1- vs Th2 immunity would thus be premature.

Baker and colleagues examined the risk for RA-associated ILD in patients taking different therapies for RA, a topic of great interest due to the frequency of this complication as well as uncertainty regarding its association with medications, including anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and methotrexate. Using a claims database, they performed a retrospective study of patients with RA without existing ILD who were treated with a biologic (b) or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD; abatacept, adalimumab, rituximab, tocilizumab, and tofacitinib). In over 28,000 patients with RA, incidence ratios for ILD were > 1 for all bDMARD, while the incidence ratio for ILD with tofacitinib was 1.47. As the group of patients treated with tofacitinib was the smallest, the reliability of this result is uncertain and thus not strong enough to suggest a protective effect or preference for this medication in patients with known ILD. However, prospective studies looking at ILD in RA patients taking tofacitinib would be of interest.

Kristensen and colleagues also looked at risks associated with tofacitinib and anti-TNF agents, in particular cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and venous thromboembolism, using data from the open-label randomized ORAL Surveillance study, which looked at patients taking 5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, adalimumab, or etanercept. The 10 mg dose was reduced to 5 mg twice daily after it was found that rates of pulmonary embolism were higher in the group taking the higher dose. Age and smoking are also known to be risk factors for malignancy and cardiovascular disease in patients with RA, and these findings carried through in this analysis as well. Within the study, patients taking tofacitinib over age 65 who had ever smoked had a higher risk for cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, malignancy, venous thromboembolism, and death compared with patients on anti-TNF therapy, while patients taking tofacitinib who were younger than 65 and had never smoked had a risk similar to those on anti-TNF therapy.The study confirms prior knowledge regarding the risks of tofacitinib in different patient populations, suggesting that caution should be used with this medication in older patients and those who smoke.

Although rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well understood to be associated with cigarette smoking as well as with a risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD), its association with airway diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and with allergic disorders such as atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis, is unknown. Kim and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using information from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey by 334 respondents with RA and over 13,000 respondents without RA and analyzed the association of RA with asthma and asthma-related comorbidities. The prevalence of asthma was higher in respondents with RA (7.5% vs 2.8%; P < .001), but the prevalence of other allergic disorders and COPD wassimilar between groups. This finding in a small group of respondents is not striking and its importance is unclear compared with other nonallergic pulmonary disorders. Inferring a mechanistic connection to T-helper (Th) 1- vs Th2 immunity would thus be premature.

Baker and colleagues examined the risk for RA-associated ILD in patients taking different therapies for RA, a topic of great interest due to the frequency of this complication as well as uncertainty regarding its association with medications, including anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and methotrexate. Using a claims database, they performed a retrospective study of patients with RA without existing ILD who were treated with a biologic (b) or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD; abatacept, adalimumab, rituximab, tocilizumab, and tofacitinib). In over 28,000 patients with RA, incidence ratios for ILD were > 1 for all bDMARD, while the incidence ratio for ILD with tofacitinib was 1.47. As the group of patients treated with tofacitinib was the smallest, the reliability of this result is uncertain and thus not strong enough to suggest a protective effect or preference for this medication in patients with known ILD. However, prospective studies looking at ILD in RA patients taking tofacitinib would be of interest.

Kristensen and colleagues also looked at risks associated with tofacitinib and anti-TNF agents, in particular cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and venous thromboembolism, using data from the open-label randomized ORAL Surveillance study, which looked at patients taking 5 mg or 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily, adalimumab, or etanercept. The 10 mg dose was reduced to 5 mg twice daily after it was found that rates of pulmonary embolism were higher in the group taking the higher dose. Age and smoking are also known to be risk factors for malignancy and cardiovascular disease in patients with RA, and these findings carried through in this analysis as well. Within the study, patients taking tofacitinib over age 65 who had ever smoked had a higher risk for cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, malignancy, venous thromboembolism, and death compared with patients on anti-TNF therapy, while patients taking tofacitinib who were younger than 65 and had never smoked had a risk similar to those on anti-TNF therapy.The study confirms prior knowledge regarding the risks of tofacitinib in different patient populations, suggesting that caution should be used with this medication in older patients and those who smoke.

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with a significant increase in the risk for ischemic heart disease (IHD) and myocardial infarction (MI), and managing RA activity may reduce the risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Major finding: RA is significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD (odds ratio [OR] 1.0006; P  =  .001551915) and MI (OR 1.0458; P  =  .001636), but not arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation.

