Rheumatology

“When we think about bisphosphonates, we have to think about whether they are good players or bad players,” Marcy B. Bolster, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Although bisphosphonates are a first-line treatment for many patients to reduce fracture risk, rheumatology patients have distinct concerns about these medications, said Dr. Bolster, who is director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Training Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and medical lead for the Fracture Liaison Service there.

She shared her insights on four questions most often asked by patients in her practice:

How long do I need to take this medication?

When discussing bisphosphonates with a patient for the first time, “I typically start with the benefits, and include the risks,” she said. “Then I outline my plans for treatment, which would include treatment duration.”

Setting expectations with the patient about planned duration of therapy, reviewing risks and benefits, and preparing to be flexible if changes are needed can help relieve patients’ concerns, she said.

For example, in a hypothetical case of a 69-year-old woman with a 17% chance of a major osteoporotic fracture and 3.8% chance of hip fracture in the next 10 years based on FRAX scores, Dr. Bolster said she would treat with alendronate or zoledronic acid.

Duration must be a clinical decision individualized to the patient, she noted. Research studies support that some patients benefit from a longer duration of therapy. In the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-Term Extension, which included 1,099 women, the risk of clinical vertebral fractures significantly declined with 10 years of alendronate treatment, compared with 5 years of treatment, she said.

In the HORIZON trial of 1,233 postmenopausal women, the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in those treated with IV zoledronic acid for 6 years versus those treated for 3 years. These studies support that patients at particularly high risk for vertebral fractures may benefit from a longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy, she said.
 

What should I know about infusion side effects?

Infusion side effects remain a concern, and the acute phase reaction of zoledronic acid occurs in about 30% of patients, but most of these are mild and not recurring, Dr. Bolster said. “I tell patients that 90% report mild to moderate infusion side effects, and that it usually occurs only with the first infusion,” she noted.

To potentially prevent an acute-phase reaction, Dr. Bolster has advised patients to take acetaminophen prior to infusion. “I would tend to recommend acetaminophen over NSAIDs to avoid gastric and renal toxicities,” she said.

“Determining the risks of atypical femoral fractures are challenging” but are another potential side effect that worries patients, she said. An atypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a femur fracture in the proximal third of the shaft, she said.

AFF may occur in patients with osteoporosis even in the absence of bisphosphonate use, Dr. Bolster noted. However, AFF “may occur at increased frequency in those patients with osteoporosis and prolonged bisphosphonate use,” she said. AFF is rare overall, and known risk factors include Asian race (in North America), as well as femoral bowing and glucocorticoid use, she said.

A 2019 meta-analysis favored fracture prevention benefits over potential risk associated with bisphosphonate use. Predicting the risk of AFF remains difficult given several factors, including the low incidence of AFF, the unavailability of radiographs in all studies, not accounting for potential confounding by indication in some studies, and lack of adjustment for low bone mineral density or fracture risk, she added.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw has been linked to bisphosphonate use, and some patients ask about it, Dr. Bolster said. Current data show an incidence of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 in patients with osteoporosis, while the incidence in the general population is 1 in 100,000, she noted. The highest risk is associated with use of IV bisphosphonates, although it does occur in patients on oral bisphosphonates and denosumab (Prolia), she added. Given the relatively low risk, the American Dental Association states that there is “no need to discontinue bisphosphonates prior to procedures.” Based on current evidence, bisphosphonate treatment outweighs the low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients in need of osteoporosis treatment because of the high risk of fragility fractures in the osteoporosis population, she emphasized.
 

When will I need another dual x-ray absorptiometry scan?

Osteoporosis develops in fewer than 10% of older postmenopausal women using a 15-year screening interval for those with normal bone mineral density or mild osteopenia at an initial scan, with T-scores of –1.49 or higher, she noted. Therefore, the need for repeat dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans should be individualized, so some patients with normal bone density or osteopenia and few comorbidities and risk factors for osteoporosis may not need frequent DXA scans, she added.

