Nephrology

TOPLINE:

Compared with a standard dosing regimen, a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen is associated with an increased risk for disease progression, relapse, death, or kidney failure in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, particularly affecting patients receiving rituximab or those with elevated creatinine levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• The PEXIVAS trial demonstrated that a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen was noninferior to standard dosing in terms of death or end-stage kidney disease in ANCA-associated vasculitis. However, the trial did not include disease progression or relapse as a primary endpoint, and cyclophosphamide was the primary induction therapy.
• Researchers conducted this retrospective study across 19 hospitals (18 in France and one in Luxembourg) between January 2018 and November 2022 to compare the effectiveness of a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen, as used in the PEXIVAS trial, with a standard-dose regimen in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in the real-world setting.
• They included 234 patients aged > 15 years (51% men) with severe granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n = 141) or microscopic polyangiitis (n = 93) who received induction therapy with rituximab or cyclophosphamide; 126 and 108 patients received reduced-dose and standard-dose glucocorticoid regimens, respectively.
• Most patients (70%) had severe renal involvement.
• The primary composite outcome encompassed minor relapse, major relapse, disease progression before remission, end-stage kidney disease requiring dialysis for > 12 weeks or transplantation, and death within 12 months post-induction.

TAKEAWAY:

• The primary composite outcome occurred in a higher proportion of patients receiving reduced-dose glucocorticoid therapy than in those receiving standard-dose therapy (33.3% vs 18.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.23-3.94).
• However, no significant association was found between reduced-dose glucocorticoids and the risk for death or end-stage kidney disease or the occurrence of serious infections.
• Among patients receiving reduced-dose glucocorticoids, serum creatinine levels > 300 μmol/L were associated with an increased risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.28-7.11).
• In the rituximab induction subgroup, reduced-dose glucocorticoid was associated with an increased risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.18-4.71), compared with standard-dose glucocorticoids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data suggest increased vigilance when using the [reduced-dose glucocorticoid] regimen, especially in the two subgroups of patients at higher risk of failure, that is, those receiving [rituximab] as induction therapy and those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 300 μmol/L,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sophie Nagle, MD, National Referral Centre for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France. It was published online on November 20, 2024, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of this study may have introduced inherent limitations and potential selection bias. The study lacked data on patient comorbidities, which could have influenced treatment choice and outcomes. Additionally, about a quarter of patients did not receive methylprednisolone pulses prior to oral glucocorticoids, unlike the PEXIVAS trial protocol. The group receiving standard-dose glucocorticoids showed heterogeneity in glucocorticoid regimens, and the minimum follow-up was only 6 months.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with a standard dosing regimen, a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen is associated with an increased risk for disease progression, relapse, death, or kidney failure in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, particularly affecting patients receiving rituximab or those with elevated creatinine levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• The PEXIVAS trial demonstrated that a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen was noninferior to standard dosing in terms of death or end-stage kidney disease in ANCA-associated vasculitis. However, the trial did not include disease progression or relapse as a primary endpoint, and cyclophosphamide was the primary induction therapy.
• Researchers conducted this retrospective study across 19 hospitals (18 in France and one in Luxembourg) between January 2018 and November 2022 to compare the effectiveness of a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen, as used in the PEXIVAS trial, with a standard-dose regimen in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in the real-world setting.
• They included 234 patients aged > 15 years (51% men) with severe granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n = 141) or microscopic polyangiitis (n = 93) who received induction therapy with rituximab or cyclophosphamide; 126 and 108 patients received reduced-dose and standard-dose glucocorticoid regimens, respectively.
• Most patients (70%) had severe renal involvement.
• The primary composite outcome encompassed minor relapse, major relapse, disease progression before remission, end-stage kidney disease requiring dialysis for > 12 weeks or transplantation, and death within 12 months post-induction.

TAKEAWAY:

• The primary composite outcome occurred in a higher proportion of patients receiving reduced-dose glucocorticoid therapy than in those receiving standard-dose therapy (33.3% vs 18.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.23-3.94).
• However, no significant association was found between reduced-dose glucocorticoids and the risk for death or end-stage kidney disease or the occurrence of serious infections.
• Among patients receiving reduced-dose glucocorticoids, serum creatinine levels > 300 μmol/L were associated with an increased risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.28-7.11).
• In the rituximab induction subgroup, reduced-dose glucocorticoid was associated with an increased risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.18-4.71), compared with standard-dose glucocorticoids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data suggest increased vigilance when using the [reduced-dose glucocorticoid] regimen, especially in the two subgroups of patients at higher risk of failure, that is, those receiving [rituximab] as induction therapy and those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 300 μmol/L,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sophie Nagle, MD, National Referral Centre for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France. It was published online on November 20, 2024, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of this study may have introduced inherent limitations and potential selection bias. The study lacked data on patient comorbidities, which could have influenced treatment choice and outcomes. Additionally, about a quarter of patients did not receive methylprednisolone pulses prior to oral glucocorticoids, unlike the PEXIVAS trial protocol. The group receiving standard-dose glucocorticoids showed heterogeneity in glucocorticoid regimens, and the minimum follow-up was only 6 months.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with a standard dosing regimen, a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen is associated with an increased risk for disease progression, relapse, death, or kidney failure in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, particularly affecting patients receiving rituximab or those with elevated creatinine levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• The PEXIVAS trial demonstrated that a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen was noninferior to standard dosing in terms of death or end-stage kidney disease in ANCA-associated vasculitis. However, the trial did not include disease progression or relapse as a primary endpoint, and cyclophosphamide was the primary induction therapy.
• Researchers conducted this retrospective study across 19 hospitals (18 in France and one in Luxembourg) between January 2018 and November 2022 to compare the effectiveness of a reduced-dose glucocorticoid regimen, as used in the PEXIVAS trial, with a standard-dose regimen in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in the real-world setting.
• They included 234 patients aged > 15 years (51% men) with severe granulomatosis with polyangiitis (n = 141) or microscopic polyangiitis (n = 93) who received induction therapy with rituximab or cyclophosphamide; 126 and 108 patients received reduced-dose and standard-dose glucocorticoid regimens, respectively.
• Most patients (70%) had severe renal involvement.
• The primary composite outcome encompassed minor relapse, major relapse, disease progression before remission, end-stage kidney disease requiring dialysis for > 12 weeks or transplantation, and death within 12 months post-induction.

TAKEAWAY:

• The primary composite outcome occurred in a higher proportion of patients receiving reduced-dose glucocorticoid therapy than in those receiving standard-dose therapy (33.3% vs 18.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.23-3.94).
• However, no significant association was found between reduced-dose glucocorticoids and the risk for death or end-stage kidney disease or the occurrence of serious infections.
• Among patients receiving reduced-dose glucocorticoids, serum creatinine levels > 300 μmol/L were associated with an increased risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.28-7.11).
• In the rituximab induction subgroup, reduced-dose glucocorticoid was associated with an increased risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.18-4.71), compared with standard-dose glucocorticoids.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data suggest increased vigilance when using the [reduced-dose glucocorticoid] regimen, especially in the two subgroups of patients at higher risk of failure, that is, those receiving [rituximab] as induction therapy and those with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 300 μmol/L,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sophie Nagle, MD, National Referral Centre for Rare Autoimmune and Systemic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France. It was published online on November 20, 2024, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of this study may have introduced inherent limitations and potential selection bias. The study lacked data on patient comorbidities, which could have influenced treatment choice and outcomes. Additionally, about a quarter of patients did not receive methylprednisolone pulses prior to oral glucocorticoids, unlike the PEXIVAS trial protocol. The group receiving standard-dose glucocorticoids showed heterogeneity in glucocorticoid regimens, and the minimum follow-up was only 6 months.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We have talked often in the past about potassium. Why is potassium so important in heart failure? It’s because many doctors are afraid to give some of the drugs that will raise the potassium, because then you need to deal with it —and everybody is afraid of hyperkalemia causing arrhythmias. 