Study details: Findings are from a two-sample Mendelian randomization study including patients and matched control individuals for RA (n = 14,361 and n = 43,923, respectively), MI (n = 12,801 and n = 187,840, respectively), IHD (n = 5861 and n = 457,149, respectively), atrial fibrillation (n = 60,620 and n = 970,216, respectively), and arrhythmia (n = 2545 and n = 460,388, respectively).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Young Talent Development Plan of Changzhou Health Commission, China, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang M et al. Relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular comorbidity, causation or co-occurrence: A Mendelian randomization study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1099861 (Mar 17). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1099861

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with a significant increase in the risk for ischemic heart disease (IHD) and myocardial infarction (MI), and managing RA activity may reduce the risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Major finding: RA is significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD (odds ratio [OR] 1.0006; P  =  .001551915) and MI (OR 1.0458; P  =  .001636), but not arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation.

Study details: Findings are from a two-sample Mendelian randomization study including patients and matched control individuals for RA (n = 14,361 and n = 43,923, respectively), MI (n = 12,801 and n = 187,840, respectively), IHD (n = 5861 and n = 457,149, respectively), atrial fibrillation (n = 60,620 and n = 970,216, respectively), and arrhythmia (n = 2545 and n = 460,388, respectively).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Young Talent Development Plan of Changzhou Health Commission, China, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang M et al. Relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular comorbidity, causation or co-occurrence: A Mendelian randomization study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1099861 (Mar 17). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1099861

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with a significant increase in the risk for ischemic heart disease (IHD) and myocardial infarction (MI), and managing RA activity may reduce the risk for cardiovascular diseases.

Major finding: RA is significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD (odds ratio [OR] 1.0006; P  =  .001551915) and MI (OR 1.0458; P  =  .001636), but not arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation.

Study details: Findings are from a two-sample Mendelian randomization study including patients and matched control individuals for RA (n = 14,361 and n = 43,923, respectively), MI (n = 12,801 and n = 187,840, respectively), IHD (n = 5861 and n = 457,149, respectively), atrial fibrillation (n = 60,620 and n = 970,216, respectively), and arrhythmia (n = 2545 and n = 460,388, respectively).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Young Talent Development Plan of Changzhou Health Commission, China, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang M et al. Relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular comorbidity, causation or co-occurrence: A Mendelian randomization study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1099861 (Mar 17). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1099861

Key clinical point: Mortality risk varied with time and increased only during the second not the first decade after the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with respiratory diseases potentially surpassing cardiovascular diseases as major attributable factors.

Major finding: Increase in mortality was observed at 20 years (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 1.49; P < .001) but not during the first 10 years (P  =  .44) after RA diagnosis, with pneumonia (cause-specific SMR 5.22; 95% CI 2.26-10.29) and interstitial lung disease (cause-specific SMR 7.64; 95% CI 2.98-14.69) being major contributors.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1895 patients with RA from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) registry who received biologic, targeted synthetic, or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: ARAD received support through the Australian Rheumatology Association from various sources. Three authors declared receiving grants, funding, or honoraria from different sources unrelated to this study.

Source: Black RJ et al. Mortality estimates and excess mortality in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Mar 15). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead106

Key clinical point: Mortality risk varied with time and increased only during the second not the first decade after the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with respiratory diseases potentially surpassing cardiovascular diseases as major attributable factors.

Major finding: Increase in mortality was observed at 20 years (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 1.49; P < .001) but not during the first 10 years (P  =  .44) after RA diagnosis, with pneumonia (cause-specific SMR 5.22; 95% CI 2.26-10.29) and interstitial lung disease (cause-specific SMR 7.64; 95% CI 2.98-14.69) being major contributors.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1895 patients with RA from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) registry who received biologic, targeted synthetic, or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: ARAD received support through the Australian Rheumatology Association from various sources. Three authors declared receiving grants, funding, or honoraria from different sources unrelated to this study.

Source: Black RJ et al. Mortality estimates and excess mortality in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Mar 15). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead106

Key clinical point: Mortality risk varied with time and increased only during the second not the first decade after the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with respiratory diseases potentially surpassing cardiovascular diseases as major attributable factors.