Although little evidence exists to specifically demonstrate the value of monitoring bone mineral density during a 5-year drug treatment period, as is noted by the American College of Physicians 2017 clinical practice guideline published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Bolster said that a DXA scan showing loss of bone mineral density during treatment could indicate incorrect drug use or noncompliance, or a secondary cause for bone loss that may otherwise go unnoticed. For IV zoledronic acid in particular, a DXA scan at 3-4 years can determine whether a drug holiday is warranted, or for patients with severe osteoporosis, whether another 3 years of treatment is necessary. She suggested considering a DXA scan at 2-3 years with alendronate and at 3-4 years with IV zoledronic acid.

Will I need a new medication if I fracture while on treatment?

For patients who ask whether to change medications following a new fracture, Dr. Bolster said it is important to evaluate the patient’s compliance with the treatment regimen and also consider the presence of secondary causes of bone loss. Consideration can be given to keeping the patient on the same regimen because osteoporosis treatment regimens have demonstrated a 50%-70% fracture-risk reduction so they do not prevent all fractures, she said. “It is therefore reasonable, after confirming compliance and ruling out secondary causes of bone loss, to keep a patient on the same regimen following a fracture. For patients using denosumab, there is an increased risk of rapid bone loss and sustaining multiple vertebral fracture with missed doses or discontinuation,” she said.

It is important to evaluate patients who fracture while on therapy for secondary causes of bone loss, assess compliance, and consider strategies such as modifying the route of administration, seeking a different mechanism of action, or continuing on the same regimen, Dr. Bolster noted.

Dr. Bolster disclosed participation in clinical trials for Corbus, Cumberland, and Genentech, as well as research grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. She also disclosed serving on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and Clinical Learning Designs, serving on the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Marketing and Communications, and holding investments in Johnson & Johnson.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

“When we think about bisphosphonates, we have to think about whether they are good players or bad players,” Marcy B. Bolster, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Although bisphosphonates are a first-line treatment for many patients to reduce fracture risk, rheumatology patients have distinct concerns about these medications, said Dr. Bolster, who is director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Training Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and medical lead for the Fracture Liaison Service there.

She shared her insights on four questions most often asked by patients in her practice:

How long do I need to take this medication?

When discussing bisphosphonates with a patient for the first time, “I typically start with the benefits, and include the risks,” she said. “Then I outline my plans for treatment, which would include treatment duration.”

Setting expectations with the patient about planned duration of therapy, reviewing risks and benefits, and preparing to be flexible if changes are needed can help relieve patients’ concerns, she said.

For example, in a hypothetical case of a 69-year-old woman with a 17% chance of a major osteoporotic fracture and 3.8% chance of hip fracture in the next 10 years based on FRAX scores, Dr. Bolster said she would treat with alendronate or zoledronic acid.

Duration must be a clinical decision individualized to the patient, she noted. Research studies support that some patients benefit from a longer duration of therapy. In the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-Term Extension, which included 1,099 women, the risk of clinical vertebral fractures significantly declined with 10 years of alendronate treatment, compared with 5 years of treatment, she said.

In the HORIZON trial of 1,233 postmenopausal women, the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in those treated with IV zoledronic acid for 6 years versus those treated for 3 years. These studies support that patients at particularly high risk for vertebral fractures may benefit from a longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy, she said.
 

What should I know about infusion side effects?

Infusion side effects remain a concern, and the acute phase reaction of zoledronic acid occurs in about 30% of patients, but most of these are mild and not recurring, Dr. Bolster said. “I tell patients that 90% report mild to moderate infusion side effects, and that it usually occurs only with the first infusion,” she noted.

To potentially prevent an acute-phase reaction, Dr. Bolster has advised patients to take acetaminophen prior to infusion. “I would tend to recommend acetaminophen over NSAIDs to avoid gastric and renal toxicities,” she said.

“Determining the risks of atypical femoral fractures are challenging” but are another potential side effect that worries patients, she said. An atypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a femur fracture in the proximal third of the shaft, she said.

AFF may occur in patients with osteoporosis even in the absence of bisphosphonate use, Dr. Bolster noted. However, AFF “may occur at increased frequency in those patients with osteoporosis and prolonged bisphosphonate use,” she said. AFF is rare overall, and known risk factors include Asian race (in North America), as well as femoral bowing and glucocorticoid use, she said.

A 2019 meta-analysis favored fracture prevention benefits over potential risk associated with bisphosphonate use. Predicting the risk of AFF remains difficult given several factors, including the low incidence of AFF, the unavailability of radiographs in all studies, not accounting for potential confounding by indication in some studies, and lack of adjustment for low bone mineral density or fracture risk, she added.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw has been linked to bisphosphonate use, and some patients ask about it, Dr. Bolster said. Current data show an incidence of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 in patients with osteoporosis, while the incidence in the general population is 1 in 100,000, she noted. The highest risk is associated with use of IV bisphosphonates, although it does occur in patients on oral bisphosphonates and denosumab (Prolia), she added. Given the relatively low risk, the American Dental Association states that there is “no need to discontinue bisphosphonates prior to procedures.” Based on current evidence, bisphosphonate treatment outweighs the low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients in need of osteoporosis treatment because of the high risk of fragility fractures in the osteoporosis population, she emphasized.
 

When will I need another dual x-ray absorptiometry scan?

Osteoporosis develops in fewer than 10% of older postmenopausal women using a 15-year screening interval for those with normal bone mineral density or mild osteopenia at an initial scan, with T-scores of –1.49 or higher, she noted. Therefore, the need for repeat dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans should be individualized, so some patients with normal bone density or osteopenia and few comorbidities and risk factors for osteoporosis may not need frequent DXA scans, she added.

Although little evidence exists to specifically demonstrate the value of monitoring bone mineral density during a 5-year drug treatment period, as is noted by the American College of Physicians 2017 clinical practice guideline published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Bolster said that a DXA scan showing loss of bone mineral density during treatment could indicate incorrect drug use or noncompliance, or a secondary cause for bone loss that may otherwise go unnoticed. For IV zoledronic acid in particular, a DXA scan at 3-4 years can determine whether a drug holiday is warranted, or for patients with severe osteoporosis, whether another 3 years of treatment is necessary. She suggested considering a DXA scan at 2-3 years with alendronate and at 3-4 years with IV zoledronic acid.

Will I need a new medication if I fracture while on treatment?

For patients who ask whether to change medications following a new fracture, Dr. Bolster said it is important to evaluate the patient’s compliance with the treatment regimen and also consider the presence of secondary causes of bone loss. Consideration can be given to keeping the patient on the same regimen because osteoporosis treatment regimens have demonstrated a 50%-70% fracture-risk reduction so they do not prevent all fractures, she said. “It is therefore reasonable, after confirming compliance and ruling out secondary causes of bone loss, to keep a patient on the same regimen following a fracture. For patients using denosumab, there is an increased risk of rapid bone loss and sustaining multiple vertebral fracture with missed doses or discontinuation,” she said.

It is important to evaluate patients who fracture while on therapy for secondary causes of bone loss, assess compliance, and consider strategies such as modifying the route of administration, seeking a different mechanism of action, or continuing on the same regimen, Dr. Bolster noted.

Dr. Bolster disclosed participation in clinical trials for Corbus, Cumberland, and Genentech, as well as research grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. She also disclosed serving on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and Clinical Learning Designs, serving on the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Marketing and Communications, and holding investments in Johnson & Johnson.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

“When we think about bisphosphonates, we have to think about whether they are good players or bad players,” Marcy B. Bolster, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Although bisphosphonates are a first-line treatment for many patients to reduce fracture risk, rheumatology patients have distinct concerns about these medications, said Dr. Bolster, who is director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Training Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and medical lead for the Fracture Liaison Service there.

She shared her insights on four questions most often asked by patients in her practice:

How long do I need to take this medication?

When discussing bisphosphonates with a patient for the first time, “I typically start with the benefits, and include the risks,” she said. “Then I outline my plans for treatment, which would include treatment duration.”

Setting expectations with the patient about planned duration of therapy, reviewing risks and benefits, and preparing to be flexible if changes are needed can help relieve patients’ concerns, she said.

For example, in a hypothetical case of a 69-year-old woman with a 17% chance of a major osteoporotic fracture and 3.8% chance of hip fracture in the next 10 years based on FRAX scores, Dr. Bolster said she would treat with alendronate or zoledronic acid.

Duration must be a clinical decision individualized to the patient, she noted. Research studies support that some patients benefit from a longer duration of therapy. In the Fracture Intervention Trial (FIT) Long-Term Extension, which included 1,099 women, the risk of clinical vertebral fractures significantly declined with 10 years of alendronate treatment, compared with 5 years of treatment, she said.

In the HORIZON trial of 1,233 postmenopausal women, the risk of new morphometric vertebral fractures was significantly lower in those treated with IV zoledronic acid for 6 years versus those treated for 3 years. These studies support that patients at particularly high risk for vertebral fractures may benefit from a longer duration of bisphosphonate therapy, she said.
 

What should I know about infusion side effects?

Infusion side effects remain a concern, and the acute phase reaction of zoledronic acid occurs in about 30% of patients, but most of these are mild and not recurring, Dr. Bolster said. “I tell patients that 90% report mild to moderate infusion side effects, and that it usually occurs only with the first infusion,” she noted.

To potentially prevent an acute-phase reaction, Dr. Bolster has advised patients to take acetaminophen prior to infusion. “I would tend to recommend acetaminophen over NSAIDs to avoid gastric and renal toxicities,” she said.

“Determining the risks of atypical femoral fractures are challenging” but are another potential side effect that worries patients, she said. An atypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a femur fracture in the proximal third of the shaft, she said.

AFF may occur in patients with osteoporosis even in the absence of bisphosphonate use, Dr. Bolster noted. However, AFF “may occur at increased frequency in those patients with osteoporosis and prolonged bisphosphonate use,” she said. AFF is rare overall, and known risk factors include Asian race (in North America), as well as femoral bowing and glucocorticoid use, she said.

A 2019 meta-analysis favored fracture prevention benefits over potential risk associated with bisphosphonate use. Predicting the risk of AFF remains difficult given several factors, including the low incidence of AFF, the unavailability of radiographs in all studies, not accounting for potential confounding by indication in some studies, and lack of adjustment for low bone mineral density or fracture risk, she added.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw has been linked to bisphosphonate use, and some patients ask about it, Dr. Bolster said. Current data show an incidence of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 in patients with osteoporosis, while the incidence in the general population is 1 in 100,000, she noted. The highest risk is associated with use of IV bisphosphonates, although it does occur in patients on oral bisphosphonates and denosumab (Prolia), she added. Given the relatively low risk, the American Dental Association states that there is “no need to discontinue bisphosphonates prior to procedures.” Based on current evidence, bisphosphonate treatment outweighs the low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients in need of osteoporosis treatment because of the high risk of fragility fractures in the osteoporosis population, she emphasized.
 

When will I need another dual x-ray absorptiometry scan?

Osteoporosis develops in fewer than 10% of older postmenopausal women using a 15-year screening interval for those with normal bone mineral density or mild osteopenia at an initial scan, with T-scores of –1.49 or higher, she noted. Therefore, the need for repeat dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans should be individualized, so some patients with normal bone density or osteopenia and few comorbidities and risk factors for osteoporosis may not need frequent DXA scans, she added.

Although little evidence exists to specifically demonstrate the value of monitoring bone mineral density during a 5-year drug treatment period, as is noted by the American College of Physicians 2017 clinical practice guideline published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Bolster said that a DXA scan showing loss of bone mineral density during treatment could indicate incorrect drug use or noncompliance, or a secondary cause for bone loss that may otherwise go unnoticed. For IV zoledronic acid in particular, a DXA scan at 3-4 years can determine whether a drug holiday is warranted, or for patients with severe osteoporosis, whether another 3 years of treatment is necessary. She suggested considering a DXA scan at 2-3 years with alendronate and at 3-4 years with IV zoledronic acid.

Will I need a new medication if I fracture while on treatment?