Calm those nerves. Just remember that arrhythmias only occur when the potassium suddenly goes up. This chronic hyperkalemia, which occurs with many of our drugs, usually — I can’t say every time — does not result in arrhythmias.

 

Patiromer and Zirconium Cyclosilicate

Now, we’ve got potassium binders. You’ve heard me talk about the potassium binders in several of my other chats with you, and they work. We have primarily two of them. The first one that came out was patiromer, and now I’m going to talk to you a little bit about zirconium cyclosilicate, which uses sodium as its exchange ion. Whenever you take out one ion, you have to put another one in, and in this case it’s sodium. Maybe if you use it in the higher doses, you can give the patient more edema or you can make the patient congested with more fluid. 

Years ago we did the DIAMOND study; it was a patiromer study, but in essence we found that you could continue to give the drug, particularly the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) such as spironolactone or eplerenone, as long as you have the patiromer as your safety net, and that the drugs were well tolerated and the adverse events were significantly less.

 

The REALIZE-K Trial

Now, let’s talk about the REALIZE-K trial. The researchers wanted to prove basically the same thing: that the patients could be started or kept on their spironolactone as long as you had that backup of the zirconium cyclosilicate binder.

They picked patients who had HFrEF — so, low ejection fractions, defined as less than 40% — and they were already on guideline-directed medical therapy, but not an MRA. They divided up the patients right from the beginning between those who were already hyperkalemic — in other words, they had potassiums of 5.1-5.9 mEq/L, which is when doctors start getting worried. GFRs had to be better than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², and if the potassium was not yet okay, they were given the zirconium cyclosilicate to normalize the potassium and then they entered the study. 

The second group had some history of or were at risk for hyperkalemia. Maybe their GFRs were lower, but their potassiums were somewhere between 3.5 and 5 mEq/L.

They started with about 366 patients. These trials have not been huge, certainly not what we normally see in heart failure trials. About 95 patients had hyperkalemia initially and 271 patients were normokalemic. 

Then they were randomized; about 102 patients went on the potassium binder and the other group went on the placebo. They continued the study and they continued to check whether the patient had to come off the drug or had to reduce or remove the spironolactone. 

These were older patients, mostly in their early seventies. This was an international trial. There were not that many patients from North America, but they had quite a few patients from Europe and some patients from Latin America. There were many with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and all the usual comorbidities that we typically see. 

The proportions of patients classified as New York Heart Association Class III and IV were about 16% to 17% and the rest were Class II, so this is really the ambulatory population. NT-proBNP levels were elevated, at approximately 1000-1200 pg/mL, and the GFRs were either in the high 40s or about 60 mL/min per 1.73 m². The patients were pretty well medicated, including with RAAS inhibition, beta-blockers, and even SGLT2 inhibitors. 

This is a very typical population and they wanted to see what happened. Did the patients remain on the binder and were they able to tolerate the spironolactone? In fact, that was the case.

At the end of the study, more patients had been able to stay on their spironolactone, which is that one drug that we’re not doing so well on when you look at large databases. If they were on the zirconium drug, they were more likely to stay on the spironolactone. They even did a sensitivity analysis, which really showed that it was consistent across the board. 

 

Edema and Hyperkalemia

Now we have two binders that have shown to us that patients can stay on their drugs. There were some interesting findings here, though.

There was more edema — again, everything is based on small numbers — and there seemed to be more heart failure events in the group that received the zirconium cyclosilicate. The first episode of hyperkalemia was delayed or didn’t happen at all. Again, the hyperkalemia was controlled. 

What does that tell you? Well, the exchange is sodium. There had been reports before that if you gave this binder at the higher doses, you would have more retention of sodium. I think we see that in this trial, even though the numbers are very small. 

According to the investigators, these were issues that could be resolved through an increase in diuretics or having the patient remember to be careful with their sodium intake so they don’t retain more fluid. 

My message to you is to use these binders, whichever one of the two you want or whichever your hospital has available for you on their formulary, because it may give you that sense of comfort and self-efficacy so that you can actually start your patients on an MRA and keep them on it.

The MRAs are lifesaving drugs and the patients with HFrEF need to be on them. This is a way to do it without having to sacrifice your true guideline-directed medical therapy.

Dr. Piña, Professor of Medicine/Cardiology/Heart Failure/Transplant; Quality Officer, Cardiovascular Line, Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Clinical Professor of Medicine, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Population & Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, disclosed ties with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