Major finding: Increase in mortality was observed at 20 years (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 1.49; P < .001) but not during the first 10 years (P  =  .44) after RA diagnosis, with pneumonia (cause-specific SMR 5.22; 95% CI 2.26-10.29) and interstitial lung disease (cause-specific SMR 7.64; 95% CI 2.98-14.69) being major contributors.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1895 patients with RA from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) registry who received biologic, targeted synthetic, or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: ARAD received support through the Australian Rheumatology Association from various sources. Three authors declared receiving grants, funding, or honoraria from different sources unrelated to this study.

Source: Black RJ et al. Mortality estimates and excess mortality in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Mar 15). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead106

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was significantly associated with an increased risk for bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis, and sinusitis, and a notable interrelation was observed between the presence of asthma and obesity in patients with RA.

Major finding: Presence of RA significantly increased the risk for asthma (odds ratio [OR] 2.32; 95% CI 1.51-3.57), allergic rhinitis (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.08-2.10), and sinusitis (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.08-2.50) in the whole cohort and the prevalence of obesity in patients with asthma (64.0% vs 40.2%; P  =  .034).

Study details: This population-based cross-sectional study included 14,272 participants, of which 334 had RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean Government. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim JG et al. Association of rheumatoid arthritis with bronchial asthma and asthma-related comorbidities: A population-based national surveillance study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1006290 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1006290

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was significantly associated with an increased risk for bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis, and sinusitis, and a notable interrelation was observed between the presence of asthma and obesity in patients with RA.

Major finding: Presence of RA significantly increased the risk for asthma (odds ratio [OR] 2.32; 95% CI 1.51-3.57), allergic rhinitis (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.08-2.10), and sinusitis (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.08-2.50) in the whole cohort and the prevalence of obesity in patients with asthma (64.0% vs 40.2%; P  =  .034).

Study details: This population-based cross-sectional study included 14,272 participants, of which 334 had RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean Government. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim JG et al. Association of rheumatoid arthritis with bronchial asthma and asthma-related comorbidities: A population-based national surveillance study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1006290 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1006290

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was significantly associated with an increased risk for bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis, and sinusitis, and a notable interrelation was observed between the presence of asthma and obesity in patients with RA.

Major finding: Presence of RA significantly increased the risk for asthma (odds ratio [OR] 2.32; 95% CI 1.51-3.57), allergic rhinitis (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.08-2.10), and sinusitis (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.08-2.50) in the whole cohort and the prevalence of obesity in patients with asthma (64.0% vs 40.2%; P  =  .034).

Study details: This population-based cross-sectional study included 14,272 participants, of which 334 had RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean Government. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim JG et al. Association of rheumatoid arthritis with bronchial asthma and asthma-related comorbidities: A population-based national surveillance study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1006290 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1006290

Key clinical point: Abatacept with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated better efficacy and favorable safety outcomes compared with placebo, csDMARD, or other biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients treated with abatacept with or without csDMARD vs placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD were more likely to achieve American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 (relative risk [RR] 1.57; 95% CI 1.27-1.93), ACR50 (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.44), and ACR70 (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.60-3.47) responses, as well as were less likely to experience adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84-1.03).

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials including 5978 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive abatacept alone, abatacept with csDMARD, placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Ahamada MM and Wu X. Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/2xjg0d

Key clinical point: Abatacept with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated better efficacy and favorable safety outcomes compared with placebo, csDMARD, or other biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients treated with abatacept with or without csDMARD vs placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD were more likely to achieve American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 (relative risk [RR] 1.57; 95% CI 1.27-1.93), ACR50 (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.44), and ACR70 (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.60-3.47) responses, as well as were less likely to experience adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84-1.03).

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials including 5978 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive abatacept alone, abatacept with csDMARD, placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Ahamada MM and Wu X. Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/2xjg0d

Key clinical point: Abatacept with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated better efficacy and favorable safety outcomes compared with placebo, csDMARD, or other biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Patients treated with abatacept with or without csDMARD vs placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD were more likely to achieve American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 (relative risk [RR] 1.57; 95% CI 1.27-1.93), ACR50 (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.44), and ACR70 (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.60-3.47) responses, as well as were less likely to experience adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84-1.03).

Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials including 5978 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive abatacept alone, abatacept with csDMARD, placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.