For patients who ask whether to change medications following a new fracture, Dr. Bolster said it is important to evaluate the patient’s compliance with the treatment regimen and also consider the presence of secondary causes of bone loss. Consideration can be given to keeping the patient on the same regimen because osteoporosis treatment regimens have demonstrated a 50%-70% fracture-risk reduction so they do not prevent all fractures, she said. “It is therefore reasonable, after confirming compliance and ruling out secondary causes of bone loss, to keep a patient on the same regimen following a fracture. For patients using denosumab, there is an increased risk of rapid bone loss and sustaining multiple vertebral fracture with missed doses or discontinuation,” she said.

It is important to evaluate patients who fracture while on therapy for secondary causes of bone loss, assess compliance, and consider strategies such as modifying the route of administration, seeking a different mechanism of action, or continuing on the same regimen, Dr. Bolster noted.

Dr. Bolster disclosed participation in clinical trials for Corbus, Cumberland, and Genentech, as well as research grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. She also disclosed serving on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and Clinical Learning Designs, serving on the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Marketing and Communications, and holding investments in Johnson & Johnson.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Monitor antidrug antibodies for their impact on drug clearance to maximize treatment outcomes in rheumatology patients treated with biologics, Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Antidrug antibodies (ADAb) are associated with impaired drug efficacy and safety, he noted. Furthermore, he indicated that when ADAb bind to the drug, they can either block the activity of the drug directly and/or may cause the formation of complexes, leading to accelerated drug clearance and reduced drug exposure.

Dr. Vande Casteele, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, outlined factors that contribute to immunogenicity, which occurs when the body reacts to neoantigens, or when there is a breakdown in immune tolerance, he said.

Genetics can play a key role in the risk for immunogenicity, as can the route of administration, dose, treatment duration, and concomitant diseases or medications, he explained.

In addition, product-related factors including sequence variation, glycosylation, host cells, contaminants and processing impurities, formulation, and handling and storage issues can impact immunogenicity, he noted.

For example, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study in which the proportion of infliximab-treated patients with positive ADAbs was substantially higher among those receiving the drug intravenously, compared with those receiving it subcutaneously. As for treatment dosing, data on patients treated with infliximab have shown that maintenance therapy is associated with lower rates of immunogenicity, compared to episodic therapy, he said.

In terms of genetics, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study published in January in Gastroenterology showing the presence of the HLA-DQA1*05 allele, carried by approximately 40% of the European population, significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.90).
 

Therapeutic drug monitoring and overcoming immunogenicity

Dr. Vande Casteele also reviewed how to measure ADAbs. “Antidrug antibody units and concentrations can differ across assays,” he said.

In clinical practice, “the majority of patients at the time of secondary loss of response will present with low drug exposure, and that is when you measure antidrug antibodies,” he said.

In rheumatology patients, the presence of ADAbs against anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies conveys a risk for treatment discontinuation, as well as “a risk of development of hypersensitivity reactions in all immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Vande Casteele said.

However, “the combined use of anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs reduces the development of antibodies and subsequent risks,” he noted.

For therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with a secondary loss of response, “first, look at the trough concentration,” Dr. Vande Casteele said. “If it is optimal, then ADAbs are probably inconsequential.” If the trough is low or undetectable, examine ADAbs, he added. To manage ADAbs, data support the use of drug dose escalation in some cases. However, “you may be able to overcome the antidrug antibodies in some patients with dose escalation, but this is not always a cost-effective strategy in the long term,” and some patients fail a drug despite adequate drug concentration, which may mean they are failing the mechanism, and not because of pharmacokinetic-related issues, he said.

Dr. Vande Casteele cited a post hoc analysis of the TAXIT trial, published in Gastroenterology. It was the first prospective study to look at proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with maintenance infliximab. This post hoc analysis showed that ADAbs were overcome with dose escalation in nearly 50% of patients in the lowest two ADAb quartiles at the start of the trial, and although ADAb were masked by dose escalation in the highest two quartiles, measurement with a drug-sensitive assay showed that ADAb never disappeared, he said.