Veterans receiving blood pressure (BP) medication as needed while hospitalized were at a 23% higher risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and a 1.5-fold greater risk for potentially dangerous rapid reductions in BP.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the records of 133,760 veterans (90% men; mean age, 71.2 years) hospitalized in Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2015 and 2020.
• The study analyzed as-needed administration of BP drugs to patients who had an elevated BP but were asymptomatic.
• Patients who had at least one systolic BP reading above 140 mm Hg and received scheduled BP medication in the first 24 hours of hospitalization were included; those admitted to intensive care units or those who required surgery were excluded.
• The analysis compared outcomes between 28,526 patients who received as-needed drugs and 105,234 who did not; the primary outcome was time to the first AKI occurrence while hospitalized.
• Secondary outcomes included a reduction of more than 25% in systolic BP within 3 hours of as-needed BP medication, as well as a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that an AKI was 23% more likely to occur in veterans who received at least one as-needed BP medication (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29).
• Veterans who received BP medication as needed were 50% more likely to experience a rapid drop in BP within 3 hours (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.39-1.62) and more than twice as likely after 1 hour (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.81-2.46) than those who did not receive medication.
• The risk of experiencing the composite outcome was 69% times higher in the as-needed group (rate ratio [RR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.49-1.92), with individual increased risks for myocardial infarction (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.09-4.07), stroke (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30-3.03), and death (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The practical implication of our findings is that there is at least equipoise regarding the utility of as-needed BP medication use for asymptomatic BP elevations in hospitals ... future prospective trials should evaluate the risks and benefits of this common practice,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muna Thalji Canales, MD, MS, of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida. It was published online on November 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis may have included confounding factors that could have influenced results. The focus on veterans who had not undergone surgery limits generalizability to women, surgical patients, and nonveteran populations. The researchers noted limited data on factors that might influence BP readings in the hospital such as pain, stress, and faulty machinery.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors reported grants and consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and BMS, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, among others.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Veterans receiving blood pressure (BP) medication as needed while hospitalized were at a 23% higher risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and a 1.5-fold greater risk for potentially dangerous rapid reductions in BP.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the records of 133,760 veterans (90% men; mean age, 71.2 years) hospitalized in Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2015 and 2020.
• The study analyzed as-needed administration of BP drugs to patients who had an elevated BP but were asymptomatic.
• Patients who had at least one systolic BP reading above 140 mm Hg and received scheduled BP medication in the first 24 hours of hospitalization were included; those admitted to intensive care units or those who required surgery were excluded.
• The analysis compared outcomes between 28,526 patients who received as-needed drugs and 105,234 who did not; the primary outcome was time to the first AKI occurrence while hospitalized.
• Secondary outcomes included a reduction of more than 25% in systolic BP within 3 hours of as-needed BP medication, as well as a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that an AKI was 23% more likely to occur in veterans who received at least one as-needed BP medication (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29).
• Veterans who received BP medication as needed were 50% more likely to experience a rapid drop in BP within 3 hours (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.39-1.62) and more than twice as likely after 1 hour (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.81-2.46) than those who did not receive medication.
• The risk of experiencing the composite outcome was 69% times higher in the as-needed group (rate ratio [RR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.49-1.92), with individual increased risks for myocardial infarction (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.09-4.07), stroke (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30-3.03), and death (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The practical implication of our findings is that there is at least equipoise regarding the utility of as-needed BP medication use for asymptomatic BP elevations in hospitals ... future prospective trials should evaluate the risks and benefits of this common practice,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muna Thalji Canales, MD, MS, of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida. It was published online on November 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis may have included confounding factors that could have influenced results. The focus on veterans who had not undergone surgery limits generalizability to women, surgical patients, and nonveteran populations. The researchers noted limited data on factors that might influence BP readings in the hospital such as pain, stress, and faulty machinery.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors reported grants and consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and BMS, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, among others.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Veterans receiving blood pressure (BP) medication as needed while hospitalized were at a 23% higher risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) and a 1.5-fold greater risk for potentially dangerous rapid reductions in BP.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the records of 133,760 veterans (90% men; mean age, 71.2 years) hospitalized in Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2015 and 2020.
• The study analyzed as-needed administration of BP drugs to patients who had an elevated BP but were asymptomatic.
• Patients who had at least one systolic BP reading above 140 mm Hg and received scheduled BP medication in the first 24 hours of hospitalization were included; those admitted to intensive care units or those who required surgery were excluded.
• The analysis compared outcomes between 28,526 patients who received as-needed drugs and 105,234 who did not; the primary outcome was time to the first AKI occurrence while hospitalized.
• Secondary outcomes included a reduction of more than 25% in systolic BP within 3 hours of as-needed BP medication, as well as a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death during hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that an AKI was 23% more likely to occur in veterans who received at least one as-needed BP medication (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29).
• Veterans who received BP medication as needed were 50% more likely to experience a rapid drop in BP within 3 hours (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.39-1.62) and more than twice as likely after 1 hour (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.81-2.46) than those who did not receive medication.
• The risk of experiencing the composite outcome was 69% times higher in the as-needed group (rate ratio [RR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.49-1.92), with individual increased risks for myocardial infarction (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.09-4.07), stroke (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.30-3.03), and death (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The practical implication of our findings is that there is at least equipoise regarding the utility of as-needed BP medication use for asymptomatic BP elevations in hospitals ... future prospective trials should evaluate the risks and benefits of this common practice,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Muna Thalji Canales, MD, MS, of the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System in Gainesville, Florida. It was published online on November 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis may have included confounding factors that could have influenced results. The focus on veterans who had not undergone surgery limits generalizability to women, surgical patients, and nonveteran populations. The researchers noted limited data on factors that might influence BP readings in the hospital such as pain, stress, and faulty machinery.

DISCLOSURES:

Study authors reported grants and consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme and BMS, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, among others.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

It’s just about the easiest, safest medical advice you can give: “Drink more water.” You have a headache? Drink more water. Tired? Drink more water. Cold coming on? Drink more water. Tom Brady famously attributed his QB longevity to water drinking, among some other less ordinary practices.

I’m a nephrologist — a kidney doctor. I think about water all the time. I can tell you how your brain senses how much water is in your body and exactly how it communicates that information to your kidneys to control how dilute your urine is. I can explain the miraculous ability of the kidney to concentrate urine across a range from 50 mOsm/L to 1200 mOsm/L and the physiology that makes it all work.

 

But I can’t really tell you how much water you’re supposed to drink. And believe me, I get asked all the time.

I’m sure of a couple of things when it comes to water: You need to drink some. Though some animals, such as kangaroo rats, can get virtually all the water they need from the food they eat, we are not such animals. Without water, we die. I’m also sure that you can die from drinking too much water. Drinking excessive amounts of water dilutes the sodium in your blood, which messes with the electrical system in your brain and heart. I actually had a patient who went on a “water cleanse” and gave herself a seizure. 

But, to be fair, assuming your kidneys are working reasonably well and you’re otherwise healthy, you’d need to drink around 20 liters of water a day to get into mortal trouble. The dose is the poison, as they say.

So, somewhere between zero and 20 liters of water is the amount you should be drinking in a day. That much I’m sure of.

But the evidence on where in that range you should target is actually pretty skimpy. You wouldn’t think so if you look at the online wellness influencers, with their Stanleys and their strict water intake regimens. You’d think the evidence for the benefits of drinking extra water is overwhelming.

The venerated National Academy of Medicine suggests that men drink thirteen 8 oz cups a day (that’s about 3 liters) and women drink nine 8 oz cups a day (a bit more than 2 liters). From what I can tell, this recommendation — like the old “8 cups of water per day” recommendation — is pulled out of thin air.

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t drink water. Of course, water is important. I’m just wondering what data there are to really prove that drinking more water is better. 

Fortunately, a team from UCSF has finally done the legwork for us. They break down the actual evidence in this paper, appearing in JAMA Network Open. 

The team scoured the medical literature for randomized controlled trials of water intake. This is critical; we don’t want anecdotes about how clear someone’s skin became after they increased their water intake. We want icy cold, clear data. Randomized trials take a group of people and, at random, assign some to the intervention — in this case, drinking more water — and others to keep doing what they would normally do.

 

The team reviewed nearly 1500 papers but only 18 (!) met the rigorous criteria to be included in the analysis, as you can see from this flow chart.

 

This is the first important finding; not many high-quality studies have investigated how much water we should drink. Of course, water isn’t a prescription product, so funding is likely hard to come by. Can we do a trial of Dasani?

In any case, these 18 trials all looked at different outcomes of interest. Four studies looked at the impact of drinking more water on weight loss, two on fasting blood glucose, two on headache, two on urinary tract infection, two on kidney stones, and six studies on various other outcomes. None of the studies looked at energy, skin tone, or overall wellness, though one did measure a quality-of-life score.

And if I could sum up all these studies in a word, that word would be “meh.”

 

One of four weight loss studies showed that increasing water intake had no effect on weight loss. Two studies showed an effect, but drinking extra water was combined with a low-calorie diet, so that feels a bit like cheating to me. One study randomized participants to drink half a liter of water before meals, and that group did lose more weight than the control group — about a kilogram more over 12 weeks. That’s not exactly Ozempic.

For fasting blood glucose, although one trial suggested that higher premeal water intake lowered glucose levels, the other study (which looked just at increasing water overall) didn’t.

For headache — and, cards on the table here, I’m a big believer in water for headaches — one study showed nothing. The other showed that increasing water intake by 1.5 liters per day improved migraine-related quality of life but didn’t change the number of headache days per month.

For urinary tract infections, one positive trial and one negative one.

The best evidence comes from the kidney stone trials. Increasing water intake to achieve more than two liters of urine a day was associated with a significant reduction in kidney stone recurrence. I consider this a positive finding, more or less. You would be hard-pressed to find a kidney doctor who doesn’t think that people with a history of kidney stones should drink more water.

What about that quality-of-life study? They randomized participants to either drink 1.5 liters of extra water per day (intervention group) or not (control group). Six months later, the scores on the quality-of-life survey were no different between those two groups.

Thirsty yet?

So, what’s going on here? There are a few possibilities.