Source: Ahamada MM and Wu X. Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/2xjg0d

Key clinical point: Factors like age ≥65 years or current or former smoking accounted for excess risk with tofacitinib vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Tofacitinib vs TNFi significantly increased the risk for malignancies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55; 95% CI 1.05-2.30), venous thromboembolism (HR 5.19; 95% CI 1.86-14.46), and all-cause death (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.20-4.19) among patients who were ≥65 years old or ever smokers, but not among those aged <65 years and never smokers.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance trial including patients with RA (n = 4362) treated with tofacitinib or TNFi and an exploratory analysis of RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis (UC) development programs including tofacitinib-exposed patients with RA (n = 7964), psoriatic arthritis (n = 783), and UC (n = 1157).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. Two authors declared receiving speaking, consulting, or lecture fees or research grants from Pfizer and other sources.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Identification of two tofacitinib subpopulations with different relative risk versus TNF inhibitors: An analysis of the open label, randomised controlled study ORAL Surveillance. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Mar 17). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223715

Key clinical point: Factors like age ≥65 years or current or former smoking accounted for excess risk with tofacitinib vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Tofacitinib vs TNFi significantly increased the risk for malignancies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55; 95% CI 1.05-2.30), venous thromboembolism (HR 5.19; 95% CI 1.86-14.46), and all-cause death (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.20-4.19) among patients who were ≥65 years old or ever smokers, but not among those aged <65 years and never smokers.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance trial including patients with RA (n = 4362) treated with tofacitinib or TNFi and an exploratory analysis of RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis (UC) development programs including tofacitinib-exposed patients with RA (n = 7964), psoriatic arthritis (n = 783), and UC (n = 1157).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. Two authors declared receiving speaking, consulting, or lecture fees or research grants from Pfizer and other sources.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Identification of two tofacitinib subpopulations with different relative risk versus TNF inhibitors: An analysis of the open label, randomised controlled study ORAL Surveillance. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Mar 17). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223715

Key clinical point: Factors like age ≥65 years or current or former smoking accounted for excess risk with tofacitinib vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Tofacitinib vs TNFi significantly increased the risk for malignancies (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55; 95% CI 1.05-2.30), venous thromboembolism (HR 5.19; 95% CI 1.86-14.46), and all-cause death (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.20-4.19) among patients who were ≥65 years old or ever smokers, but not among those aged <65 years and never smokers.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance trial including patients with RA (n = 4362) treated with tofacitinib or TNFi and an exploratory analysis of RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis (UC) development programs including tofacitinib-exposed patients with RA (n = 7964), psoriatic arthritis (n = 783), and UC (n = 1157).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. Two authors declared receiving speaking, consulting, or lecture fees or research grants from Pfizer and other sources.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Identification of two tofacitinib subpopulations with different relative risk versus TNF inhibitors: An analysis of the open label, randomised controlled study ORAL Surveillance. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 (Mar 17). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223715

Key clinical point: Risk for severe infections significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Over a period of 8 years, severe infection rates significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with RA after initiating bDMARD (adjusted difference between pre- and post-bDMARD rates [Δ] 1.85; P  =  .001), whereas no significant change was observed in control individuals from the general population (Δ 0.12; P  =  .29).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study including 60,226 patients with newly diagnosed RA and 588,499 age- and sex-matched control individuals without any inflammatory arthritis from the general population who initiated bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou VY et al. Risk of severe infections after the introduction of biologic DMARDs in people with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based interrupted time-series analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead158

Key clinical point: Risk for severe infections significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Over a period of 8 years, severe infection rates significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with RA after initiating bDMARD (adjusted difference between pre- and post-bDMARD rates [Δ] 1.85; P  =  .001), whereas no significant change was observed in control individuals from the general population (Δ 0.12; P  =  .29).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study including 60,226 patients with newly diagnosed RA and 588,499 age- and sex-matched control individuals without any inflammatory arthritis from the general population who initiated bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou VY et al. Risk of severe infections after the introduction of biologic DMARDs in people with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based interrupted time-series analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead158

Key clinical point: Risk for severe infections significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Over a period of 8 years, severe infection rates significantly increased in patients who were newly diagnosed with RA after initiating bDMARD (adjusted difference between pre- and post-bDMARD rates [Δ] 1.85; P  =  .001), whereas no significant change was observed in control individuals from the general population (Δ 0.12; P  =  .29).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based retrospective cohort study including 60,226 patients with newly diagnosed RA and 588,499 age- and sex-matched control individuals without any inflammatory arthritis from the general population who initiated bDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhou VY et al. Risk of severe infections after the introduction of biologic DMARDs in people with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based interrupted time-series analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Apr 4). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead158