Rheumatology

Although breakthrough COVID-19 infections appear to be infrequent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs), these patients’ comparatively low antibodies after their initial vaccine series validate the recommendation that booster doses could reinforce their immune responses. These findings were highlighted in three letters recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the first letter, the researchers assessed breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated patients with iRMDs who were treated within the Mass General Brigham health care system in the Boston area. Of the 340 COVID-19 infections in patients with iRMDs after vaccinations were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use, 16 (4.7%) were breakthrough infections. All but one of the breakthrough infections were symptomatic, and six of the patients were hospitalized.

Patients who had breakthrough infections took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that included rituximab and glucocorticoids (five patients each), mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid (four patients), and methotrexate (three patients). Two of the patients died, both of whom were on rituximab and had interstitial lung disease.

“Some DMARD users may require alternative risk-mitigation strategies, including passive immunity or booster vaccines, and may need to continue shielding practices,” the authors wrote.

“Honestly, it’s hard to know what to make of that rate of breakthrough infections,” Camille Kotton, MD, clinical director of transplant and immunocompromised host infectious diseases in the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “People who are immunocompromised were strongly advised to change behavior so as to avoid infection, which probably greatly alters their risk of breakthrough infection. It’s thus hard to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

“Also, 93% were symptomatic, which is fairly high,” she added. “I’m not sure if these patients were more likely to be symptomatic or if there was some bias in testing based on symptoms.”

In the second letter, the researchers assessed postvaccination COVID-19 infections in European patients with iRMDs. Two COVID-19 registries with thousands of patients were reviewed, with less than 1% of patients in each deemed eligible for this study. Of the 34 patients who were ultimately analyzed with available COVID-19 outcomes – 10 were fully vaccinated and 24 were partially vaccinated – 28 fully recovered, 3 recovered with ongoing sequelae, and 3 patients died. The three patients who died were all over 70 years old and had been treated with glucocorticoids and mycophenolate mofetil, glucocorticoids, and rituximab, respectively.

The medications most frequently used by the iRMDs patients with breakthrough cases included glucocorticoids (32%), methotrexate (26%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (26%).

“Overall, the low numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infection post vaccination in both registries are encouraging,” the authors wrote, adding that “all three deceased patients were treated with medications that are potential negative influences on postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity in the RMD population.”
 

Patients with RMDs: Consider COVID-19 booster shots

In the third letter, the researchers investigated booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune diseases. Of the 18 participants who received a booster dose, 14 were on antimetabolite therapy and 8 of those were on mycophenolate. At a median of 29 days after completion of their initial vaccine series, antispike antibodies were negative in 10 of the participants and low positive in 6 others, with a median antispike antibody level of less than 0.4 U/mL (interquartile range, <0.4-222 U/mL).

Booster doses were administered at a median of 77 days after completion of the initial series. At a median of 30 days after booster dose, 89% of the participants had an augmented humoral response, with a median antispike antibody level of 2,500 (IQR, 885-2,500 U/mL). Of the 10 participants who had negative anti-spike antibodies after the initial series, 80% were positive after the booster.

“I think this study supports the wealth of evidence that contributed to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]’s and the FDA’s recommendation to get the third dose of the COVID vaccination,” coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Our patients are a very vulnerable group, including lupus patients or myositis patients, both of whom can get severe COVID if they were to contract it. They think they’re protected after a two-dose series, but in reality they’re not.

“We were just happy that they had a response,” she added. “Most of them had absolutely no response whatsoever after the first series.”

One other recently published case report in Arthritis & Rheumatology describes booster vaccination with the viral vector Johnson & Johnson vaccine in a man with seropositive RA who had previously received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine. The 74-year-old man, who had low disease activity over the past 5 years on hydroxychloroquine, etanercept, and leflunomide, received the booster dose of his own accord after undergoing testing that showed a semiquantitative spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level of 53.9 U/mL (reference range, 0-2,500 U/mL) and a negative SARS-CoV-2 antispike (S1/RBD) IgG test, as well as less than 10% blocking activity on an assay designed to detect blocking of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and the human ACE2 receptor and a negative interferon-gamma release assay detecting SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells. Several weeks after the booster dose, a repeat semiquantitative spike protein RBD antibody level was 2,455.0 U/mL and the S1/RBD IgG level was positive. An ACE2 blocking assay demonstrated 90%-100% blocking activity, but the interferon-gamma release assay remained negative.

“I would recommend abiding by the CDC guidelines regarding boosters for immunocompromised patients,” Dr. Kotton stated. “Patients with rheumatologic disease generally fit into the last category on that list. We don’t have an antibody titer that ensures protection, and as per CDC guidance, we don’t recommend checking antibody titers. Furthermore, boosters were given for this study before the CDC recommendation came out.”

Dr. Paik and coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small, inhomogeneous sample and a lack of data on memory B-cell and T-cell response. They also echoed Dr. Kotton’s thoughts by noting that, although this subset of patients had notably limited antibody responses, “no antibody titer has been defined to correlate with protection.”

“Of course, the humoral response isn’t the whole story,” Dr. Paik said. “Some studies are showing that some vaccine recipients may not have the antibodies but their T-cell response may still be intact; it just takes time, and we’re not picking it up. Even if the antibody test is coming up negative, there may be some immunogenicity to the vaccine that we’re not detecting.

“Hopefully at some point, we’ll have more T-cell immunophenotyping to provide better insight into the full vaccine response.”

The Boston-area breakthrough study and the booster shot study were both funded primarily by grants from various institutes within the National Institutes of Health. The European study was financially supported by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Although breakthrough COVID-19 infections appear to be infrequent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs), these patients’ comparatively low antibodies after their initial vaccine series validate the recommendation that booster doses could reinforce their immune responses. These findings were highlighted in three letters recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the first letter, the researchers assessed breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated patients with iRMDs who were treated within the Mass General Brigham health care system in the Boston area. Of the 340 COVID-19 infections in patients with iRMDs after vaccinations were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use, 16 (4.7%) were breakthrough infections. All but one of the breakthrough infections were symptomatic, and six of the patients were hospitalized.

Patients who had breakthrough infections took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that included rituximab and glucocorticoids (five patients each), mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid (four patients), and methotrexate (three patients). Two of the patients died, both of whom were on rituximab and had interstitial lung disease.

“Some DMARD users may require alternative risk-mitigation strategies, including passive immunity or booster vaccines, and may need to continue shielding practices,” the authors wrote.

“Honestly, it’s hard to know what to make of that rate of breakthrough infections,” Camille Kotton, MD, clinical director of transplant and immunocompromised host infectious diseases in the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “People who are immunocompromised were strongly advised to change behavior so as to avoid infection, which probably greatly alters their risk of breakthrough infection. It’s thus hard to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

“Also, 93% were symptomatic, which is fairly high,” she added. “I’m not sure if these patients were more likely to be symptomatic or if there was some bias in testing based on symptoms.”

In the second letter, the researchers assessed postvaccination COVID-19 infections in European patients with iRMDs. Two COVID-19 registries with thousands of patients were reviewed, with less than 1% of patients in each deemed eligible for this study. Of the 34 patients who were ultimately analyzed with available COVID-19 outcomes – 10 were fully vaccinated and 24 were partially vaccinated – 28 fully recovered, 3 recovered with ongoing sequelae, and 3 patients died. The three patients who died were all over 70 years old and had been treated with glucocorticoids and mycophenolate mofetil, glucocorticoids, and rituximab, respectively.

The medications most frequently used by the iRMDs patients with breakthrough cases included glucocorticoids (32%), methotrexate (26%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (26%).

“Overall, the low numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infection post vaccination in both registries are encouraging,” the authors wrote, adding that “all three deceased patients were treated with medications that are potential negative influences on postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity in the RMD population.”
 

Patients with RMDs: Consider COVID-19 booster shots

In the third letter, the researchers investigated booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune diseases. Of the 18 participants who received a booster dose, 14 were on antimetabolite therapy and 8 of those were on mycophenolate. At a median of 29 days after completion of their initial vaccine series, antispike antibodies were negative in 10 of the participants and low positive in 6 others, with a median antispike antibody level of less than 0.4 U/mL (interquartile range, <0.4-222 U/mL).

Booster doses were administered at a median of 77 days after completion of the initial series. At a median of 30 days after booster dose, 89% of the participants had an augmented humoral response, with a median antispike antibody level of 2,500 (IQR, 885-2,500 U/mL). Of the 10 participants who had negative anti-spike antibodies after the initial series, 80% were positive after the booster.

“I think this study supports the wealth of evidence that contributed to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]’s and the FDA’s recommendation to get the third dose of the COVID vaccination,” coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Our patients are a very vulnerable group, including lupus patients or myositis patients, both of whom can get severe COVID if they were to contract it. They think they’re protected after a two-dose series, but in reality they’re not.

“We were just happy that they had a response,” she added. “Most of them had absolutely no response whatsoever after the first series.”

One other recently published case report in Arthritis & Rheumatology describes booster vaccination with the viral vector Johnson & Johnson vaccine in a man with seropositive RA who had previously received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine. The 74-year-old man, who had low disease activity over the past 5 years on hydroxychloroquine, etanercept, and leflunomide, received the booster dose of his own accord after undergoing testing that showed a semiquantitative spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level of 53.9 U/mL (reference range, 0-2,500 U/mL) and a negative SARS-CoV-2 antispike (S1/RBD) IgG test, as well as less than 10% blocking activity on an assay designed to detect blocking of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and the human ACE2 receptor and a negative interferon-gamma release assay detecting SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells. Several weeks after the booster dose, a repeat semiquantitative spike protein RBD antibody level was 2,455.0 U/mL and the S1/RBD IgG level was positive. An ACE2 blocking assay demonstrated 90%-100% blocking activity, but the interferon-gamma release assay remained negative.

“I would recommend abiding by the CDC guidelines regarding boosters for immunocompromised patients,” Dr. Kotton stated. “Patients with rheumatologic disease generally fit into the last category on that list. We don’t have an antibody titer that ensures protection, and as per CDC guidance, we don’t recommend checking antibody titers. Furthermore, boosters were given for this study before the CDC recommendation came out.”

Dr. Paik and coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small, inhomogeneous sample and a lack of data on memory B-cell and T-cell response. They also echoed Dr. Kotton’s thoughts by noting that, although this subset of patients had notably limited antibody responses, “no antibody titer has been defined to correlate with protection.”

“Of course, the humoral response isn’t the whole story,” Dr. Paik said. “Some studies are showing that some vaccine recipients may not have the antibodies but their T-cell response may still be intact; it just takes time, and we’re not picking it up. Even if the antibody test is coming up negative, there may be some immunogenicity to the vaccine that we’re not detecting.

“Hopefully at some point, we’ll have more T-cell immunophenotyping to provide better insight into the full vaccine response.”

The Boston-area breakthrough study and the booster shot study were both funded primarily by grants from various institutes within the National Institutes of Health. The European study was financially supported by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

Although breakthrough COVID-19 infections appear to be infrequent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs), these patients’ comparatively low antibodies after their initial vaccine series validate the recommendation that booster doses could reinforce their immune responses. These findings were highlighted in three letters recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the first letter, the researchers assessed breakthrough COVID-19 infections among vaccinated patients with iRMDs who were treated within the Mass General Brigham health care system in the Boston area. Of the 340 COVID-19 infections in patients with iRMDs after vaccinations were approved by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use, 16 (4.7%) were breakthrough infections. All but one of the breakthrough infections were symptomatic, and six of the patients were hospitalized.

Patients who had breakthrough infections took disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that included rituximab and glucocorticoids (five patients each), mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolic acid (four patients), and methotrexate (three patients). Two of the patients died, both of whom were on rituximab and had interstitial lung disease.

“Some DMARD users may require alternative risk-mitigation strategies, including passive immunity or booster vaccines, and may need to continue shielding practices,” the authors wrote.

“Honestly, it’s hard to know what to make of that rate of breakthrough infections,” Camille Kotton, MD, clinical director of transplant and immunocompromised host infectious diseases in the infectious diseases division at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “People who are immunocompromised were strongly advised to change behavior so as to avoid infection, which probably greatly alters their risk of breakthrough infection. It’s thus hard to evaluate vaccine efficacy.

“Also, 93% were symptomatic, which is fairly high,” she added. “I’m not sure if these patients were more likely to be symptomatic or if there was some bias in testing based on symptoms.”

In the second letter, the researchers assessed postvaccination COVID-19 infections in European patients with iRMDs. Two COVID-19 registries with thousands of patients were reviewed, with less than 1% of patients in each deemed eligible for this study. Of the 34 patients who were ultimately analyzed with available COVID-19 outcomes – 10 were fully vaccinated and 24 were partially vaccinated – 28 fully recovered, 3 recovered with ongoing sequelae, and 3 patients died. The three patients who died were all over 70 years old and had been treated with glucocorticoids and mycophenolate mofetil, glucocorticoids, and rituximab, respectively.

The medications most frequently used by the iRMDs patients with breakthrough cases included glucocorticoids (32%), methotrexate (26%), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (26%).

“Overall, the low numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infection post vaccination in both registries are encouraging,” the authors wrote, adding that “all three deceased patients were treated with medications that are potential negative influences on postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 immunogenicity in the RMD population.”
 

Patients with RMDs: Consider COVID-19 booster shots

In the third letter, the researchers investigated booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with autoimmune diseases. Of the 18 participants who received a booster dose, 14 were on antimetabolite therapy and 8 of those were on mycophenolate. At a median of 29 days after completion of their initial vaccine series, antispike antibodies were negative in 10 of the participants and low positive in 6 others, with a median antispike antibody level of less than 0.4 U/mL (interquartile range, <0.4-222 U/mL).

Booster doses were administered at a median of 77 days after completion of the initial series. At a median of 30 days after booster dose, 89% of the participants had an augmented humoral response, with a median antispike antibody level of 2,500 (IQR, 885-2,500 U/mL). Of the 10 participants who had negative anti-spike antibodies after the initial series, 80% were positive after the booster.

“I think this study supports the wealth of evidence that contributed to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]’s and the FDA’s recommendation to get the third dose of the COVID vaccination,” coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Our patients are a very vulnerable group, including lupus patients or myositis patients, both of whom can get severe COVID if they were to contract it. They think they’re protected after a two-dose series, but in reality they’re not.

“We were just happy that they had a response,” she added. “Most of them had absolutely no response whatsoever after the first series.”

One other recently published case report in Arthritis & Rheumatology describes booster vaccination with the viral vector Johnson & Johnson vaccine in a man with seropositive RA who had previously received both doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine. The 74-year-old man, who had low disease activity over the past 5 years on hydroxychloroquine, etanercept, and leflunomide, received the booster dose of his own accord after undergoing testing that showed a semiquantitative spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level of 53.9 U/mL (reference range, 0-2,500 U/mL) and a negative SARS-CoV-2 antispike (S1/RBD) IgG test, as well as less than 10% blocking activity on an assay designed to detect blocking of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and the human ACE2 receptor and a negative interferon-gamma release assay detecting SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells. Several weeks after the booster dose, a repeat semiquantitative spike protein RBD antibody level was 2,455.0 U/mL and the S1/RBD IgG level was positive. An ACE2 blocking assay demonstrated 90%-100% blocking activity, but the interferon-gamma release assay remained negative.

“I would recommend abiding by the CDC guidelines regarding boosters for immunocompromised patients,” Dr. Kotton stated. “Patients with rheumatologic disease generally fit into the last category on that list. We don’t have an antibody titer that ensures protection, and as per CDC guidance, we don’t recommend checking antibody titers. Furthermore, boosters were given for this study before the CDC recommendation came out.”

Dr. Paik and coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a small, inhomogeneous sample and a lack of data on memory B-cell and T-cell response. They also echoed Dr. Kotton’s thoughts by noting that, although this subset of patients had notably limited antibody responses, “no antibody titer has been defined to correlate with protection.”

“Of course, the humoral response isn’t the whole story,” Dr. Paik said. “Some studies are showing that some vaccine recipients may not have the antibodies but their T-cell response may still be intact; it just takes time, and we’re not picking it up. Even if the antibody test is coming up negative, there may be some immunogenicity to the vaccine that we’re not detecting.

“Hopefully at some point, we’ll have more T-cell immunophenotyping to provide better insight into the full vaccine response.”

The Boston-area breakthrough study and the booster shot study were both funded primarily by grants from various institutes within the National Institutes of Health. The European study was financially supported by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

A new study rebuts the conventional rheumatology wisdom about ankylosing spondylitis (AS) by reporting that actually there’s no gender gap in the prevalence of the disease. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in rates between men and women based on an analysis of military medical records.

feellife/Thinkstock

“Our findings challenge the widely held belief that AS in the U.S. occurs substantially more frequently in males than females,” the study authors, led by data scientist D. Alan Nelson, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in a study published Aug. 30 in Arthritis Care & Research.

The researchers launched the study to fill a gap in knowledge regarding case rates by gender. “The incidence of AS in the U.S. has been understudied and incompletely characterized,” they wrote.

Even though AS is fairly common, affecting an estimated 1% of the American adult population (2.5 million people), only one published population study has examined rates by gender in the United States. That study tracked cases in Minnesota’s Olmsted County during 1980-2009 and found that the ratio of cases in men vs. women was 3.8:1, which was “consistent with more recent estimates” at the time.

However, the population in that study in 1980 was 100% White, the authors of the new study note. A Canadian study that tracked an Ontario population from 1995 to 2010, meanwhile, suggested that AS rates among women were rising and the gender gap was shrinking. AS rates as a whole also nearly tripled, possibly because of more awareness.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 728,556 members of the U.S. military who underwent guideline-directed screening for back pain during 2014-2017. The study population was about 68% White, 22% Black, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remainder were other races or unknown. About 85% were male.

The subjects were monitored for a mean of 2.21 years, and 438 (0.06%) were diagnosed with AS at least once over that period.

The researchers found that the AS rates among males vs. females were similar (incidence rate ratio, 1.16; P = .23; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.02; P = .072).

The researchers also found that Whites were more likely to develop AS than Blacks (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.66; P = .04).

The risk of AS increased with age, the researchers reported, with the odds growing sevenfold in the 45-and-older population vs. the under-24 population (aOR, 7.3; 95% CI, 5.7-10.3; P < .001).

The researchers noted that their study examined a more diverse population than the earlier Minnesota study. It’s also possible that the results of the two studies differed because of differences in definitions of AS diagnosis or imprecision in diagnosis codes, they wrote.

The researchers added that “the finding of a 1.21 male-female prevalence ratio of AS in the Canadian Ontario study was also generally consistent with our findings. Similar to our study population, the Canadian population was racially more diverse than the Olmsted study population at the times of both studies.”

Some limitations of the study include the fact that the military population is not a random sample and may have low rates of AS. “It is highly likely that most clinically evident cases of AS would have been screened out prior to enrollment in the military service,” they wrote. “Differences between military service members and the general population may explain why we observed a different association between AS incidence and age in comparison to that reported by prior studies. The increasing risk of AS with adult age that we observed could reflect selective discharge patterns related to very early symptoms of AS in this population.”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the Spondylitis Association of America. No information about potential conflicts of interest was provided in the manuscript.

A new study rebuts the conventional rheumatology wisdom about ankylosing spondylitis (AS) by reporting that actually there’s no gender gap in the prevalence of the disease. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in rates between men and women based on an analysis of military medical records.

feellife/Thinkstock

“Our findings challenge the widely held belief that AS in the U.S. occurs substantially more frequently in males than females,” the study authors, led by data scientist D. Alan Nelson, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in a study published Aug. 30 in Arthritis Care & Research.

The researchers launched the study to fill a gap in knowledge regarding case rates by gender. “The incidence of AS in the U.S. has been understudied and incompletely characterized,” they wrote.

Even though AS is fairly common, affecting an estimated 1% of the American adult population (2.5 million people), only one published population study has examined rates by gender in the United States. That study tracked cases in Minnesota’s Olmsted County during 1980-2009 and found that the ratio of cases in men vs. women was 3.8:1, which was “consistent with more recent estimates” at the time.

However, the population in that study in 1980 was 100% White, the authors of the new study note. A Canadian study that tracked an Ontario population from 1995 to 2010, meanwhile, suggested that AS rates among women were rising and the gender gap was shrinking. AS rates as a whole also nearly tripled, possibly because of more awareness.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 728,556 members of the U.S. military who underwent guideline-directed screening for back pain during 2014-2017. The study population was about 68% White, 22% Black, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remainder were other races or unknown. About 85% were male.

The subjects were monitored for a mean of 2.21 years, and 438 (0.06%) were diagnosed with AS at least once over that period.

The researchers found that the AS rates among males vs. females were similar (incidence rate ratio, 1.16; P = .23; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.02; P = .072).

The researchers also found that Whites were more likely to develop AS than Blacks (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.66; P = .04).

The risk of AS increased with age, the researchers reported, with the odds growing sevenfold in the 45-and-older population vs. the under-24 population (aOR, 7.3; 95% CI, 5.7-10.3; P < .001).

The researchers noted that their study examined a more diverse population than the earlier Minnesota study. It’s also possible that the results of the two studies differed because of differences in definitions of AS diagnosis or imprecision in diagnosis codes, they wrote.

The researchers added that “the finding of a 1.21 male-female prevalence ratio of AS in the Canadian Ontario study was also generally consistent with our findings. Similar to our study population, the Canadian population was racially more diverse than the Olmsted study population at the times of both studies.”

Some limitations of the study include the fact that the military population is not a random sample and may have low rates of AS. “It is highly likely that most clinically evident cases of AS would have been screened out prior to enrollment in the military service,” they wrote. “Differences between military service members and the general population may explain why we observed a different association between AS incidence and age in comparison to that reported by prior studies. The increasing risk of AS with adult age that we observed could reflect selective discharge patterns related to very early symptoms of AS in this population.”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the Spondylitis Association of America. No information about potential conflicts of interest was provided in the manuscript.

A new study rebuts the conventional rheumatology wisdom about ankylosing spondylitis (AS) by reporting that actually there’s no gender gap in the prevalence of the disease. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in rates between men and women based on an analysis of military medical records.

feellife/Thinkstock

“Our findings challenge the widely held belief that AS in the U.S. occurs substantially more frequently in males than females,” the study authors, led by data scientist D. Alan Nelson, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in a study published Aug. 30 in Arthritis Care & Research.

The researchers launched the study to fill a gap in knowledge regarding case rates by gender. “The incidence of AS in the U.S. has been understudied and incompletely characterized,” they wrote.

Even though AS is fairly common, affecting an estimated 1% of the American adult population (2.5 million people), only one published population study has examined rates by gender in the United States. That study tracked cases in Minnesota’s Olmsted County during 1980-2009 and found that the ratio of cases in men vs. women was 3.8:1, which was “consistent with more recent estimates” at the time.

However, the population in that study in 1980 was 100% White, the authors of the new study note. A Canadian study that tracked an Ontario population from 1995 to 2010, meanwhile, suggested that AS rates among women were rising and the gender gap was shrinking. AS rates as a whole also nearly tripled, possibly because of more awareness.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 728,556 members of the U.S. military who underwent guideline-directed screening for back pain during 2014-2017. The study population was about 68% White, 22% Black, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, and the remainder were other races or unknown. About 85% were male.

The subjects were monitored for a mean of 2.21 years, and 438 (0.06%) were diagnosed with AS at least once over that period.

The researchers found that the AS rates among males vs. females were similar (incidence rate ratio, 1.16; P = .23; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.02; P = .072).

The researchers also found that Whites were more likely to develop AS than Blacks (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.66; P = .04).

The risk of AS increased with age, the researchers reported, with the odds growing sevenfold in the 45-and-older population vs. the under-24 population (aOR, 7.3; 95% CI, 5.7-10.3; P < .001).

The researchers noted that their study examined a more diverse population than the earlier Minnesota study. It’s also possible that the results of the two studies differed because of differences in definitions of AS diagnosis or imprecision in diagnosis codes, they wrote.

The researchers added that “the finding of a 1.21 male-female prevalence ratio of AS in the Canadian Ontario study was also generally consistent with our findings. Similar to our study population, the Canadian population was racially more diverse than the Olmsted study population at the times of both studies.”

Some limitations of the study include the fact that the military population is not a random sample and may have low rates of AS. “It is highly likely that most clinically evident cases of AS would have been screened out prior to enrollment in the military service,” they wrote. “Differences between military service members and the general population may explain why we observed a different association between AS incidence and age in comparison to that reported by prior studies. The increasing risk of AS with adult age that we observed could reflect selective discharge patterns related to very early symptoms of AS in this population.”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the Spondylitis Association of America. No information about potential conflicts of interest was provided in the manuscript.

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

Emerging evidence suggests that autoimmunity plays a role in postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and that targeting autoantibodies could be a promising treatment approach.

The same may also apply to many cases of “long COVID,” in which many of the symptoms overlap with those of ME/CFS, Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, professor of clinical immunology and director of the Institute for Medical Immunology, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, said during the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

Several groups, including Dr. Scheibenbogen’s, have reported finding autoantibodies against neurotransmitter receptor antigens in people with ME/CFS. And, in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine the day that Dr. Scheibenbogen spoke at the meeting, her team reported significant correlations between autoantibodies to vasoregulative G-protein–coupled receptors and symptom severity, autonomic dysfunction, and disability among 116 patients with infection-triggered ME/CFS who were diagnosed using the symptom-based 2003 Canadian consensus criteria.

People with ME/CFS are also more likely to have genetic risk factors associated with autoimmunity and personal and/or family histories of autoimmune conditions. And, clinical trials have demonstrated early success with various immunomodulatory treatments in subsets of people with ME/CFS, including endoxan, rituximab, and immunoadsorption.

“We have evidence that ME/CFS is an autoantibody-mediated disease, and we have evidence that autoantibody targeting is effective in this disease. So far ... we have few and underfinanced clinical studies, but the good news is we have promising emerging treatment options,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.

Asked to comment, ME/CFS expert Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said: “There is already strong evidence that there are autoantibodies in ME/CFS. Dr. Scheibenbogen’s work is the latest and employs the latest technology. ... I would bet that autoantibodies to neural targets are likely to cause some of the symptoms of ME/CFS and some of the symptoms of long COVID.”

However, he cautioned, “that has not been proven, and even if it were proven you would have to demonstrate that treatments based on that theory worked.”

Dr. Komaroff said he views autoimmunity as a likely component of the ME/CFS spectrum, but not the only one. “My current view of this illness is that there’s a final common pathway in the brain that leads to the symptoms of the illness. But that final common pathway can be triggered by a variety of different things, one of which could be autoantibodies while another could be infection or inflammation in the brain.”
 

Emerging evidence points to autoimmunity

Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized the work published in this area over the past few years by her group and others.

In a comparison of ME/CFS patients with 201 healthy controls, significant associations were seen with two specific autoimmunity-related risk alleles only in the ME/CFS patients who reported acute onset of disease with an infection but not in those with ME/CFS without infection-triggered onset or the controls. Both genes play roles in regulating B- and T-cell activation.

Another recent study found associations with ME/CFS and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules, a typical feature of autoimmune diseases, in a comparison between 426 adult Norwegian ME/CFS patients who were diagnosed with the Canadian consensus criteria and 4,511 healthy, ethnically matched controls.

In a 2020 paper, Dr. Scheibenbogen and pharmacologist Klaus Wirth presented a “unifying hypothesis” of ME/CFS pathophysiology based on the finding of elevations in autoantibodies against beta₂-adrenergic receptors and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in some individuals with the condition. Since both of those receptors are important vasodilators, their functional disturbance would be expected to cause vasoconstriction and hypoxemia, which would explain many of the symptoms of ME/CFS. This mechanism would align with other findings of muscular and cerebral hypoperfusion that correlate with fatigue, particularly post exertion, as well as metabolic changes that are in line with the concepts of hypoxemia and ischemia.

Further evidence for vascular dysfunction in ME/CFS came from her group’s study finding evidence of peripheral endothelial dysfunction that was associated with symptom severity in 35 adult patients. “Vasoconstriction, hypovolemia, and release of vasoactive and algesic mediators is probably a key pathomechanism of the disease,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.
 

Treatments: Will targeting autoantibodies work?

In the second part of her talk, Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized clinical trials of the following treatment approaches that involve targeting autoantibodies as a way to alleviate ME/CFS symptoms:

Rituximab: Work on infusions of the B-cell depleting agent has been conducted by Norwegian researchers beginning in 2011 with a small randomized trial and an open-label, phase 2 study in 2015, both showing clinical responses in ME/CFS. However, a subsequent phase 3, randomized clinical trial of 151 patients, again diagnosed using the Canadian criteria, was negative.

There are several possible explanations for this, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted. For one, the maintenance dose had to be reduced because of a lack of financial support. “This was probably critical. The lower dose was insufficient to adequately deplete B cells.” Also, there may have been a strong placebo response in the control group since they were being given better care than they normally would receive during the trial. “I think probably nobody will again do a rituximab trial. This was very disappointing for all of us. But, we still have other opportunities to follow this path,” she said.

Dr. Komaroff agreed. “I don’t think the failure of one drug that hits malignant B cells is proof against the autoimmune hypothesis per se. I think the evidence is that rituximab doesn’t work, but that doesn’t invalidate the autoimmunity hypothesis.”

Cyclophosphamide: The same Norwegian group also showed positive findings in an open-label, phase 2 trial of the immune-modifying drug cyclophosphamide in 22 of 40 patients. Interestingly, HLA risk alleles were much more common in responders than nonresponders, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted.

Immunoadsorption: This technique, similar to dialysis, involves separating out the blood plasma by centrifugation and removing IgG autoantibodies by a binding column, then returning the plasma back to the patient. It is used, primarily in Europe, to treat severe autoimmune diseases including dilative cardiomyopathy and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s group has conducted two studies of immunoadsorption in ME/CFS. In one, a 5-day procedure led to rapid symptom improvement in 7 of 10 patients, with sustained improvement in 3 patients after 2 years. Autoantibodies decreased rapidly in 9 of the 10 patients. In a follow-up study of five of the responders 2 years later, retreatment with a modified immunoadsorption protocol led to rapid and sustained improvement in four. Further study has been on hold because of the pandemic.

Next-gen IgG-targeting therapies: Another approach that could offer promise for ME/CFS involves therapies that block the Fc receptors of IgG. Several are in phase 1-3 trials for autoimmune conditions. One candidate drug, the Fc fragment efgartigimod, is currently in phase 3 trials for several conditions, including generalized myasthenia gravis, primary immune thrombocytopenia, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Phase 3 trials are planned for the monoclonal antibody rozanolixizumab in those same conditions.

Newer-generation monoclonal antibodies targeting CD19 or CD20 that show benefit in various autoimmune conditions are another possibility for ME/CFS. These include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), approved in the United States for treating relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis and in trials for SLE; obinutuzumab (Gazyva), approved for treating lymphoma and also in development for SLE; and ublituximab, in phase 3 trials for multiple sclerosis.

“Most of them are more effective than rituximab,” Dr. Scheibenbogen noted, adding that “currently the data look quite promising. They are effective in different autoimmune diseases and they are quite well tolerated. There’s great hope now with COVID-19 that we can convince some companies to do such trials in ME/CFS as well.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s institution, the Charité Fatigue Center, has a patent for beta₂-adrenergic receptor antibodies for diagnosing ME/CFS under her name together with Celltrend. Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune.

Emerging evidence suggests that autoimmunity plays a role in postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and that targeting autoantibodies could be a promising treatment approach.

The same may also apply to many cases of “long COVID,” in which many of the symptoms overlap with those of ME/CFS, Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, professor of clinical immunology and director of the Institute for Medical Immunology, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, said during the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

Several groups, including Dr. Scheibenbogen’s, have reported finding autoantibodies against neurotransmitter receptor antigens in people with ME/CFS. And, in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine the day that Dr. Scheibenbogen spoke at the meeting, her team reported significant correlations between autoantibodies to vasoregulative G-protein–coupled receptors and symptom severity, autonomic dysfunction, and disability among 116 patients with infection-triggered ME/CFS who were diagnosed using the symptom-based 2003 Canadian consensus criteria.

People with ME/CFS are also more likely to have genetic risk factors associated with autoimmunity and personal and/or family histories of autoimmune conditions. And, clinical trials have demonstrated early success with various immunomodulatory treatments in subsets of people with ME/CFS, including endoxan, rituximab, and immunoadsorption.

“We have evidence that ME/CFS is an autoantibody-mediated disease, and we have evidence that autoantibody targeting is effective in this disease. So far ... we have few and underfinanced clinical studies, but the good news is we have promising emerging treatment options,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.

Asked to comment, ME/CFS expert Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said: “There is already strong evidence that there are autoantibodies in ME/CFS. Dr. Scheibenbogen’s work is the latest and employs the latest technology. ... I would bet that autoantibodies to neural targets are likely to cause some of the symptoms of ME/CFS and some of the symptoms of long COVID.”

However, he cautioned, “that has not been proven, and even if it were proven you would have to demonstrate that treatments based on that theory worked.”

Dr. Komaroff said he views autoimmunity as a likely component of the ME/CFS spectrum, but not the only one. “My current view of this illness is that there’s a final common pathway in the brain that leads to the symptoms of the illness. But that final common pathway can be triggered by a variety of different things, one of which could be autoantibodies while another could be infection or inflammation in the brain.”
 

Emerging evidence points to autoimmunity

Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized the work published in this area over the past few years by her group and others.

In a comparison of ME/CFS patients with 201 healthy controls, significant associations were seen with two specific autoimmunity-related risk alleles only in the ME/CFS patients who reported acute onset of disease with an infection but not in those with ME/CFS without infection-triggered onset or the controls. Both genes play roles in regulating B- and T-cell activation.

Another recent study found associations with ME/CFS and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules, a typical feature of autoimmune diseases, in a comparison between 426 adult Norwegian ME/CFS patients who were diagnosed with the Canadian consensus criteria and 4,511 healthy, ethnically matched controls.

In a 2020 paper, Dr. Scheibenbogen and pharmacologist Klaus Wirth presented a “unifying hypothesis” of ME/CFS pathophysiology based on the finding of elevations in autoantibodies against beta₂-adrenergic receptors and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in some individuals with the condition. Since both of those receptors are important vasodilators, their functional disturbance would be expected to cause vasoconstriction and hypoxemia, which would explain many of the symptoms of ME/CFS. This mechanism would align with other findings of muscular and cerebral hypoperfusion that correlate with fatigue, particularly post exertion, as well as metabolic changes that are in line with the concepts of hypoxemia and ischemia.

Further evidence for vascular dysfunction in ME/CFS came from her group’s study finding evidence of peripheral endothelial dysfunction that was associated with symptom severity in 35 adult patients. “Vasoconstriction, hypovolemia, and release of vasoactive and algesic mediators is probably a key pathomechanism of the disease,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.
 

Treatments: Will targeting autoantibodies work?

In the second part of her talk, Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized clinical trials of the following treatment approaches that involve targeting autoantibodies as a way to alleviate ME/CFS symptoms:

Rituximab: Work on infusions of the B-cell depleting agent has been conducted by Norwegian researchers beginning in 2011 with a small randomized trial and an open-label, phase 2 study in 2015, both showing clinical responses in ME/CFS. However, a subsequent phase 3, randomized clinical trial of 151 patients, again diagnosed using the Canadian criteria, was negative.

There are several possible explanations for this, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted. For one, the maintenance dose had to be reduced because of a lack of financial support. “This was probably critical. The lower dose was insufficient to adequately deplete B cells.” Also, there may have been a strong placebo response in the control group since they were being given better care than they normally would receive during the trial. “I think probably nobody will again do a rituximab trial. This was very disappointing for all of us. But, we still have other opportunities to follow this path,” she said.

Dr. Komaroff agreed. “I don’t think the failure of one drug that hits malignant B cells is proof against the autoimmune hypothesis per se. I think the evidence is that rituximab doesn’t work, but that doesn’t invalidate the autoimmunity hypothesis.”

Cyclophosphamide: The same Norwegian group also showed positive findings in an open-label, phase 2 trial of the immune-modifying drug cyclophosphamide in 22 of 40 patients. Interestingly, HLA risk alleles were much more common in responders than nonresponders, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted.

Immunoadsorption: This technique, similar to dialysis, involves separating out the blood plasma by centrifugation and removing IgG autoantibodies by a binding column, then returning the plasma back to the patient. It is used, primarily in Europe, to treat severe autoimmune diseases including dilative cardiomyopathy and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s group has conducted two studies of immunoadsorption in ME/CFS. In one, a 5-day procedure led to rapid symptom improvement in 7 of 10 patients, with sustained improvement in 3 patients after 2 years. Autoantibodies decreased rapidly in 9 of the 10 patients. In a follow-up study of five of the responders 2 years later, retreatment with a modified immunoadsorption protocol led to rapid and sustained improvement in four. Further study has been on hold because of the pandemic.

Next-gen IgG-targeting therapies: Another approach that could offer promise for ME/CFS involves therapies that block the Fc receptors of IgG. Several are in phase 1-3 trials for autoimmune conditions. One candidate drug, the Fc fragment efgartigimod, is currently in phase 3 trials for several conditions, including generalized myasthenia gravis, primary immune thrombocytopenia, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Phase 3 trials are planned for the monoclonal antibody rozanolixizumab in those same conditions.

Newer-generation monoclonal antibodies targeting CD19 or CD20 that show benefit in various autoimmune conditions are another possibility for ME/CFS. These include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), approved in the United States for treating relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis and in trials for SLE; obinutuzumab (Gazyva), approved for treating lymphoma and also in development for SLE; and ublituximab, in phase 3 trials for multiple sclerosis.

“Most of them are more effective than rituximab,” Dr. Scheibenbogen noted, adding that “currently the data look quite promising. They are effective in different autoimmune diseases and they are quite well tolerated. There’s great hope now with COVID-19 that we can convince some companies to do such trials in ME/CFS as well.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s institution, the Charité Fatigue Center, has a patent for beta₂-adrenergic receptor antibodies for diagnosing ME/CFS under her name together with Celltrend. Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune.

Emerging evidence suggests that autoimmunity plays a role in postinfectious myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and that targeting autoantibodies could be a promising treatment approach.

The same may also apply to many cases of “long COVID,” in which many of the symptoms overlap with those of ME/CFS, Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, professor of clinical immunology and director of the Institute for Medical Immunology, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, said during the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

Several groups, including Dr. Scheibenbogen’s, have reported finding autoantibodies against neurotransmitter receptor antigens in people with ME/CFS. And, in a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine the day that Dr. Scheibenbogen spoke at the meeting, her team reported significant correlations between autoantibodies to vasoregulative G-protein–coupled receptors and symptom severity, autonomic dysfunction, and disability among 116 patients with infection-triggered ME/CFS who were diagnosed using the symptom-based 2003 Canadian consensus criteria.

People with ME/CFS are also more likely to have genetic risk factors associated with autoimmunity and personal and/or family histories of autoimmune conditions. And, clinical trials have demonstrated early success with various immunomodulatory treatments in subsets of people with ME/CFS, including endoxan, rituximab, and immunoadsorption.

“We have evidence that ME/CFS is an autoantibody-mediated disease, and we have evidence that autoantibody targeting is effective in this disease. So far ... we have few and underfinanced clinical studies, but the good news is we have promising emerging treatment options,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.

Asked to comment, ME/CFS expert Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said: “There is already strong evidence that there are autoantibodies in ME/CFS. Dr. Scheibenbogen’s work is the latest and employs the latest technology. ... I would bet that autoantibodies to neural targets are likely to cause some of the symptoms of ME/CFS and some of the symptoms of long COVID.”

However, he cautioned, “that has not been proven, and even if it were proven you would have to demonstrate that treatments based on that theory worked.”

Dr. Komaroff said he views autoimmunity as a likely component of the ME/CFS spectrum, but not the only one. “My current view of this illness is that there’s a final common pathway in the brain that leads to the symptoms of the illness. But that final common pathway can be triggered by a variety of different things, one of which could be autoantibodies while another could be infection or inflammation in the brain.”
 

Emerging evidence points to autoimmunity

Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized the work published in this area over the past few years by her group and others.

In a comparison of ME/CFS patients with 201 healthy controls, significant associations were seen with two specific autoimmunity-related risk alleles only in the ME/CFS patients who reported acute onset of disease with an infection but not in those with ME/CFS without infection-triggered onset or the controls. Both genes play roles in regulating B- and T-cell activation.

Another recent study found associations with ME/CFS and major histocompatibility complex class II molecules, a typical feature of autoimmune diseases, in a comparison between 426 adult Norwegian ME/CFS patients who were diagnosed with the Canadian consensus criteria and 4,511 healthy, ethnically matched controls.

In a 2020 paper, Dr. Scheibenbogen and pharmacologist Klaus Wirth presented a “unifying hypothesis” of ME/CFS pathophysiology based on the finding of elevations in autoantibodies against beta₂-adrenergic receptors and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in some individuals with the condition. Since both of those receptors are important vasodilators, their functional disturbance would be expected to cause vasoconstriction and hypoxemia, which would explain many of the symptoms of ME/CFS. This mechanism would align with other findings of muscular and cerebral hypoperfusion that correlate with fatigue, particularly post exertion, as well as metabolic changes that are in line with the concepts of hypoxemia and ischemia.

Further evidence for vascular dysfunction in ME/CFS came from her group’s study finding evidence of peripheral endothelial dysfunction that was associated with symptom severity in 35 adult patients. “Vasoconstriction, hypovolemia, and release of vasoactive and algesic mediators is probably a key pathomechanism of the disease,” Dr. Scheibenbogen said.
 

Treatments: Will targeting autoantibodies work?

In the second part of her talk, Dr. Scheibenbogen summarized clinical trials of the following treatment approaches that involve targeting autoantibodies as a way to alleviate ME/CFS symptoms:

Rituximab: Work on infusions of the B-cell depleting agent has been conducted by Norwegian researchers beginning in 2011 with a small randomized trial and an open-label, phase 2 study in 2015, both showing clinical responses in ME/CFS. However, a subsequent phase 3, randomized clinical trial of 151 patients, again diagnosed using the Canadian criteria, was negative.

There are several possible explanations for this, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted. For one, the maintenance dose had to be reduced because of a lack of financial support. “This was probably critical. The lower dose was insufficient to adequately deplete B cells.” Also, there may have been a strong placebo response in the control group since they were being given better care than they normally would receive during the trial. “I think probably nobody will again do a rituximab trial. This was very disappointing for all of us. But, we still have other opportunities to follow this path,” she said.

Dr. Komaroff agreed. “I don’t think the failure of one drug that hits malignant B cells is proof against the autoimmune hypothesis per se. I think the evidence is that rituximab doesn’t work, but that doesn’t invalidate the autoimmunity hypothesis.”

Cyclophosphamide: The same Norwegian group also showed positive findings in an open-label, phase 2 trial of the immune-modifying drug cyclophosphamide in 22 of 40 patients. Interestingly, HLA risk alleles were much more common in responders than nonresponders, Dr. Scheibenbogen noted.

Immunoadsorption: This technique, similar to dialysis, involves separating out the blood plasma by centrifugation and removing IgG autoantibodies by a binding column, then returning the plasma back to the patient. It is used, primarily in Europe, to treat severe autoimmune diseases including dilative cardiomyopathy and refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s group has conducted two studies of immunoadsorption in ME/CFS. In one, a 5-day procedure led to rapid symptom improvement in 7 of 10 patients, with sustained improvement in 3 patients after 2 years. Autoantibodies decreased rapidly in 9 of the 10 patients. In a follow-up study of five of the responders 2 years later, retreatment with a modified immunoadsorption protocol led to rapid and sustained improvement in four. Further study has been on hold because of the pandemic.

Next-gen IgG-targeting therapies: Another approach that could offer promise for ME/CFS involves therapies that block the Fc receptors of IgG. Several are in phase 1-3 trials for autoimmune conditions. One candidate drug, the Fc fragment efgartigimod, is currently in phase 3 trials for several conditions, including generalized myasthenia gravis, primary immune thrombocytopenia, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Phase 3 trials are planned for the monoclonal antibody rozanolixizumab in those same conditions.

Newer-generation monoclonal antibodies targeting CD19 or CD20 that show benefit in various autoimmune conditions are another possibility for ME/CFS. These include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), approved in the United States for treating relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis and in trials for SLE; obinutuzumab (Gazyva), approved for treating lymphoma and also in development for SLE; and ublituximab, in phase 3 trials for multiple sclerosis.

“Most of them are more effective than rituximab,” Dr. Scheibenbogen noted, adding that “currently the data look quite promising. They are effective in different autoimmune diseases and they are quite well tolerated. There’s great hope now with COVID-19 that we can convince some companies to do such trials in ME/CFS as well.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen’s institution, the Charité Fatigue Center, has a patent for beta₂-adrenergic receptor antibodies for diagnosing ME/CFS under her name together with Celltrend. Dr. Komaroff has received personal fees from Serimmune.

Receiving treatment with a biologic medication, compared with no biologic treatment, appeared to be associated with a lower risk for developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

That’s according to the results of a nested case-control study involving electronic medical record data from an Israeli health maintenance organization in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Compared with no biologic treatment, the risk for developing PsA among PsO patients was reduced by 39%.

This study shows “a statistically and clinically significant lower risk for developing PsA among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis treatment,” wrote Yael Shalev Rosenthal, MPH, of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University and colleagues. “The results suggest considering treatment with biologic medications in patients [who] present with significant risk factors for PsA at an earlier stage of treatment.”

“It would be nice to believe this story, but I don’t think we can based on the evidence we’ve got so far,” commented Philip Helliwell, PhD, DM, in an interview.

Dr. Helliwell, who is professor of clinical rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) and an Honorary Consultant Rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, noted that there were several issues with the current evidence.

Aside from their often retrospective or nonrandomized nature, prior analyses, including the current one, were based on EMR data.

“There’s actually no face-to-face patient contact going on here. It’s all done on coding, and coding can be unreliable,” Dr. Helliwell said.

While the study’s findings are “in line with other studies that have looked at this, and suggest that if you get a biologic, you’re less likely to get PsA with your psoriasis, there could be lots of reasons why.”

The big problem here is confounding by indication. “You don’t get on a biologic unless you’ve got bad psoriasis,” Dr. Helliwell explained. The Israeli criteria for starting a biologic are much higher than in the United Kingdom, he added, requiring more than 50% of patients’ body surface area to be affected, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of more than 50. Moreover, people with bad psoriasis are more likely to get PsA. This, however, makes the results more impressive.

Confounding by indication is an issue with this study, agreed consultant rheumatologist Adewale Adebajo, PhD, in a separate interview. He acknowledged, however, that the study’s authors did try to account for this by limiting the timescale of their analysis to the first 10 years of biologic therapy. They also used the usual methods of propensity score matching and multivariate Cox regression analysis to hopefully iron out any differences between the two groups of patients.

Study details and results

Ms. Rosenthal and coauthors analyzed EMR data on patients with psoriasis but not PsA that were logged in the Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS) database. The MHS is the second-largest health maintenance organization in Israel, insuring over 2 million members, the researchers said.

In all, 663 patients with psoriasis but not PsA before or at initiation of biologic treatment were included in their analysis and matched to a control group of 663 patients with psoriasis who had not received biologic treatment. Propensity score matching was used to iron out some differences in baseline characteristics that had been seen between the groups, such as older age at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a longer time between diagnosis and treatment seen in patients treated without biologics.

After adjusting for multiple risk factors and confounders, “the control group still had a significantly higher risk for PsA, compared to the biological treatment group,” the researchers wrote. Indeed, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.39, with a 95% confidence interval between 1.03 and 1.87.

An ‘intriguing study’

“This is a retrospective study, and it has all the faults of a retrospective study,” said Dr. Adebajo, associate medical director for research and development at Barnsley (England) NHS Foundation Trust. But “these were patients who hopefully hadn’t yet developed psoriatic arthritis, although it is difficult to exclude subclinical psoriatic arthritis.”

The ideal would of course be to look at patients prospectively, but a randomized clinical trial would be unlikely to ever be conducted, Dr. Helliwell noted. “It would be unfair to randomize people who have got bad psoriasis and need a biologic to placebo just to prove the point really,” he said. “Getting control groups in this arena is very difficult.”

That doesn’t mean that prospective evaluation is not possible. Dr. Adebajo noted that there were already cohorts of newly diagnosed patients who were being prospectively followed up and those could perhaps be used to look at the question again in the future.

“You’re then looking at the natural history, the natural outcome, and you don’t need to worry about confounding because you’re just collecting all of the information as you go along.”

The idea that biologics might slow or even prevent the onset of PsA is “an interesting and enchanting hypothesis,” Dr. Adebajo said. “The study doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it’s an intriguing study because it doesn’t disprove the hypothesis either.

“It gives us food for thought and a basis for further studies,” as well as some “encouragement to perhaps use biologics earlier because there may be additional benefits of doing so.”

That’s still to be proven of course, as it has been reported that patients with psoriasis can develop PsA while taking biologics.

“Clinically, that’s what we see in the combined clinic. We get people referred with psoriasis [who are] already on a biologic who developed musculoskeletal problems,” Dr. Helliwell said.

“It would be nice to believe” that biologics prevent or slow PsA in patients with psoriasis, Dr. Helliwell added, but I’m not sure these data are conclusive. From this study we know nothing about the phenotype of psoriasis, which is important in the development of PsA. In addition, we know that of the 30% of people with psoriasis who develop PsA, about half of these are undiagnosed at the time of such studies. In that case, what the biologic is doing is just treating preexisting PsA. If you count those numbers up, some of the differences between the two groups seen in this study are accounted for. From registry data there is no way of checking this.”

No external funding was used for the study. One author acknowledged acting as an investigator, adviser, or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Dexcel Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. All other authors had nothing to disclose.

Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Adebajo had no conflicts of interest.

Receiving treatment with a biologic medication, compared with no biologic treatment, appeared to be associated with a lower risk for developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

That’s according to the results of a nested case-control study involving electronic medical record data from an Israeli health maintenance organization in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Compared with no biologic treatment, the risk for developing PsA among PsO patients was reduced by 39%.

This study shows “a statistically and clinically significant lower risk for developing PsA among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis treatment,” wrote Yael Shalev Rosenthal, MPH, of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University and colleagues. “The results suggest considering treatment with biologic medications in patients [who] present with significant risk factors for PsA at an earlier stage of treatment.”

“It would be nice to believe this story, but I don’t think we can based on the evidence we’ve got so far,” commented Philip Helliwell, PhD, DM, in an interview.

Dr. Helliwell, who is professor of clinical rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) and an Honorary Consultant Rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, noted that there were several issues with the current evidence.

Aside from their often retrospective or nonrandomized nature, prior analyses, including the current one, were based on EMR data.

“There’s actually no face-to-face patient contact going on here. It’s all done on coding, and coding can be unreliable,” Dr. Helliwell said.

While the study’s findings are “in line with other studies that have looked at this, and suggest that if you get a biologic, you’re less likely to get PsA with your psoriasis, there could be lots of reasons why.”

The big problem here is confounding by indication. “You don’t get on a biologic unless you’ve got bad psoriasis,” Dr. Helliwell explained. The Israeli criteria for starting a biologic are much higher than in the United Kingdom, he added, requiring more than 50% of patients’ body surface area to be affected, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of more than 50. Moreover, people with bad psoriasis are more likely to get PsA. This, however, makes the results more impressive.

Confounding by indication is an issue with this study, agreed consultant rheumatologist Adewale Adebajo, PhD, in a separate interview. He acknowledged, however, that the study’s authors did try to account for this by limiting the timescale of their analysis to the first 10 years of biologic therapy. They also used the usual methods of propensity score matching and multivariate Cox regression analysis to hopefully iron out any differences between the two groups of patients.

Study details and results

Ms. Rosenthal and coauthors analyzed EMR data on patients with psoriasis but not PsA that were logged in the Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS) database. The MHS is the second-largest health maintenance organization in Israel, insuring over 2 million members, the researchers said.

In all, 663 patients with psoriasis but not PsA before or at initiation of biologic treatment were included in their analysis and matched to a control group of 663 patients with psoriasis who had not received biologic treatment. Propensity score matching was used to iron out some differences in baseline characteristics that had been seen between the groups, such as older age at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a longer time between diagnosis and treatment seen in patients treated without biologics.

After adjusting for multiple risk factors and confounders, “the control group still had a significantly higher risk for PsA, compared to the biological treatment group,” the researchers wrote. Indeed, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.39, with a 95% confidence interval between 1.03 and 1.87.

An ‘intriguing study’

“This is a retrospective study, and it has all the faults of a retrospective study,” said Dr. Adebajo, associate medical director for research and development at Barnsley (England) NHS Foundation Trust. But “these were patients who hopefully hadn’t yet developed psoriatic arthritis, although it is difficult to exclude subclinical psoriatic arthritis.”

The ideal would of course be to look at patients prospectively, but a randomized clinical trial would be unlikely to ever be conducted, Dr. Helliwell noted. “It would be unfair to randomize people who have got bad psoriasis and need a biologic to placebo just to prove the point really,” he said. “Getting control groups in this arena is very difficult.”

That doesn’t mean that prospective evaluation is not possible. Dr. Adebajo noted that there were already cohorts of newly diagnosed patients who were being prospectively followed up and those could perhaps be used to look at the question again in the future.

“You’re then looking at the natural history, the natural outcome, and you don’t need to worry about confounding because you’re just collecting all of the information as you go along.”

The idea that biologics might slow or even prevent the onset of PsA is “an interesting and enchanting hypothesis,” Dr. Adebajo said. “The study doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it’s an intriguing study because it doesn’t disprove the hypothesis either.

“It gives us food for thought and a basis for further studies,” as well as some “encouragement to perhaps use biologics earlier because there may be additional benefits of doing so.”

That’s still to be proven of course, as it has been reported that patients with psoriasis can develop PsA while taking biologics.

“Clinically, that’s what we see in the combined clinic. We get people referred with psoriasis [who are] already on a biologic who developed musculoskeletal problems,” Dr. Helliwell said.

“It would be nice to believe” that biologics prevent or slow PsA in patients with psoriasis, Dr. Helliwell added, but I’m not sure these data are conclusive. From this study we know nothing about the phenotype of psoriasis, which is important in the development of PsA. In addition, we know that of the 30% of people with psoriasis who develop PsA, about half of these are undiagnosed at the time of such studies. In that case, what the biologic is doing is just treating preexisting PsA. If you count those numbers up, some of the differences between the two groups seen in this study are accounted for. From registry data there is no way of checking this.”

No external funding was used for the study. One author acknowledged acting as an investigator, adviser, or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Dexcel Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. All other authors had nothing to disclose.

Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Adebajo had no conflicts of interest.

Receiving treatment with a biologic medication, compared with no biologic treatment, appeared to be associated with a lower risk for developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

That’s according to the results of a nested case-control study involving electronic medical record data from an Israeli health maintenance organization in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Compared with no biologic treatment, the risk for developing PsA among PsO patients was reduced by 39%.

This study shows “a statistically and clinically significant lower risk for developing PsA among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis treatment,” wrote Yael Shalev Rosenthal, MPH, of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University and colleagues. “The results suggest considering treatment with biologic medications in patients [who] present with significant risk factors for PsA at an earlier stage of treatment.”

“It would be nice to believe this story, but I don’t think we can based on the evidence we’ve got so far,” commented Philip Helliwell, PhD, DM, in an interview.

Dr. Helliwell, who is professor of clinical rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) and an Honorary Consultant Rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, noted that there were several issues with the current evidence.

Aside from their often retrospective or nonrandomized nature, prior analyses, including the current one, were based on EMR data.

“There’s actually no face-to-face patient contact going on here. It’s all done on coding, and coding can be unreliable,” Dr. Helliwell said.

While the study’s findings are “in line with other studies that have looked at this, and suggest that if you get a biologic, you’re less likely to get PsA with your psoriasis, there could be lots of reasons why.”

The big problem here is confounding by indication. “You don’t get on a biologic unless you’ve got bad psoriasis,” Dr. Helliwell explained. The Israeli criteria for starting a biologic are much higher than in the United Kingdom, he added, requiring more than 50% of patients’ body surface area to be affected, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of more than 50. Moreover, people with bad psoriasis are more likely to get PsA. This, however, makes the results more impressive.

Confounding by indication is an issue with this study, agreed consultant rheumatologist Adewale Adebajo, PhD, in a separate interview. He acknowledged, however, that the study’s authors did try to account for this by limiting the timescale of their analysis to the first 10 years of biologic therapy. They also used the usual methods of propensity score matching and multivariate Cox regression analysis to hopefully iron out any differences between the two groups of patients.

Study details and results

Ms. Rosenthal and coauthors analyzed EMR data on patients with psoriasis but not PsA that were logged in the Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS) database. The MHS is the second-largest health maintenance organization in Israel, insuring over 2 million members, the researchers said.

In all, 663 patients with psoriasis but not PsA before or at initiation of biologic treatment were included in their analysis and matched to a control group of 663 patients with psoriasis who had not received biologic treatment. Propensity score matching was used to iron out some differences in baseline characteristics that had been seen between the groups, such as older age at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a longer time between diagnosis and treatment seen in patients treated without biologics.

After adjusting for multiple risk factors and confounders, “the control group still had a significantly higher risk for PsA, compared to the biological treatment group,” the researchers wrote. Indeed, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.39, with a 95% confidence interval between 1.03 and 1.87.

An ‘intriguing study’

“This is a retrospective study, and it has all the faults of a retrospective study,” said Dr. Adebajo, associate medical director for research and development at Barnsley (England) NHS Foundation Trust. But “these were patients who hopefully hadn’t yet developed psoriatic arthritis, although it is difficult to exclude subclinical psoriatic arthritis.”

The ideal would of course be to look at patients prospectively, but a randomized clinical trial would be unlikely to ever be conducted, Dr. Helliwell noted. “It would be unfair to randomize people who have got bad psoriasis and need a biologic to placebo just to prove the point really,” he said. “Getting control groups in this arena is very difficult.”

That doesn’t mean that prospective evaluation is not possible. Dr. Adebajo noted that there were already cohorts of newly diagnosed patients who were being prospectively followed up and those could perhaps be used to look at the question again in the future.

“You’re then looking at the natural history, the natural outcome, and you don’t need to worry about confounding because you’re just collecting all of the information as you go along.”

The idea that biologics might slow or even prevent the onset of PsA is “an interesting and enchanting hypothesis,” Dr. Adebajo said. “The study doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it’s an intriguing study because it doesn’t disprove the hypothesis either.

“It gives us food for thought and a basis for further studies,” as well as some “encouragement to perhaps use biologics earlier because there may be additional benefits of doing so.”

That’s still to be proven of course, as it has been reported that patients with psoriasis can develop PsA while taking biologics.

“Clinically, that’s what we see in the combined clinic. We get people referred with psoriasis [who are] already on a biologic who developed musculoskeletal problems,” Dr. Helliwell said.

“It would be nice to believe” that biologics prevent or slow PsA in patients with psoriasis, Dr. Helliwell added, but I’m not sure these data are conclusive. From this study we know nothing about the phenotype of psoriasis, which is important in the development of PsA. In addition, we know that of the 30% of people with psoriasis who develop PsA, about half of these are undiagnosed at the time of such studies. In that case, what the biologic is doing is just treating preexisting PsA. If you count those numbers up, some of the differences between the two groups seen in this study are accounted for. From registry data there is no way of checking this.”

No external funding was used for the study. One author acknowledged acting as an investigator, adviser, or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Dexcel Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. All other authors had nothing to disclose.

Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Adebajo had no conflicts of interest.

Patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy should receive a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at least 28 days after the second dose of either of these two mRNA vaccines, according to updated recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The update follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that certain immunocompromised patients receive a third dose of an mRNA vaccine to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19.

Individuals receiving the Pfizer vaccine must be aged 12 years and older, while those receiving the Moderna vaccine must be 18 years and older, the ACR emphasized.

“These statements were based upon a dearth of high-quality data and are not intended to replace clinical judgment,” the authors wrote. “Modifications made to treatment plans, particularly in complex rheumatic disease patients, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific and, therefore, must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process.”

The task force recommended using the same mRNA vaccine booster as the patient received for their initial two-dose series when possible, but notes that either mRNA vaccine is acceptable, and recommends the mRNA vaccine for patients who have yet to receive any vaccine because of the availability of the booster. The task force emphasized that they achieved no consensus on recommending a booster mRNA vaccine to patients who received a single dose of Johnson & Johnson vaccine because the safety data are uncertain.

The updated guidance also identifies the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization in August for the use of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibody treatment for emergency postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kg and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, which includes patients receiving immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies other than hydroxychloroquine. Patients who have been exposed to an individual with COVID-19 should discuss this treatment with their health care provider as an added precaution; however, the guidance emphasized that the prophylactic treatment is not a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination.

The recommendations advise clinicians to counsel their patients to refrain from taking certain immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications for 1-2 weeks after booster vaccination if disease activity allows, with the exception of glucocorticoids and anticytokines such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and others including interleukin-17, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-1R, IL-6R antagonists, for which the task force did not achieve a consensus recommendation.

The guidance notes that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 medications “should discuss the optimal timing [of the booster] with their rheumatology provider” and that some practitioners measure CD19 B cells as a tool with which to time the booster and subsequent rituximab dosing. For those who elect to dose without such information, or for whom such measurement is not available or feasible, provide the booster 2-4 weeks before next anticipated rituximab dose (e.g., at month 5.0 or 5.5 for patients on an every-6-month rituximab dosing schedule).”

There was strong consensus from the task force that health care providers “should not routinely order any lab testing (e.g., antibody tests for IgM and/or IgG to spike or nucleocapsid proteins) to assess immunity to COVID-19 post vaccination, nor to assess the need for vaccination in a yet-unvaccinated person.”

“The updated information from the ACR addresses not only booster vaccination but also other important and practical issues facing rheumatology providers and their patients related to the pandemic,” said task force chair Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an ACR statement announcing the updates.

“Although the guidance is issued in light of the best evidence available, the science regarding COVID-19 vaccination as it affects the practice of rheumatology is undergoing rapid evolution,” he noted. “We need direct evidence such as that from randomized trials to inform the best practices of what we can do to protect our patients from SARS-CoV-2.”

The update retains the current recommendations that rheumatology patients follow all public health guidelines regarding physical distancing and other preventive measures following vaccination, but the task force did not recommend exceeding current public health guidance. “The appropriateness for continued preventive measures (e.g., masking, physical distancing) should be discussed with patients as their rheumatology providers deem appropriate,” they wrote.

The full updated version of the ACR’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance for Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases will be published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The summary was developed by the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included 9 rheumatologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health experts with current or past employment history with the CDC.

The ACR encourages clinicians with questions or concerns to email [email protected] for support.

Patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy should receive a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at least 28 days after the second dose of either of these two mRNA vaccines, according to updated recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The update follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that certain immunocompromised patients receive a third dose of an mRNA vaccine to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19.

Individuals receiving the Pfizer vaccine must be aged 12 years and older, while those receiving the Moderna vaccine must be 18 years and older, the ACR emphasized.

“These statements were based upon a dearth of high-quality data and are not intended to replace clinical judgment,” the authors wrote. “Modifications made to treatment plans, particularly in complex rheumatic disease patients, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific and, therefore, must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process.”

The task force recommended using the same mRNA vaccine booster as the patient received for their initial two-dose series when possible, but notes that either mRNA vaccine is acceptable, and recommends the mRNA vaccine for patients who have yet to receive any vaccine because of the availability of the booster. The task force emphasized that they achieved no consensus on recommending a booster mRNA vaccine to patients who received a single dose of Johnson & Johnson vaccine because the safety data are uncertain.

The updated guidance also identifies the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization in August for the use of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibody treatment for emergency postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kg and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, which includes patients receiving immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies other than hydroxychloroquine. Patients who have been exposed to an individual with COVID-19 should discuss this treatment with their health care provider as an added precaution; however, the guidance emphasized that the prophylactic treatment is not a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination.

The recommendations advise clinicians to counsel their patients to refrain from taking certain immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications for 1-2 weeks after booster vaccination if disease activity allows, with the exception of glucocorticoids and anticytokines such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and others including interleukin-17, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-1R, IL-6R antagonists, for which the task force did not achieve a consensus recommendation.

The guidance notes that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 medications “should discuss the optimal timing [of the booster] with their rheumatology provider” and that some practitioners measure CD19 B cells as a tool with which to time the booster and subsequent rituximab dosing. For those who elect to dose without such information, or for whom such measurement is not available or feasible, provide the booster 2-4 weeks before next anticipated rituximab dose (e.g., at month 5.0 or 5.5 for patients on an every-6-month rituximab dosing schedule).”

There was strong consensus from the task force that health care providers “should not routinely order any lab testing (e.g., antibody tests for IgM and/or IgG to spike or nucleocapsid proteins) to assess immunity to COVID-19 post vaccination, nor to assess the need for vaccination in a yet-unvaccinated person.”

“The updated information from the ACR addresses not only booster vaccination but also other important and practical issues facing rheumatology providers and their patients related to the pandemic,” said task force chair Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an ACR statement announcing the updates.

“Although the guidance is issued in light of the best evidence available, the science regarding COVID-19 vaccination as it affects the practice of rheumatology is undergoing rapid evolution,” he noted. “We need direct evidence such as that from randomized trials to inform the best practices of what we can do to protect our patients from SARS-CoV-2.”

The update retains the current recommendations that rheumatology patients follow all public health guidelines regarding physical distancing and other preventive measures following vaccination, but the task force did not recommend exceeding current public health guidance. “The appropriateness for continued preventive measures (e.g., masking, physical distancing) should be discussed with patients as their rheumatology providers deem appropriate,” they wrote.

The full updated version of the ACR’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance for Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases will be published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The summary was developed by the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included 9 rheumatologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health experts with current or past employment history with the CDC.

The ACR encourages clinicians with questions or concerns to email [email protected] for support.

Patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy should receive a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at least 28 days after the second dose of either of these two mRNA vaccines, according to updated recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The update follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that certain immunocompromised patients receive a third dose of an mRNA vaccine to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19.

Individuals receiving the Pfizer vaccine must be aged 12 years and older, while those receiving the Moderna vaccine must be 18 years and older, the ACR emphasized.

“These statements were based upon a dearth of high-quality data and are not intended to replace clinical judgment,” the authors wrote. “Modifications made to treatment plans, particularly in complex rheumatic disease patients, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific and, therefore, must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process.”

The task force recommended using the same mRNA vaccine booster as the patient received for their initial two-dose series when possible, but notes that either mRNA vaccine is acceptable, and recommends the mRNA vaccine for patients who have yet to receive any vaccine because of the availability of the booster. The task force emphasized that they achieved no consensus on recommending a booster mRNA vaccine to patients who received a single dose of Johnson & Johnson vaccine because the safety data are uncertain.

The updated guidance also identifies the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization in August for the use of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibody treatment for emergency postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kg and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, which includes patients receiving immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies other than hydroxychloroquine. Patients who have been exposed to an individual with COVID-19 should discuss this treatment with their health care provider as an added precaution; however, the guidance emphasized that the prophylactic treatment is not a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination.

The recommendations advise clinicians to counsel their patients to refrain from taking certain immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications for 1-2 weeks after booster vaccination if disease activity allows, with the exception of glucocorticoids and anticytokines such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and others including interleukin-17, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-1R, IL-6R antagonists, for which the task force did not achieve a consensus recommendation.

The guidance notes that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 medications “should discuss the optimal timing [of the booster] with their rheumatology provider” and that some practitioners measure CD19 B cells as a tool with which to time the booster and subsequent rituximab dosing. For those who elect to dose without such information, or for whom such measurement is not available or feasible, provide the booster 2-4 weeks before next anticipated rituximab dose (e.g., at month 5.0 or 5.5 for patients on an every-6-month rituximab dosing schedule).”

There was strong consensus from the task force that health care providers “should not routinely order any lab testing (e.g., antibody tests for IgM and/or IgG to spike or nucleocapsid proteins) to assess immunity to COVID-19 post vaccination, nor to assess the need for vaccination in a yet-unvaccinated person.”

“The updated information from the ACR addresses not only booster vaccination but also other important and practical issues facing rheumatology providers and their patients related to the pandemic,” said task force chair Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an ACR statement announcing the updates.

“Although the guidance is issued in light of the best evidence available, the science regarding COVID-19 vaccination as it affects the practice of rheumatology is undergoing rapid evolution,” he noted. “We need direct evidence such as that from randomized trials to inform the best practices of what we can do to protect our patients from SARS-CoV-2.”

The update retains the current recommendations that rheumatology patients follow all public health guidelines regarding physical distancing and other preventive measures following vaccination, but the task force did not recommend exceeding current public health guidance. “The appropriateness for continued preventive measures (e.g., masking, physical distancing) should be discussed with patients as their rheumatology providers deem appropriate,” they wrote.

The full updated version of the ACR’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance for Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases will be published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The summary was developed by the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included 9 rheumatologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health experts with current or past employment history with the CDC.

The ACR encourages clinicians with questions or concerns to email [email protected] for support.

In the wake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose for immunocompromised people and the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of the third dose, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has begun a phase 2 trial to assess the antibody response to a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccine in people with autoimmune disease who did not respond to their original COVID-19 vaccine regimen, according to an announcement.

The investigators of the trial, called COVID‐19 Booster Vaccine in Autoimmune Disease Non‐Responders, also want to determine if pausing immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune disease improves the antibody response to an extra dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The trial will specifically look at the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or mycophenolic acid (MPA), and methotrexate (MTX), or receipt of B cell–depletion therapy such as rituximab within the past 12 months on immune response to a booster dose in people with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, or pemphigus. They have to have either no serologic response to their initial COVID-19 vaccine regimen or a suboptimal response, defined as a Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (RBD) result greater than or equal to 50 U/mL.

The results of studies conducted in solid-organ transplant recipients who take immunosuppressants showed that an extra dose of vaccine could improve the immune response to the vaccine in many of the individuals, which suggests that the same approach might work in people with autoimmune disease who need treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Improving the immune response of people with autoimmune disease to COVID-19 vaccines is important because higher rates of severe COVID-19 and death have been reported in this group of patients than in the general population, and it is unclear whether this is attributable to the autoimmune disease, the immunosuppressive medications taken to treat it, or both.

The open-label trial, conducted by the NIAID-funded Autoimmunity Centers of Excellence, aims to enroll 600 people aged 18 years and older with those conditions at 15-20 sites in the United States.

Because medications commonly taken by people with these conditions have been associated with poorer immune responses to vaccines, the trial will randomize the following two cohorts to stop or continue taking their immunosuppressive medication(s) or stop them before and after the booster according to protocol:

• Cohort 1 includes people who are taking MMF or MPA, without additional B cell–depleting medications or MTX.
• Cohort 2 includes people who are taking MTX without additional B cell–depleting medications or MMF/MPA.

A third, nonrandomized cohort consists of people who have received B cell–depletion therapy within the past 12 months regardless of whether they are also taking MMF/MPA or MTX.

Besides the cohort-specific exclusions, other rheumatic disease medications, including biologics, are allowed in the groups.

The primary outcome of the trial is the proportion of participants who have a protective antibody response at week 4. Secondary outcomes will examine various antibody responses at intervals, changes in disease activity across autoimmune diseases, adverse events, and SARS-CoV-2 infections out to 48 weeks.

Study participants will be followed for a total of 13 months. Preliminary results are expected in November 2021, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The trial is being led by Judith James, MD, PhD; Meggan Mackay, MD, MS; Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc; and Amit Bar-Or, MD.

[email protected]

In the wake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose for immunocompromised people and the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of the third dose, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has begun a phase 2 trial to assess the antibody response to a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccine in people with autoimmune disease who did not respond to their original COVID-19 vaccine regimen, according to an announcement.

The investigators of the trial, called COVID‐19 Booster Vaccine in Autoimmune Disease Non‐Responders, also want to determine if pausing immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune disease improves the antibody response to an extra dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The trial will specifically look at the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or mycophenolic acid (MPA), and methotrexate (MTX), or receipt of B cell–depletion therapy such as rituximab within the past 12 months on immune response to a booster dose in people with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, or pemphigus. They have to have either no serologic response to their initial COVID-19 vaccine regimen or a suboptimal response, defined as a Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (RBD) result greater than or equal to 50 U/mL.

The results of studies conducted in solid-organ transplant recipients who take immunosuppressants showed that an extra dose of vaccine could improve the immune response to the vaccine in many of the individuals, which suggests that the same approach might work in people with autoimmune disease who need treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Improving the immune response of people with autoimmune disease to COVID-19 vaccines is important because higher rates of severe COVID-19 and death have been reported in this group of patients than in the general population, and it is unclear whether this is attributable to the autoimmune disease, the immunosuppressive medications taken to treat it, or both.

The open-label trial, conducted by the NIAID-funded Autoimmunity Centers of Excellence, aims to enroll 600 people aged 18 years and older with those conditions at 15-20 sites in the United States.

Because medications commonly taken by people with these conditions have been associated with poorer immune responses to vaccines, the trial will randomize the following two cohorts to stop or continue taking their immunosuppressive medication(s) or stop them before and after the booster according to protocol:

• Cohort 1 includes people who are taking MMF or MPA, without additional B cell–depleting medications or MTX.
• Cohort 2 includes people who are taking MTX without additional B cell–depleting medications or MMF/MPA.

A third, nonrandomized cohort consists of people who have received B cell–depletion therapy within the past 12 months regardless of whether they are also taking MMF/MPA or MTX.

Besides the cohort-specific exclusions, other rheumatic disease medications, including biologics, are allowed in the groups.

The primary outcome of the trial is the proportion of participants who have a protective antibody response at week 4. Secondary outcomes will examine various antibody responses at intervals, changes in disease activity across autoimmune diseases, adverse events, and SARS-CoV-2 infections out to 48 weeks.

Study participants will be followed for a total of 13 months. Preliminary results are expected in November 2021, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The trial is being led by Judith James, MD, PhD; Meggan Mackay, MD, MS; Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc; and Amit Bar-Or, MD.

[email protected]

In the wake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose for immunocompromised people and the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of the third dose, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has begun a phase 2 trial to assess the antibody response to a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccine in people with autoimmune disease who did not respond to their original COVID-19 vaccine regimen, according to an announcement.

The investigators of the trial, called COVID‐19 Booster Vaccine in Autoimmune Disease Non‐Responders, also want to determine if pausing immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune disease improves the antibody response to an extra dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The trial will specifically look at the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or mycophenolic acid (MPA), and methotrexate (MTX), or receipt of B cell–depletion therapy such as rituximab within the past 12 months on immune response to a booster dose in people with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, or pemphigus. They have to have either no serologic response to their initial COVID-19 vaccine regimen or a suboptimal response, defined as a Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (RBD) result greater than or equal to 50 U/mL.

The results of studies conducted in solid-organ transplant recipients who take immunosuppressants showed that an extra dose of vaccine could improve the immune response to the vaccine in many of the individuals, which suggests that the same approach might work in people with autoimmune disease who need treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Improving the immune response of people with autoimmune disease to COVID-19 vaccines is important because higher rates of severe COVID-19 and death have been reported in this group of patients than in the general population, and it is unclear whether this is attributable to the autoimmune disease, the immunosuppressive medications taken to treat it, or both.

The open-label trial, conducted by the NIAID-funded Autoimmunity Centers of Excellence, aims to enroll 600 people aged 18 years and older with those conditions at 15-20 sites in the United States.

Because medications commonly taken by people with these conditions have been associated with poorer immune responses to vaccines, the trial will randomize the following two cohorts to stop or continue taking their immunosuppressive medication(s) or stop them before and after the booster according to protocol:

• Cohort 1 includes people who are taking MMF or MPA, without additional B cell–depleting medications or MTX.
• Cohort 2 includes people who are taking MTX without additional B cell–depleting medications or MMF/MPA.

A third, nonrandomized cohort consists of people who have received B cell–depletion therapy within the past 12 months regardless of whether they are also taking MMF/MPA or MTX.

Besides the cohort-specific exclusions, other rheumatic disease medications, including biologics, are allowed in the groups.

The primary outcome of the trial is the proportion of participants who have a protective antibody response at week 4. Secondary outcomes will examine various antibody responses at intervals, changes in disease activity across autoimmune diseases, adverse events, and SARS-CoV-2 infections out to 48 weeks.

Study participants will be followed for a total of 13 months. Preliminary results are expected in November 2021, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The trial is being led by Judith James, MD, PhD; Meggan Mackay, MD, MS; Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc; and Amit Bar-Or, MD.

[email protected]

New consensus recommendations address diagnosis and management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), with advice that may also be helpful for patients with lingering symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection.

VioletaStoimenova/Getty Images

The document was published online Aug. 25, 2021, in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by the 23-member U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, headed by Lucinda Bateman, MD, of the Bateman Horne Center of Excellence, Salt Lake City. The document is the culmination of work that began with a summit held at the center in March 2018.

The target audience is both generalist and specialist health care providers. While ME/CFS is estimated to affect up to 2.5 million Americans, more than 90% are either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed with other conditions such as depression. And those who are diagnosed often receive inappropriate, outdated treatments such as psychotherapy and exercise prescriptions.

“Despite myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome affecting millions of people worldwide, many clinicians lack the knowledge to appropriately diagnose or manage ME/CFS. Unfortunately, clinical guidance has been scarce, obsolete, or potentially harmful,” Dr. Bateman and colleagues wrote.

The urgency of appropriate recognition and management of ME/CFS has increased as growing numbers of people are exhibiting signs and symptoms of ME/CFS following acute COVID-19 infection. This isn’t surprising because the illness has long been linked to other infections, including Epstein-Barr virus, the authors noted.

The document covers the epidemiology, impact, and prognosis of ME/CFS, as well as etiology and pathophysiology. “Scientific studies demonstrate multiple dysfunctional organ systems, including neuro, immune, and metabolic, in ME/CFS. These findings are not explained merely by deconditioning,” document coauthor Lily Chu, MD, an independent consultant in Burlingame, Calif., said in an interview.

The document reviews the 2015 U.S. Institute of Medicine (now Academy of Medicine) diagnostic criteria that are now also recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are based on four main symptoms: substantial reduction or impairment in the ability to engage in preillness levels of occupational, educational, social or personal activities for longer than 6 months; postexertional malaise, a worsening of all current symptoms, that patients often describe as a “crash”; unrefreshing sleep; and cognitive impairment and/or orthostatic intolerance.

“The new diagnostic criteria focusing on the key symptom of postexertional malaise rather than chronic fatigue, which is common in many conditions, may make the diagnostic process quicker and more accurate. Diagnosis now is both an inclusionary and not just exclusionary process, so it’s not necessary to eliminate all causes of fatigue. Diagnose patients who fit the criteria and be alert for it in people with persistent symptoms post COVID,” Dr. Chu said.

The document provides advice for taking a clinical history to obtain the information necessary for making the diagnosis, including use of laboratory testing to rule out other conditions. Physical exams, while they may not reveal specific abnormalities, may help in identifying comorbidities and ruling out alternative diagnoses.

A long list of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment and management approaches is offered for each of the individual core and common ME/CFS symptoms, including postexertional malaise, orthostatic intolerance, sleep issues, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue, immune dysfunction, pain, and gastrointestinal issues.

The document recommends against using the “outdated standard of care” cognitive-behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as primary treatments for the illness. Instead, the authors recommend teaching patients “pacing,” an individualized approach to energy conservation aimed at minimizing the frequency, duration, and severity of postexertional malaise.

Clinicians are also advised to assess patients’ daily living needs and provide support, including acquiring handicap placards, work or school accommodations, and disability benefits.

“There are things clinicians can do now to help patients even without a disease-modifying treatment. These are actions they are already familiar with and carry out for people with other chronic diseases, which often have limited treatment options as well. Don’t underestimate the importance and value of supportive care for patients.” Dr. Chu said.

The recommendations are based primarily on clinical expertise because there are very few randomized trials, and much of the evidence from other types of trials has been flawed, document coauthor Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“The sad reality is there aren’t very many large randomized clinical trials with this illness and so what a group of very experienced clinicians did was to gather their collective experience and report it as that. It’s largely uncontrolled experience, but from people who have seen a lot of patients, for what it’s worth to the medical community.”

Dr. Komaroff also advised that clinicians watch out for ME/CFS in patients with long COVID. “If we find that those called long COVID meet ME/CFS criteria, the reason for knowing that is that there are already some treatments that according to experienced clinicians are helpful for ME/CFS, and it would be perfectly appropriate to try some of them in long COVID, particularly the ones that have minimal adverse reactions.”

The guidelines project was supported by the Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Komaroff reported receiving personal fees from Serimmune outside the submitted work. Dr. Chu has no disclosures.

New consensus recommendations address diagnosis and management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), with advice that may also be helpful for patients with lingering symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection.

VioletaStoimenova/Getty Images

The document was published online Aug. 25, 2021, in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by the 23-member U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, headed by Lucinda Bateman, MD, of the Bateman Horne Center of Excellence, Salt Lake City. The document is the culmination of work that began with a summit held at the center in March 2018.

The target audience is both generalist and specialist health care providers. While ME/CFS is estimated to affect up to 2.5 million Americans, more than 90% are either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed with other conditions such as depression. And those who are diagnosed often receive inappropriate, outdated treatments such as psychotherapy and exercise prescriptions.

“Despite myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome affecting millions of people worldwide, many clinicians lack the knowledge to appropriately diagnose or manage ME/CFS. Unfortunately, clinical guidance has been scarce, obsolete, or potentially harmful,” Dr. Bateman and colleagues wrote.

The urgency of appropriate recognition and management of ME/CFS has increased as growing numbers of people are exhibiting signs and symptoms of ME/CFS following acute COVID-19 infection. This isn’t surprising because the illness has long been linked to other infections, including Epstein-Barr virus, the authors noted.

The document covers the epidemiology, impact, and prognosis of ME/CFS, as well as etiology and pathophysiology. “Scientific studies demonstrate multiple dysfunctional organ systems, including neuro, immune, and metabolic, in ME/CFS. These findings are not explained merely by deconditioning,” document coauthor Lily Chu, MD, an independent consultant in Burlingame, Calif., said in an interview.

The document reviews the 2015 U.S. Institute of Medicine (now Academy of Medicine) diagnostic criteria that are now also recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are based on four main symptoms: substantial reduction or impairment in the ability to engage in preillness levels of occupational, educational, social or personal activities for longer than 6 months; postexertional malaise, a worsening of all current symptoms, that patients often describe as a “crash”; unrefreshing sleep; and cognitive impairment and/or orthostatic intolerance.

“The new diagnostic criteria focusing on the key symptom of postexertional malaise rather than chronic fatigue, which is common in many conditions, may make the diagnostic process quicker and more accurate. Diagnosis now is both an inclusionary and not just exclusionary process, so it’s not necessary to eliminate all causes of fatigue. Diagnose patients who fit the criteria and be alert for it in people with persistent symptoms post COVID,” Dr. Chu said.

The document provides advice for taking a clinical history to obtain the information necessary for making the diagnosis, including use of laboratory testing to rule out other conditions. Physical exams, while they may not reveal specific abnormalities, may help in identifying comorbidities and ruling out alternative diagnoses.

A long list of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment and management approaches is offered for each of the individual core and common ME/CFS symptoms, including postexertional malaise, orthostatic intolerance, sleep issues, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue, immune dysfunction, pain, and gastrointestinal issues.

The document recommends against using the “outdated standard of care” cognitive-behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as primary treatments for the illness. Instead, the authors recommend teaching patients “pacing,” an individualized approach to energy conservation aimed at minimizing the frequency, duration, and severity of postexertional malaise.

Clinicians are also advised to assess patients’ daily living needs and provide support, including acquiring handicap placards, work or school accommodations, and disability benefits.

“There are things clinicians can do now to help patients even without a disease-modifying treatment. These are actions they are already familiar with and carry out for people with other chronic diseases, which often have limited treatment options as well. Don’t underestimate the importance and value of supportive care for patients.” Dr. Chu said.

The recommendations are based primarily on clinical expertise because there are very few randomized trials, and much of the evidence from other types of trials has been flawed, document coauthor Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“The sad reality is there aren’t very many large randomized clinical trials with this illness and so what a group of very experienced clinicians did was to gather their collective experience and report it as that. It’s largely uncontrolled experience, but from people who have seen a lot of patients, for what it’s worth to the medical community.”

Dr. Komaroff also advised that clinicians watch out for ME/CFS in patients with long COVID. “If we find that those called long COVID meet ME/CFS criteria, the reason for knowing that is that there are already some treatments that according to experienced clinicians are helpful for ME/CFS, and it would be perfectly appropriate to try some of them in long COVID, particularly the ones that have minimal adverse reactions.”

The guidelines project was supported by the Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Komaroff reported receiving personal fees from Serimmune outside the submitted work. Dr. Chu has no disclosures.

New consensus recommendations address diagnosis and management of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), with advice that may also be helpful for patients with lingering symptoms following acute COVID-19 infection.

VioletaStoimenova/Getty Images

The document was published online Aug. 25, 2021, in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by the 23-member U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, headed by Lucinda Bateman, MD, of the Bateman Horne Center of Excellence, Salt Lake City. The document is the culmination of work that began with a summit held at the center in March 2018.

The target audience is both generalist and specialist health care providers. While ME/CFS is estimated to affect up to 2.5 million Americans, more than 90% are either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed with other conditions such as depression. And those who are diagnosed often receive inappropriate, outdated treatments such as psychotherapy and exercise prescriptions.

“Despite myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome affecting millions of people worldwide, many clinicians lack the knowledge to appropriately diagnose or manage ME/CFS. Unfortunately, clinical guidance has been scarce, obsolete, or potentially harmful,” Dr. Bateman and colleagues wrote.

The urgency of appropriate recognition and management of ME/CFS has increased as growing numbers of people are exhibiting signs and symptoms of ME/CFS following acute COVID-19 infection. This isn’t surprising because the illness has long been linked to other infections, including Epstein-Barr virus, the authors noted.

The document covers the epidemiology, impact, and prognosis of ME/CFS, as well as etiology and pathophysiology. “Scientific studies demonstrate multiple dysfunctional organ systems, including neuro, immune, and metabolic, in ME/CFS. These findings are not explained merely by deconditioning,” document coauthor Lily Chu, MD, an independent consultant in Burlingame, Calif., said in an interview.

The document reviews the 2015 U.S. Institute of Medicine (now Academy of Medicine) diagnostic criteria that are now also recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are based on four main symptoms: substantial reduction or impairment in the ability to engage in preillness levels of occupational, educational, social or personal activities for longer than 6 months; postexertional malaise, a worsening of all current symptoms, that patients often describe as a “crash”; unrefreshing sleep; and cognitive impairment and/or orthostatic intolerance.

“The new diagnostic criteria focusing on the key symptom of postexertional malaise rather than chronic fatigue, which is common in many conditions, may make the diagnostic process quicker and more accurate. Diagnosis now is both an inclusionary and not just exclusionary process, so it’s not necessary to eliminate all causes of fatigue. Diagnose patients who fit the criteria and be alert for it in people with persistent symptoms post COVID,” Dr. Chu said.

The document provides advice for taking a clinical history to obtain the information necessary for making the diagnosis, including use of laboratory testing to rule out other conditions. Physical exams, while they may not reveal specific abnormalities, may help in identifying comorbidities and ruling out alternative diagnoses.

A long list of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment and management approaches is offered for each of the individual core and common ME/CFS symptoms, including postexertional malaise, orthostatic intolerance, sleep issues, cognitive dysfunction and fatigue, immune dysfunction, pain, and gastrointestinal issues.

The document recommends against using the “outdated standard of care” cognitive-behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as primary treatments for the illness. Instead, the authors recommend teaching patients “pacing,” an individualized approach to energy conservation aimed at minimizing the frequency, duration, and severity of postexertional malaise.

Clinicians are also advised to assess patients’ daily living needs and provide support, including acquiring handicap placards, work or school accommodations, and disability benefits.

“There are things clinicians can do now to help patients even without a disease-modifying treatment. These are actions they are already familiar with and carry out for people with other chronic diseases, which often have limited treatment options as well. Don’t underestimate the importance and value of supportive care for patients.” Dr. Chu said.

The recommendations are based primarily on clinical expertise because there are very few randomized trials, and much of the evidence from other types of trials has been flawed, document coauthor Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“The sad reality is there aren’t very many large randomized clinical trials with this illness and so what a group of very experienced clinicians did was to gather their collective experience and report it as that. It’s largely uncontrolled experience, but from people who have seen a lot of patients, for what it’s worth to the medical community.”

Dr. Komaroff also advised that clinicians watch out for ME/CFS in patients with long COVID. “If we find that those called long COVID meet ME/CFS criteria, the reason for knowing that is that there are already some treatments that according to experienced clinicians are helpful for ME/CFS, and it would be perfectly appropriate to try some of them in long COVID, particularly the ones that have minimal adverse reactions.”

The guidelines project was supported by the Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Komaroff reported receiving personal fees from Serimmune outside the submitted work. Dr. Chu has no disclosures.