First, I need to point out that clinical trials are really hard. All the studies in this review were relatively small, with most enrolling fewer than 100 people. The effect of extra water would need to be pretty potent to detect it with those small samples.

I can’t help but point out that our bodies are actually exquisitely tuned to manage how much water we carry. As we lose water throughout the day from sweat and exhalation, our blood becomes a tiny bit more concentrated — the sodium level goes up. Our brains detect that and create a sensation we call thirst. Thirst is one of the most powerful drives we have. Animals, including humans, when thirsty, will choose water over food, over drugs, and over sex. It is incredibly hard to resist, and assuming that we have ready access to water, there is no need to resist it. We drink when we are thirsty. And that may be enough.

Of course, pushing beyond thirst is possible. We are sapient beings who can drink more than we want to. But what we can’t do, assuming our kidneys work, is hold onto that water. It passes right through us. In the case of preventing kidney stones, this is a good thing. Putting more water into your body leads to more water coming out — more dilute urine — which means it’s harder for stones to form. 

But for all that other stuff? The wellness, the skin tone, and so on? It just doesn’t make much sense. If you drink an extra liter of water, you pee an extra liter of water. Net net? Zero.

Some folks will argue that the extra pee gets rid of extra toxins or something like that, but — sorry, kidney doctor Perry here again — that’s not how pee works. The clearance of toxins from the blood happens way upstream of where your urine is diluted or concentrated.

 

If you drink more, the same toxins come out, just with more water around them. In fact, one of the largest studies in this JAMA Network Open review assessed whether increasing water consumption in people with chronic kidney disease would improve kidney function. It didn’t.

I am left, then, with only a bit more confidence than when I began. I remain certain that you should drink more than zero liters and less than 20 liters every day (assuming you’re not losing a lot of water in some other way, like working in the heat). Beyond that, it seems reasonable to trust the millions of years of evolution that have made water homeostasis central to life itself. Give yourself access to water. Drink when you’re thirsty. Drink a bit more if you’d like. But no need to push it. Your kidneys won’t let you anyway.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Connecticut. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

It’s just about the easiest, safest medical advice you can give: “Drink more water.” You have a headache? Drink more water. Tired? Drink more water. Cold coming on? Drink more water. Tom Brady famously attributed his QB longevity to water drinking, among some other less ordinary practices.

I’m a nephrologist — a kidney doctor. I think about water all the time. I can tell you how your brain senses how much water is in your body and exactly how it communicates that information to your kidneys to control how dilute your urine is. I can explain the miraculous ability of the kidney to concentrate urine across a range from 50 mOsm/L to 1200 mOsm/L and the physiology that makes it all work.

 

But I can’t really tell you how much water you’re supposed to drink. And believe me, I get asked all the time.

I’m sure of a couple of things when it comes to water: You need to drink some. Though some animals, such as kangaroo rats, can get virtually all the water they need from the food they eat, we are not such animals. Without water, we die. I’m also sure that you can die from drinking too much water. Drinking excessive amounts of water dilutes the sodium in your blood, which messes with the electrical system in your brain and heart. I actually had a patient who went on a “water cleanse” and gave herself a seizure. 

But, to be fair, assuming your kidneys are working reasonably well and you’re otherwise healthy, you’d need to drink around 20 liters of water a day to get into mortal trouble. The dose is the poison, as they say.

So, somewhere between zero and 20 liters of water is the amount you should be drinking in a day. That much I’m sure of.

But the evidence on where in that range you should target is actually pretty skimpy. You wouldn’t think so if you look at the online wellness influencers, with their Stanleys and their strict water intake regimens. You’d think the evidence for the benefits of drinking extra water is overwhelming.

The venerated National Academy of Medicine suggests that men drink thirteen 8 oz cups a day (that’s about 3 liters) and women drink nine 8 oz cups a day (a bit more than 2 liters). From what I can tell, this recommendation — like the old “8 cups of water per day” recommendation — is pulled out of thin air.

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t drink water. Of course, water is important. I’m just wondering what data there are to really prove that drinking more water is better. 

Fortunately, a team from UCSF has finally done the legwork for us. They break down the actual evidence in this paper, appearing in JAMA Network Open. 

The team scoured the medical literature for randomized controlled trials of water intake. This is critical; we don’t want anecdotes about how clear someone’s skin became after they increased their water intake. We want icy cold, clear data. Randomized trials take a group of people and, at random, assign some to the intervention — in this case, drinking more water — and others to keep doing what they would normally do.

 

The team reviewed nearly 1500 papers but only 18 (!) met the rigorous criteria to be included in the analysis, as you can see from this flow chart.

 

This is the first important finding; not many high-quality studies have investigated how much water we should drink. Of course, water isn’t a prescription product, so funding is likely hard to come by. Can we do a trial of Dasani?

In any case, these 18 trials all looked at different outcomes of interest. Four studies looked at the impact of drinking more water on weight loss, two on fasting blood glucose, two on headache, two on urinary tract infection, two on kidney stones, and six studies on various other outcomes. None of the studies looked at energy, skin tone, or overall wellness, though one did measure a quality-of-life score.

And if I could sum up all these studies in a word, that word would be “meh.”

 

One of four weight loss studies showed that increasing water intake had no effect on weight loss. Two studies showed an effect, but drinking extra water was combined with a low-calorie diet, so that feels a bit like cheating to me. One study randomized participants to drink half a liter of water before meals, and that group did lose more weight than the control group — about a kilogram more over 12 weeks. That’s not exactly Ozempic.

For fasting blood glucose, although one trial suggested that higher premeal water intake lowered glucose levels, the other study (which looked just at increasing water overall) didn’t.

For headache — and, cards on the table here, I’m a big believer in water for headaches — one study showed nothing. The other showed that increasing water intake by 1.5 liters per day improved migraine-related quality of life but didn’t change the number of headache days per month.

For urinary tract infections, one positive trial and one negative one.

The best evidence comes from the kidney stone trials. Increasing water intake to achieve more than two liters of urine a day was associated with a significant reduction in kidney stone recurrence. I consider this a positive finding, more or less. You would be hard-pressed to find a kidney doctor who doesn’t think that people with a history of kidney stones should drink more water.

What about that quality-of-life study? They randomized participants to either drink 1.5 liters of extra water per day (intervention group) or not (control group). Six months later, the scores on the quality-of-life survey were no different between those two groups.

Thirsty yet?

So, what’s going on here? There are a few possibilities.

First, I need to point out that clinical trials are really hard. All the studies in this review were relatively small, with most enrolling fewer than 100 people. The effect of extra water would need to be pretty potent to detect it with those small samples.

I can’t help but point out that our bodies are actually exquisitely tuned to manage how much water we carry. As we lose water throughout the day from sweat and exhalation, our blood becomes a tiny bit more concentrated — the sodium level goes up. Our brains detect that and create a sensation we call thirst. Thirst is one of the most powerful drives we have. Animals, including humans, when thirsty, will choose water over food, over drugs, and over sex. It is incredibly hard to resist, and assuming that we have ready access to water, there is no need to resist it. We drink when we are thirsty. And that may be enough.

Of course, pushing beyond thirst is possible. We are sapient beings who can drink more than we want to. But what we can’t do, assuming our kidneys work, is hold onto that water. It passes right through us. In the case of preventing kidney stones, this is a good thing. Putting more water into your body leads to more water coming out — more dilute urine — which means it’s harder for stones to form. 

But for all that other stuff? The wellness, the skin tone, and so on? It just doesn’t make much sense. If you drink an extra liter of water, you pee an extra liter of water. Net net? Zero.

Some folks will argue that the extra pee gets rid of extra toxins or something like that, but — sorry, kidney doctor Perry here again — that’s not how pee works. The clearance of toxins from the blood happens way upstream of where your urine is diluted or concentrated.

 

If you drink more, the same toxins come out, just with more water around them. In fact, one of the largest studies in this JAMA Network Open review assessed whether increasing water consumption in people with chronic kidney disease would improve kidney function. It didn’t.

I am left, then, with only a bit more confidence than when I began. I remain certain that you should drink more than zero liters and less than 20 liters every day (assuming you’re not losing a lot of water in some other way, like working in the heat). Beyond that, it seems reasonable to trust the millions of years of evolution that have made water homeostasis central to life itself. Give yourself access to water. Drink when you’re thirsty. Drink a bit more if you’d like. But no need to push it. Your kidneys won’t let you anyway.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Connecticut. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

It’s just about the easiest, safest medical advice you can give: “Drink more water.” You have a headache? Drink more water. Tired? Drink more water. Cold coming on? Drink more water. Tom Brady famously attributed his QB longevity to water drinking, among some other less ordinary practices.

I’m a nephrologist — a kidney doctor. I think about water all the time. I can tell you how your brain senses how much water is in your body and exactly how it communicates that information to your kidneys to control how dilute your urine is. I can explain the miraculous ability of the kidney to concentrate urine across a range from 50 mOsm/L to 1200 mOsm/L and the physiology that makes it all work.

 

But I can’t really tell you how much water you’re supposed to drink. And believe me, I get asked all the time.

I’m sure of a couple of things when it comes to water: You need to drink some. Though some animals, such as kangaroo rats, can get virtually all the water they need from the food they eat, we are not such animals. Without water, we die. I’m also sure that you can die from drinking too much water. Drinking excessive amounts of water dilutes the sodium in your blood, which messes with the electrical system in your brain and heart. I actually had a patient who went on a “water cleanse” and gave herself a seizure. 

But, to be fair, assuming your kidneys are working reasonably well and you’re otherwise healthy, you’d need to drink around 20 liters of water a day to get into mortal trouble. The dose is the poison, as they say.

So, somewhere between zero and 20 liters of water is the amount you should be drinking in a day. That much I’m sure of.

But the evidence on where in that range you should target is actually pretty skimpy. You wouldn’t think so if you look at the online wellness influencers, with their Stanleys and their strict water intake regimens. You’d think the evidence for the benefits of drinking extra water is overwhelming.

The venerated National Academy of Medicine suggests that men drink thirteen 8 oz cups a day (that’s about 3 liters) and women drink nine 8 oz cups a day (a bit more than 2 liters). From what I can tell, this recommendation — like the old “8 cups of water per day” recommendation — is pulled out of thin air.

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t drink water. Of course, water is important. I’m just wondering what data there are to really prove that drinking more water is better. 

Fortunately, a team from UCSF has finally done the legwork for us. They break down the actual evidence in this paper, appearing in JAMA Network Open. 

The team scoured the medical literature for randomized controlled trials of water intake. This is critical; we don’t want anecdotes about how clear someone’s skin became after they increased their water intake. We want icy cold, clear data. Randomized trials take a group of people and, at random, assign some to the intervention — in this case, drinking more water — and others to keep doing what they would normally do.

 

The team reviewed nearly 1500 papers but only 18 (!) met the rigorous criteria to be included in the analysis, as you can see from this flow chart.

 

This is the first important finding; not many high-quality studies have investigated how much water we should drink. Of course, water isn’t a prescription product, so funding is likely hard to come by. Can we do a trial of Dasani?

In any case, these 18 trials all looked at different outcomes of interest. Four studies looked at the impact of drinking more water on weight loss, two on fasting blood glucose, two on headache, two on urinary tract infection, two on kidney stones, and six studies on various other outcomes. None of the studies looked at energy, skin tone, or overall wellness, though one did measure a quality-of-life score.

And if I could sum up all these studies in a word, that word would be “meh.”

 

One of four weight loss studies showed that increasing water intake had no effect on weight loss. Two studies showed an effect, but drinking extra water was combined with a low-calorie diet, so that feels a bit like cheating to me. One study randomized participants to drink half a liter of water before meals, and that group did lose more weight than the control group — about a kilogram more over 12 weeks. That’s not exactly Ozempic.

For fasting blood glucose, although one trial suggested that higher premeal water intake lowered glucose levels, the other study (which looked just at increasing water overall) didn’t.

For headache — and, cards on the table here, I’m a big believer in water for headaches — one study showed nothing. The other showed that increasing water intake by 1.5 liters per day improved migraine-related quality of life but didn’t change the number of headache days per month.

For urinary tract infections, one positive trial and one negative one.

The best evidence comes from the kidney stone trials. Increasing water intake to achieve more than two liters of urine a day was associated with a significant reduction in kidney stone recurrence. I consider this a positive finding, more or less. You would be hard-pressed to find a kidney doctor who doesn’t think that people with a history of kidney stones should drink more water.

What about that quality-of-life study? They randomized participants to either drink 1.5 liters of extra water per day (intervention group) or not (control group). Six months later, the scores on the quality-of-life survey were no different between those two groups.

Thirsty yet?

So, what’s going on here? There are a few possibilities.

First, I need to point out that clinical trials are really hard. All the studies in this review were relatively small, with most enrolling fewer than 100 people. The effect of extra water would need to be pretty potent to detect it with those small samples.

I can’t help but point out that our bodies are actually exquisitely tuned to manage how much water we carry. As we lose water throughout the day from sweat and exhalation, our blood becomes a tiny bit more concentrated — the sodium level goes up. Our brains detect that and create a sensation we call thirst. Thirst is one of the most powerful drives we have. Animals, including humans, when thirsty, will choose water over food, over drugs, and over sex. It is incredibly hard to resist, and assuming that we have ready access to water, there is no need to resist it. We drink when we are thirsty. And that may be enough.

Of course, pushing beyond thirst is possible. We are sapient beings who can drink more than we want to. But what we can’t do, assuming our kidneys work, is hold onto that water. It passes right through us. In the case of preventing kidney stones, this is a good thing. Putting more water into your body leads to more water coming out — more dilute urine — which means it’s harder for stones to form. 

But for all that other stuff? The wellness, the skin tone, and so on? It just doesn’t make much sense. If you drink an extra liter of water, you pee an extra liter of water. Net net? Zero.

Some folks will argue that the extra pee gets rid of extra toxins or something like that, but — sorry, kidney doctor Perry here again — that’s not how pee works. The clearance of toxins from the blood happens way upstream of where your urine is diluted or concentrated.

 

If you drink more, the same toxins come out, just with more water around them. In fact, one of the largest studies in this JAMA Network Open review assessed whether increasing water consumption in people with chronic kidney disease would improve kidney function. It didn’t.

I am left, then, with only a bit more confidence than when I began. I remain certain that you should drink more than zero liters and less than 20 liters every day (assuming you’re not losing a lot of water in some other way, like working in the heat). Beyond that, it seems reasonable to trust the millions of years of evolution that have made water homeostasis central to life itself. Give yourself access to water. Drink when you’re thirsty. Drink a bit more if you’d like. But no need to push it. Your kidneys won’t let you anyway.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Connecticut. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”

 

Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs

The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.

But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.

Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.

“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.

 

Tapering Opioids

Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.

Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”

In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.

Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.

 

Deprescribing Benzodiazepines 

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.

The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.

Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.

Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.

Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”

 

Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs

The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.

But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.

Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.

“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.

 

Tapering Opioids

Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.

Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”

In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.

Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.

 

Deprescribing Benzodiazepines 

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.

The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.

Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.

Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.

Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — While polypharmacy is inevitable for patients with multiple chronic diseases, not all medications improve patient-oriented outcomes, members of the Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) team, a group of Canadian primary care professionals who develop evidence-based guidelines, told attendees at the Family Medicine Forum (FMF) 2024.

In a thought-provoking presentation called “Axe the Rx: Deprescribing Chronic Medications with PEER,” the panelists gave examples of medications that may be safely stopped or tapered, particularly for older adults “whose pill bag is heavier than their lunch bag.”

 

Curbing Cardiovascular Drugs

The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidemia for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults call for reaching an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L in secondary cardiovascular prevention by potentially adding on medical therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or ezetimibe or both if that target is not reached with the maximal dosage of a statin.

But family physicians do not need to follow this guidance for their patients who have had a myocardial infarction, said Ontario family physician Jennifer Young, MD, a physician advisor in the Canadian College of Family Physicians’ Knowledge Experts and Tools Program.

Treating to below 1.8 mmol/L “means lab testing for the patients,” Young told this news organization. “It means increasing doses [of a statin] to try and get to that level.” If the patient is already on the highest dose of a statin, it means adding other medications that lower cholesterol.

“If that was translating into better outcomes like [preventing] death and another heart attack, then all of that extra effort would be worth it,” said Young. “But we don’t have evidence that it actually does have a benefit for outcomes like death and repeated heart attacks,” compared with putting them on a high dose of a potent statin.

 

Tapering Opioids

Before placing patients on an opioid taper, clinicians should first assess them for opioid use disorder (OUD), said Jessica Kirkwood, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. She suggested using the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index questionnaire to do so.

Clinicians should be much more careful in initiating a taper with patients with OUD, said Kirkwood. They must ensure that these patients are motivated to discontinue their opioids. “We’re losing 21 Canadians a day to the opioid crisis. We all know that cutting someone off their opioids and potentially having them seek opioids elsewhere through illicit means can be fatal.”

In addition, clinicians should spend more time counseling patients with OUD than those without, Kirkwood continued. They must explain to these patients how they are being tapered (eg, the intervals and doses) and highlight the benefits of a taper, such as reduced constipation. Opioid agonist therapy (such as methadone or buprenorphine) can be considered in these patients.

Some research has pointed to the importance of patient motivation as a factor in the success of opioid tapers, noted Kirkwood.

 

Deprescribing Benzodiazepines 

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists, too, often can be deprescribed. These drugs should not be prescribed to promote sleep on a long-term basis. Yet clinicians commonly encounter patients who have been taking them for more than a year, said pharmacist Betsy Thomas, assistant adjunct professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta.

The medications “are usually fairly effective for the first couple of weeks to about a month, and then the benefits start to decrease, and we start to see more harms,” she said.

Some of the harms that have been associated with continued use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists include delayed reaction time and impaired cognition, which can affect the ability to drive, the risk for falls, and the risk for hip fractures, she noted. Some research suggests that these drugs are not an option for treating insomnia in patients aged 65 years or older.

Clinicians should encourage tapering the use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists to minimize dependence and transition patients to nonpharmacologic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy to manage insomnia, she said. A recent study demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention, and Thomas suggested that family physicians visit the mysleepwell.ca website for more information.

Young, Kirkwood, and Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced the need for urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and gout flare therapies in people who had both type 2 diabetes (T2D) and gout, new research has found.

Data from a large US claims database showed that SGLT2i use was associated with a 31% lower rate of initiation of ULT. “This provides further support for the use of SLGT2i therapy in patients with gout, particularly those with high-risk multimorbidity and polypharmacy,” Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in his presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The first agent of the SGLT2i class, dapagliflozin, was initially approved in the United States a decade ago for treating T2D. Since then, several other “flozins” have become available, and some have also received additional indications for heart failure and albuminuric chronic kidney disease. Several prior studies have linked SGLT2i use with lower rates of gout flares as well as lower likelihood of developing gout in the first place, although not all studies have found this benefit.

Asked about the clinical implications of the new data, Challener said in an interview that “I don’t think we’re quite at the point where this is changing gout management per se, but this just helps us understand that [SGT2is] may have a role at some point, maybe as a combination on top of another agent. Or, in some patients, it really may be enough if they’re already on an SGLT2i where we don’t need to jump to adding allopurinol. Maybe they have tophi, but they were just started on an SGLT2i and they’re not flaring. Typically, you would start those patients on allopurinol, but you could potentially just monitor them if they were just started on one of those [SGLT2i] agents.” 

Asked to comment, session moderator J. Antonio Aviña-Zubieta, MD, PhD, head of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and senior scientist at Arthritis Research Canada, said in an interview: “What I can see possibly happening when there’s more evidence is that SGLT2is may be used or even become standard of care as an adjuvant therapy to decrease flares, and by that, decrease the risk of complications.”

 

Reductions in ULT, Flares, and Healthcare Visits

The new study used administrative health data from the multicenter TriNetX Diamond network of electronic medical record and claims data from 92 healthcare sites with 212 million patients. Among those with both T2D and gout who were not taking ULT at baseline, a total of 16,104 initiated SGLT2is and 16,046 initiated glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA).

Propensity score matching was conducted for demographics including age, race, and sex; comorbidities; use of emergency, inpatient, and critical care services; medications; labs; and body mass index. That yielded 11,800 individuals each in the SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA groups.

Over 5 years, 9.9% of the SGLT2i group vs 13.4% of those using GLP-1 RA had initiated ULT, a significant difference with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.75). The risk for initiation of colchicine for gout flares was 4.7% with SGLT2i vs 6.0% for GLP-1 RA — also a significant difference with an HR of 0.74 (0.65-0.83).

Medical visits for gout occurred in 28.0% vs 28.4% of patients, which also reached statistical significance (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99).

Aviña-Zubieta, an author of one of the previous studies finding a reduction in gout flares with SGLT2i, said, “many patients do not want to start gout therapy until they start having more acute attacks. ... So, for a lot of people, it’s a burden taking another pill to prevent one attack. But, if you don’t treat it over time, the attacks come more often. So, can we still delay the initiation of therapy? If you’re not having that many flares, you’re decreasing the burden of the disease and polypharmacy, which I think is the potential benefit in the long run if you already have an indication for the therapy for diabetes. ... These data are supporting that.” 

Indeed, Challener said these data can help in counseling patients. “Taking your SGLT2i for your heart failure and your diabetes is also providing some benefit for your gout, and we know that there is also cardiac benefit when gout is controlled.” 

Challener and Aviña-Zubieta had no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) completely tapered off prednisone have a more than fourfold risk of relapse by 6 months, compared with those tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone; however, this benefit was only seen in patients not on rituximab, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“For patients treated with rituximab, fully tapering off glucocorticoids is reasonable to consider as the first approach,” said Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, during his presentation of the findings.

Although a low dose of glucocorticoids can prevent some minor relapses in patients on other treatment regimens such as methotrexate or azathioprine, “fully tapering off prednisone presents relatively little risk of major relapse, and that major relapse can be treated rather quickly,” Merkel added.

The Assessment of Prednisone in Remission (TAPIR) trial enrolled 143 patients with GPA who were in remission (defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis [BVAS/WG] of 0) within 1 year of treatment to induce remission for active disease and who were taking 5-10 mg of prednisone per day. After all patients tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone, 71 patients completely tapered off prednisone over 4 weeks and remained off glucocorticoids until month 6. The remaining patients maintained a 5-mg/day dose over the study period. Placement in either treatment group was randomized, and patients continued other immunosuppressive therapy during the study.

Researchers evaluated the rate of relapse by 6 months, defined as a physician’s decision to increase the dose of glucocorticoids to treat GPA, in both groups.

Across all participants, the median age was 58 years, and 52% of patients were male. Most patients were White, and 47% of all patients were prescribed rituximab. 

At 6 months, 15.5% of participants who completely tapered off prednisone experienced a relapse of GPA, compared with 4.2% of those taking low-dose prednisone. Time to relapse was also shorter in the 0-mg prednisone group (P = .026), and relapses occurred continually over 6 months, Merkel said.

When stratified by rituximab use, relapse rates at 6 months between the 5-mg and 0-mg prednisone groups in patients taking rituximab showed no difference. Among patients not taking rituximab, those who completely stopped prednisone were nine and a half times as likely to experience relapse as those in the low-dose group. 

Despite these differences in relapse rates, “surprisingly, there were no differences in patient-reported outcomes [such as pain interference, physical function, and fatigue],” Merkel said. 

Across all patients, all but one relapse was characterized as minor. There were five serious adverse events and 10 infections in the 0-mg group versus one adverse event and 4 infections in the 5-mg group, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

In patients who relapsed, musculoskeletal and ear, nose, and throat manifestations of GPA were most common, and these are “the kind of stuff we see that is helped by low-dose glucocorticoids,” Merkel said.

It’s a good sign that for patients who were completely weaned off glucocorticoids, nearly all relapses were minor, Galina Marder, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the research. 

The study “can reinforce the message [of] trying to get them off steroids completely [when possible],” she said.

The findings also provide insight for future clinical trials, Merkel noted. For patients taking non–rituximab-based regimens, completely tapering off glucocorticoids or maintaining a low dose can affect study outcomes.

“[These data are] even more important for clinical trials because they are [reinforcing] the fact that you can have a diminishing signal if you allow some patients to stay on 5 mg prednisone” when GPA flares are the primary outcome, Marder added.

The Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium received funding for this research through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Merkel has disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, Eicos, Electra, EMD Serono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GSK, HI-Bio, Inmagene, InflaRx, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Neutrolis, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sparrow, Takeda, Talaris, UpToDate, and Visterra. Marder consults for Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

WASHINGTON — Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) completely tapered off prednisone have a more than fourfold risk of relapse by 6 months, compared with those tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone; however, this benefit was only seen in patients not on rituximab, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“For patients treated with rituximab, fully tapering off glucocorticoids is reasonable to consider as the first approach,” said Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, during his presentation of the findings.

Although a low dose of glucocorticoids can prevent some minor relapses in patients on other treatment regimens such as methotrexate or azathioprine, “fully tapering off prednisone presents relatively little risk of major relapse, and that major relapse can be treated rather quickly,” Merkel added.

The Assessment of Prednisone in Remission (TAPIR) trial enrolled 143 patients with GPA who were in remission (defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis [BVAS/WG] of 0) within 1 year of treatment to induce remission for active disease and who were taking 5-10 mg of prednisone per day. After all patients tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone, 71 patients completely tapered off prednisone over 4 weeks and remained off glucocorticoids until month 6. The remaining patients maintained a 5-mg/day dose over the study period. Placement in either treatment group was randomized, and patients continued other immunosuppressive therapy during the study.

Researchers evaluated the rate of relapse by 6 months, defined as a physician’s decision to increase the dose of glucocorticoids to treat GPA, in both groups.

Across all participants, the median age was 58 years, and 52% of patients were male. Most patients were White, and 47% of all patients were prescribed rituximab. 

At 6 months, 15.5% of participants who completely tapered off prednisone experienced a relapse of GPA, compared with 4.2% of those taking low-dose prednisone. Time to relapse was also shorter in the 0-mg prednisone group (P = .026), and relapses occurred continually over 6 months, Merkel said.

When stratified by rituximab use, relapse rates at 6 months between the 5-mg and 0-mg prednisone groups in patients taking rituximab showed no difference. Among patients not taking rituximab, those who completely stopped prednisone were nine and a half times as likely to experience relapse as those in the low-dose group. 

Despite these differences in relapse rates, “surprisingly, there were no differences in patient-reported outcomes [such as pain interference, physical function, and fatigue],” Merkel said. 

Across all patients, all but one relapse was characterized as minor. There were five serious adverse events and 10 infections in the 0-mg group versus one adverse event and 4 infections in the 5-mg group, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

In patients who relapsed, musculoskeletal and ear, nose, and throat manifestations of GPA were most common, and these are “the kind of stuff we see that is helped by low-dose glucocorticoids,” Merkel said.

It’s a good sign that for patients who were completely weaned off glucocorticoids, nearly all relapses were minor, Galina Marder, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the research. 

The study “can reinforce the message [of] trying to get them off steroids completely [when possible],” she said.

The findings also provide insight for future clinical trials, Merkel noted. For patients taking non–rituximab-based regimens, completely tapering off glucocorticoids or maintaining a low dose can affect study outcomes.

“[These data are] even more important for clinical trials because they are [reinforcing] the fact that you can have a diminishing signal if you allow some patients to stay on 5 mg prednisone” when GPA flares are the primary outcome, Marder added.

The Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium received funding for this research through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Merkel has disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, Eicos, Electra, EMD Serono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GSK, HI-Bio, Inmagene, InflaRx, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Neutrolis, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sparrow, Takeda, Talaris, UpToDate, and Visterra. Marder consults for Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

WASHINGTON — Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) completely tapered off prednisone have a more than fourfold risk of relapse by 6 months, compared with those tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone; however, this benefit was only seen in patients not on rituximab, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“For patients treated with rituximab, fully tapering off glucocorticoids is reasonable to consider as the first approach,” said Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, during his presentation of the findings.

Although a low dose of glucocorticoids can prevent some minor relapses in patients on other treatment regimens such as methotrexate or azathioprine, “fully tapering off prednisone presents relatively little risk of major relapse, and that major relapse can be treated rather quickly,” Merkel added.

The Assessment of Prednisone in Remission (TAPIR) trial enrolled 143 patients with GPA who were in remission (defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis [BVAS/WG] of 0) within 1 year of treatment to induce remission for active disease and who were taking 5-10 mg of prednisone per day. After all patients tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone, 71 patients completely tapered off prednisone over 4 weeks and remained off glucocorticoids until month 6. The remaining patients maintained a 5-mg/day dose over the study period. Placement in either treatment group was randomized, and patients continued other immunosuppressive therapy during the study.

Researchers evaluated the rate of relapse by 6 months, defined as a physician’s decision to increase the dose of glucocorticoids to treat GPA, in both groups.

Across all participants, the median age was 58 years, and 52% of patients were male. Most patients were White, and 47% of all patients were prescribed rituximab. 

At 6 months, 15.5% of participants who completely tapered off prednisone experienced a relapse of GPA, compared with 4.2% of those taking low-dose prednisone. Time to relapse was also shorter in the 0-mg prednisone group (P = .026), and relapses occurred continually over 6 months, Merkel said.

When stratified by rituximab use, relapse rates at 6 months between the 5-mg and 0-mg prednisone groups in patients taking rituximab showed no difference. Among patients not taking rituximab, those who completely stopped prednisone were nine and a half times as likely to experience relapse as those in the low-dose group. 

Despite these differences in relapse rates, “surprisingly, there were no differences in patient-reported outcomes [such as pain interference, physical function, and fatigue],” Merkel said. 