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

An increasing number of comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis correlates with a lower likelihood of reaching treatment targets, according to an analysis conducted with a series of large real-world datasets and presented in a symposium sponsored by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

When compared to those with the lowest burden of comorbidity in one of these analyses, those with the highest had a nearly 50% lower likelihood (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.85) of achieving low disease activity or remission, according to Bryant England, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Patients with more comorbidities struggle to reach treatment targets,” Dr. England said. In the treatment of RA, “we typically focus only on the joints, but these data suggest we need to begin to think more holistically about managing these patients.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) endorse a treat-to-target management approach in RA guidelines, but only a proportion of patients reach their targets, according to Dr. England. In his series of analyses, Dr. England has been exploring the role of comorbidities as one of the contributing factors.

Looking for real-world data, Dr. England evaluated comorbidities in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry, which has a male predominant population, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, which is female predominant, the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Database, and the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Registry (RISE).
 

Comorbidities accrue more quickly in RA patients

All of these real-world data support the premise that comorbidities are higher in patients with RA than in those without, and show that the burden of comorbidities rises more quickly in patients with RA. For example, the average number of comorbidities in the MarketScan database of recently diagnosed RA patients was 2.6. Five years later, the average doubled to more than 5. For those without RA, the average at the baseline evaluation was 1.6 and remained below 3 at 5 years.

For the burden of comorbidities in RA, Dr. England prefers the term “multimorbidity” because he believes it captures the interconnections of these chronic diseases, many of which trigger or exacerbate others. When he looked at health history 2 years before the RA diagnosis, multimorbidities were already somewhat higher, but he found that burden “takes off” in the peri-diagnostic period and climbs steeply thereafter.

“The data tell us that multimorbidity becomes more problematic throughout the RA disease course,” said Dr. England, who published some of these data only a few weeks prior to his presentation.

In one effort to evaluate how multimorbidity affects treatment choices and outcome, he selected patients with persistently active disease from the RISE registry, a group expected to be candidates for a treatment change or escalation. The data suggested patients with multimorbidity were less likely than were those without to receive a change of therapy in response to their active disease, but it also demonstrated that patients with multimorbidity were less likely to achieve remission or low disease activity even if the medications were changed.

Each comorbidity lowers odds of remission

When relative burden of comorbidities was assessed by RxRisk score, a validated medication-based measure of chronic disease that recognizes 46 categories of chronic conditions, there was about a 5% lower odds ratio for each RxRisk unit of increase in comorbidity. The relationship was consistent across various cohorts of patients evaluated, according to Dr. England.

When looking for patterns of comorbidities in these large datasets using machine learning, Dr. England reported that there were “striking” relationships between organ systems. This included a pattern of cardiometabolic multimorbidity, cardiopulmonary multimorbidity, and mental health and chronic pain multimorbidity. Surprisingly, the same patterns could be identified in those with or without RA, but the prevalence differed.

“RA was closely associated with all of these different multimorbidity patterns, but the odds of having these patterns were one- to threefold greater,” Dr. England reported.

“The multimorbidity pattern most closely associated with RA was mental health and chronic pain,” he added, noting that the same results were observed across the datasets evaluated.

The implication of this work is that multimorbidity exerts an adverse effect on the course of RA and might be an appropriate target of therapies to improve RA outcomes. Although Dr. England called for better tools to measure multimorbidity and consider how it can be addressed systematically in RA patients with the intention of improving RA control, he believes this is an important direction of research.

“What our data show is that we need to begin to think more holistically about these other diseases in RA patients,” he said.
 

Others support targeting of comorbidities

Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed. An author of a study that identified 11 comorbidities significantly associated with RA, either as conditions that predispose to RA or that commonly develop in patients with RA, Dr. Kronzer has drawn the same conclusion in regard to targeting comorbidities in the RA patient.

“Based on mounting evidence that multimorbidity is associated with RA and RA disease activity, taking a broader view of the patient as a whole and his or her comorbidities may help us to not only predict RA but also achieve over disease-specific goals,” Dr. Kronzer said in an interview.

“I suspect that certain comorbidities, perhaps depression as an example, may play a particularly strong role in perpetuating high RA disease activity,” she added. She considers this a ripe area of study for improving clinical strategies in RA.

“Finding out which ones [perpetuate RA] and targeting them could be a reasonable approach to moving forward,” Dr. Kronzer said.

Dr. England and Dr. Kronzer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

An increasing number of comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis correlates with a lower likelihood of reaching treatment targets, according to an analysis conducted with a series of large real-world datasets and presented in a symposium sponsored by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

When compared to those with the lowest burden of comorbidity in one of these analyses, those with the highest had a nearly 50% lower likelihood (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.85) of achieving low disease activity or remission, according to Bryant England, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Patients with more comorbidities struggle to reach treatment targets,” Dr. England said. In the treatment of RA, “we typically focus only on the joints, but these data suggest we need to begin to think more holistically about managing these patients.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) endorse a treat-to-target management approach in RA guidelines, but only a proportion of patients reach their targets, according to Dr. England. In his series of analyses, Dr. England has been exploring the role of comorbidities as one of the contributing factors.

Looking for real-world data, Dr. England evaluated comorbidities in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry, which has a male predominant population, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, which is female predominant, the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Database, and the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Registry (RISE).
 

Comorbidities accrue more quickly in RA patients

All of these real-world data support the premise that comorbidities are higher in patients with RA than in those without, and show that the burden of comorbidities rises more quickly in patients with RA. For example, the average number of comorbidities in the MarketScan database of recently diagnosed RA patients was 2.6. Five years later, the average doubled to more than 5. For those without RA, the average at the baseline evaluation was 1.6 and remained below 3 at 5 years.

For the burden of comorbidities in RA, Dr. England prefers the term “multimorbidity” because he believes it captures the interconnections of these chronic diseases, many of which trigger or exacerbate others. When he looked at health history 2 years before the RA diagnosis, multimorbidities were already somewhat higher, but he found that burden “takes off” in the peri-diagnostic period and climbs steeply thereafter.

“The data tell us that multimorbidity becomes more problematic throughout the RA disease course,” said Dr. England, who published some of these data only a few weeks prior to his presentation.

In one effort to evaluate how multimorbidity affects treatment choices and outcome, he selected patients with persistently active disease from the RISE registry, a group expected to be candidates for a treatment change or escalation. The data suggested patients with multimorbidity were less likely than were those without to receive a change of therapy in response to their active disease, but it also demonstrated that patients with multimorbidity were less likely to achieve remission or low disease activity even if the medications were changed.

Each comorbidity lowers odds of remission

When relative burden of comorbidities was assessed by RxRisk score, a validated medication-based measure of chronic disease that recognizes 46 categories of chronic conditions, there was about a 5% lower odds ratio for each RxRisk unit of increase in comorbidity. The relationship was consistent across various cohorts of patients evaluated, according to Dr. England.

When looking for patterns of comorbidities in these large datasets using machine learning, Dr. England reported that there were “striking” relationships between organ systems. This included a pattern of cardiometabolic multimorbidity, cardiopulmonary multimorbidity, and mental health and chronic pain multimorbidity. Surprisingly, the same patterns could be identified in those with or without RA, but the prevalence differed.

“RA was closely associated with all of these different multimorbidity patterns, but the odds of having these patterns were one- to threefold greater,” Dr. England reported.

“The multimorbidity pattern most closely associated with RA was mental health and chronic pain,” he added, noting that the same results were observed across the datasets evaluated.

The implication of this work is that multimorbidity exerts an adverse effect on the course of RA and might be an appropriate target of therapies to improve RA outcomes. Although Dr. England called for better tools to measure multimorbidity and consider how it can be addressed systematically in RA patients with the intention of improving RA control, he believes this is an important direction of research.

“What our data show is that we need to begin to think more holistically about these other diseases in RA patients,” he said.
 

Others support targeting of comorbidities

Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed. An author of a study that identified 11 comorbidities significantly associated with RA, either as conditions that predispose to RA or that commonly develop in patients with RA, Dr. Kronzer has drawn the same conclusion in regard to targeting comorbidities in the RA patient.

“Based on mounting evidence that multimorbidity is associated with RA and RA disease activity, taking a broader view of the patient as a whole and his or her comorbidities may help us to not only predict RA but also achieve over disease-specific goals,” Dr. Kronzer said in an interview.

“I suspect that certain comorbidities, perhaps depression as an example, may play a particularly strong role in perpetuating high RA disease activity,” she added. She considers this a ripe area of study for improving clinical strategies in RA.

“Finding out which ones [perpetuate RA] and targeting them could be a reasonable approach to moving forward,” Dr. Kronzer said.

Dr. England and Dr. Kronzer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

An increasing number of comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis correlates with a lower likelihood of reaching treatment targets, according to an analysis conducted with a series of large real-world datasets and presented in a symposium sponsored by the Rheumatology Research Foundation.

When compared to those with the lowest burden of comorbidity in one of these analyses, those with the highest had a nearly 50% lower likelihood (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.85) of achieving low disease activity or remission, according to Bryant England, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.

“Patients with more comorbidities struggle to reach treatment targets,” Dr. England said. In the treatment of RA, “we typically focus only on the joints, but these data suggest we need to begin to think more holistically about managing these patients.”

Both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) endorse a treat-to-target management approach in RA guidelines, but only a proportion of patients reach their targets, according to Dr. England. In his series of analyses, Dr. England has been exploring the role of comorbidities as one of the contributing factors.

Looking for real-world data, Dr. England evaluated comorbidities in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry, which has a male predominant population, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, which is female predominant, the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Database, and the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Registry (RISE).
 

Comorbidities accrue more quickly in RA patients

All of these real-world data support the premise that comorbidities are higher in patients with RA than in those without, and show that the burden of comorbidities rises more quickly in patients with RA. For example, the average number of comorbidities in the MarketScan database of recently diagnosed RA patients was 2.6. Five years later, the average doubled to more than 5. For those without RA, the average at the baseline evaluation was 1.6 and remained below 3 at 5 years.

For the burden of comorbidities in RA, Dr. England prefers the term “multimorbidity” because he believes it captures the interconnections of these chronic diseases, many of which trigger or exacerbate others. When he looked at health history 2 years before the RA diagnosis, multimorbidities were already somewhat higher, but he found that burden “takes off” in the peri-diagnostic period and climbs steeply thereafter.

“The data tell us that multimorbidity becomes more problematic throughout the RA disease course,” said Dr. England, who published some of these data only a few weeks prior to his presentation.

In one effort to evaluate how multimorbidity affects treatment choices and outcome, he selected patients with persistently active disease from the RISE registry, a group expected to be candidates for a treatment change or escalation. The data suggested patients with multimorbidity were less likely than were those without to receive a change of therapy in response to their active disease, but it also demonstrated that patients with multimorbidity were less likely to achieve remission or low disease activity even if the medications were changed.

Each comorbidity lowers odds of remission

When relative burden of comorbidities was assessed by RxRisk score, a validated medication-based measure of chronic disease that recognizes 46 categories of chronic conditions, there was about a 5% lower odds ratio for each RxRisk unit of increase in comorbidity. The relationship was consistent across various cohorts of patients evaluated, according to Dr. England.

When looking for patterns of comorbidities in these large datasets using machine learning, Dr. England reported that there were “striking” relationships between organ systems. This included a pattern of cardiometabolic multimorbidity, cardiopulmonary multimorbidity, and mental health and chronic pain multimorbidity. Surprisingly, the same patterns could be identified in those with or without RA, but the prevalence differed.

“RA was closely associated with all of these different multimorbidity patterns, but the odds of having these patterns were one- to threefold greater,” Dr. England reported.

“The multimorbidity pattern most closely associated with RA was mental health and chronic pain,” he added, noting that the same results were observed across the datasets evaluated.

The implication of this work is that multimorbidity exerts an adverse effect on the course of RA and might be an appropriate target of therapies to improve RA outcomes. Although Dr. England called for better tools to measure multimorbidity and consider how it can be addressed systematically in RA patients with the intention of improving RA control, he believes this is an important direction of research.

“What our data show is that we need to begin to think more holistically about these other diseases in RA patients,” he said.
 

Others support targeting of comorbidities

Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed. An author of a study that identified 11 comorbidities significantly associated with RA, either as conditions that predispose to RA or that commonly develop in patients with RA, Dr. Kronzer has drawn the same conclusion in regard to targeting comorbidities in the RA patient.

“Based on mounting evidence that multimorbidity is associated with RA and RA disease activity, taking a broader view of the patient as a whole and his or her comorbidities may help us to not only predict RA but also achieve over disease-specific goals,” Dr. Kronzer said in an interview.

“I suspect that certain comorbidities, perhaps depression as an example, may play a particularly strong role in perpetuating high RA disease activity,” she added. She considers this a ripe area of study for improving clinical strategies in RA.

“Finding out which ones [perpetuate RA] and targeting them could be a reasonable approach to moving forward,” Dr. Kronzer said.

Dr. England and Dr. Kronzer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.