Across all patients, all but one relapse was characterized as minor. There were five serious adverse events and 10 infections in the 0-mg group versus one adverse event and 4 infections in the 5-mg group, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

In patients who relapsed, musculoskeletal and ear, nose, and throat manifestations of GPA were most common, and these are “the kind of stuff we see that is helped by low-dose glucocorticoids,” Merkel said.

It’s a good sign that for patients who were completely weaned off glucocorticoids, nearly all relapses were minor, Galina Marder, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the research. 

The study “can reinforce the message [of] trying to get them off steroids completely [when possible],” she said.

The findings also provide insight for future clinical trials, Merkel noted. For patients taking non–rituximab-based regimens, completely tapering off glucocorticoids or maintaining a low dose can affect study outcomes.

“[These data are] even more important for clinical trials because they are [reinforcing] the fact that you can have a diminishing signal if you allow some patients to stay on 5 mg prednisone” when GPA flares are the primary outcome, Marder added.

The Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium received funding for this research through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Merkel has disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, Eicos, Electra, EMD Serono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GSK, HI-Bio, Inmagene, InflaRx, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Neutrolis, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sparrow, Takeda, Talaris, UpToDate, and Visterra. Marder consults for Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

WASHINGTON — The B cell–depleting agent inebilizumab (Uplizna) dramatically reduced the risk of flares and increased year-long remission of IgG4-related disease (RD), new research has found.

In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 135 adults with active IgG4-RD, treatment with inebilizumab resulted in a significant 87% reduction in flare risk and nearly fivefold greater likelihood of flare-free remission at 1 year. The results were published online November 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

The drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, released top-line results of the trial, called MITIGATE, in June 2024.

 

Until now, the mainstay of management for the chronic multiorgan disease IgG4-RD has been glucocorticoids, which can cause numerous adverse effects. “It is hoped that inebilizumab can be used as an important steroid-sparing medication in this disease to reduce steroid toxicity,” lead author John H. Stone, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview, noting that it may not entirely eliminate the need for steroid treatment, but for many, it appears to work after the remission induction period as a monotherapy without steroids. 

Asked to comment, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, head of the Section of Clinical Immunology and manager of the Clinical Immunology Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, said: “There has been anecdotal or observational evidence for some effect with other immunosuppressive agents, including rituximab, but no robust clinical trial until this study. This clearly has demonstrated efficacy by reducing the risk of flares. And most importantly, putting people into remission means no active disease in any given organ. ... This gives us another tool in the toolbox to attack B cell–directed diseases, and I think it really makes a lot of sense.”

Calabrese cautioned, though, that “this is a disease that extends over many years. This is just a 1-year study. Label extensions will be important.”

 

And several questions remain, Calabrese noted: “How long do patients need to remain on drug? What will happen when the drug is stopped? Can they be retreated? These are the natural questions that arise in any sentinel study like this. But this is extremely encouraging. And I think it’s great for patients. I also think it’s a clarion call to increase awareness about this disease since there’s now strong evidence of effective treatment.” 

 

Underrecognized, Often Misdiagnosed as Cancer

Indeed, IgG4-RD, a chronic, relapsing, autoimmune, fibro-inflammatory multiorgan disease, was only first described in Japan in 2003. Since then, it has been reported all over the world yet remains vastly underrecognized. It is often misdiagnosed as cancer because it produces lesions in multiple organs. It received an ICD-10 code only about a year ago. A previous study estimated a prevalence of about 5.3 persons per 100,000 but that is likely to be a three- to fourfold underestimate, said Stone, who is also executive chairman of the IgG4ward! Foundation. 

“Nobody had heard of the disease until about 20 years ago. ... And there are many people in the world who have still not heard of it despite the fact that it is a multiorgan autoimmune disease and is probably as common, or more common, than many other diseases that rheumatologists spend a lot of time thinking about, such as scleroderma.”

While knowledge about the disease is increasing in rheumatology circles, it’s less well-recognized among many of the specialties where patients present, depending on the location of their lesions. These include gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, neurology, and nephrology. “All would be likely to see this disease,” Stone said. 

The disease can be mistaken for tumors in many of those locations and even as metastatic cancer, he noted, adding that “any time a patient has a mass lesion in a typical organ, the pancreas, the major salivary glands, the lungs, or the kidneys, this should be on the differential diagnosis.” 

The diagnosis of IgG4-RD is a clinical one, involving “quadrangulation between clinical features, serological findings, IgG4 levels in the blood, radiology studies, and then pathology biopsies when those are available,” Stone said. 

Calabrese characterized the current situation as “we’re all blind men on the elephant. To the neurologist or the neurosurgeon, it’s a mass in the brain. It could present to the ophthalmologist as an [eye] tumor. It can be thyroid gland failure, pulmonary disease, retroperitoneal fibrosis, hepatobiliary disease, and beyond. So, whoever sees that patient, there’s often a long lag time in recognizing it.”

And interestingly, Stone noted that unlike other autoimmune diseases, IgG4-RD primarily affects middle-aged men rather than younger-to-middle-aged women. And when IgG4-RD is diagnosed, glucocorticoid treatment can be particularly toxic when the pancreas is involved, heightening the risk for hyperglycemia and potentially causing diabetes. 

 

Dramatic Improvement in Flares, Remission Achievement

MITIGATE is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 135 adults (mean age 58.2 years, 88 men) with active IgG4-RD were randomized 1:1 to receive 300-mg intravenous infusions of inebilizumab or placebo on days 1 and 15, and again at week 26. At baseline, 62 (45.9%) participants had newly diagnosed IgG4-RD and 73 (54.1%) had recurrent disease. 

Both groups received identical glucocorticoid tapers. Overall, 127 (94.1%) completed the 52 weeks of treatment. 

By 52 weeks, only seven patients in the inebilizumab group (10%) had experienced disease flares vs 40 (60%) in the placebo group, a significant difference with a hazard ratio of 0.13 (P < .001). 

The percentage of participants achieving flare-free, treatment-free complete remission was 59 with inebilizumab (57%), compared with just 15 (22%) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR], 4.68; P < .001). And for flare-free, glucocorticoid-free complete remission, those proportions were 40 (59%) vs 15 (22%), respectively (OR, 4.96; P < .001). 

Excluding the 8-week glucocorticoid taper period, mean total glucocorticoid use was 1264.2 mg less in the inebilizumab than the placebo group, a significant reduction. Overall, 61 participants (90%) were able to entirely discontinue glucocorticoids during the trial, compared with just 25 (37%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 12 participants (18%) in the inebilizumab group and 8 (12%) in the placebo group; serious adverse events occurred in 12 (18%) and 6 (9%), respectively. However, no serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant, and there were no deaths. Adverse events led to withdrawal from the trial in six patients (9%) in the inebilizumab group and three patients (4%) in the placebo group. 

Adverse events that occurred in more than 10% of participants in the inebilizumab group were COVID-19 in 16 participants (24%), lymphopenia in 11 (16%), and urinary tract infection in 8 (12%). 

Importantly, Stone noted, B-cell depletion can reduce responses to vaccines, so patients should receive all recommended vaccinations, including COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and others, prior to initiating therapy. 

Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in 2020. In October 2024, the FDA granted Amgen breakthrough therapy designation for use in IgG4-RD. The company is also developing the drug for use in myasthenia gravis.

The study was funded by Amgen. Stone has reported being a consultant for Amgen, Zenas, Argenx, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi, and Horizon Pharma. Calabrese has reported being a consultant and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Jansen, Sanofi, and UCB.

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