Another strategy to try to overcome immunogenicity is to add an immunomodulator, Dr. Vande Casteele said. He cited a recent study published in Rheumatology showing that the effect of methotrexate was mediated through immunogenicity for immunogenic compounds such as adalimumab.

Importantly, there is a risk for immunogenicity across agents, he noted. “Patients who are antibody positive to the prior anti-TNF are at a higher risk of developing antibodies to subsequent anti-TNFs.”

Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants from R-Biopharm; grants and personal fees from Takeda and UCB; and personal fees from Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Celltrion, and Prometheus. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Monitor antidrug antibodies for their impact on drug clearance to maximize treatment outcomes in rheumatology patients treated with biologics, Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Antidrug antibodies (ADAb) are associated with impaired drug efficacy and safety, he noted. Furthermore, he indicated that when ADAb bind to the drug, they can either block the activity of the drug directly and/or may cause the formation of complexes, leading to accelerated drug clearance and reduced drug exposure.

Dr. Vande Casteele, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, outlined factors that contribute to immunogenicity, which occurs when the body reacts to neoantigens, or when there is a breakdown in immune tolerance, he said.

Genetics can play a key role in the risk for immunogenicity, as can the route of administration, dose, treatment duration, and concomitant diseases or medications, he explained.

In addition, product-related factors including sequence variation, glycosylation, host cells, contaminants and processing impurities, formulation, and handling and storage issues can impact immunogenicity, he noted.

For example, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study in which the proportion of infliximab-treated patients with positive ADAbs was substantially higher among those receiving the drug intravenously, compared with those receiving it subcutaneously. As for treatment dosing, data on patients treated with infliximab have shown that maintenance therapy is associated with lower rates of immunogenicity, compared to episodic therapy, he said.

In terms of genetics, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study published in January in Gastroenterology showing the presence of the HLA-DQA1*05 allele, carried by approximately 40% of the European population, significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.90).
 

Therapeutic drug monitoring and overcoming immunogenicity

Dr. Vande Casteele also reviewed how to measure ADAbs. “Antidrug antibody units and concentrations can differ across assays,” he said.

In clinical practice, “the majority of patients at the time of secondary loss of response will present with low drug exposure, and that is when you measure antidrug antibodies,” he said.

In rheumatology patients, the presence of ADAbs against anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies conveys a risk for treatment discontinuation, as well as “a risk of development of hypersensitivity reactions in all immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Vande Casteele said.

However, “the combined use of anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs reduces the development of antibodies and subsequent risks,” he noted.

For therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with a secondary loss of response, “first, look at the trough concentration,” Dr. Vande Casteele said. “If it is optimal, then ADAbs are probably inconsequential.” If the trough is low or undetectable, examine ADAbs, he added. To manage ADAbs, data support the use of drug dose escalation in some cases. However, “you may be able to overcome the antidrug antibodies in some patients with dose escalation, but this is not always a cost-effective strategy in the long term,” and some patients fail a drug despite adequate drug concentration, which may mean they are failing the mechanism, and not because of pharmacokinetic-related issues, he said.

Dr. Vande Casteele cited a post hoc analysis of the TAXIT trial, published in Gastroenterology. It was the first prospective study to look at proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with maintenance infliximab. This post hoc analysis showed that ADAbs were overcome with dose escalation in nearly 50% of patients in the lowest two ADAb quartiles at the start of the trial, and although ADAb were masked by dose escalation in the highest two quartiles, measurement with a drug-sensitive assay showed that ADAb never disappeared, he said.

Another strategy to try to overcome immunogenicity is to add an immunomodulator, Dr. Vande Casteele said. He cited a recent study published in Rheumatology showing that the effect of methotrexate was mediated through immunogenicity for immunogenic compounds such as adalimumab.

Importantly, there is a risk for immunogenicity across agents, he noted. “Patients who are antibody positive to the prior anti-TNF are at a higher risk of developing antibodies to subsequent anti-TNFs.”

Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants from R-Biopharm; grants and personal fees from Takeda and UCB; and personal fees from Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Celltrion, and Prometheus. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Monitor antidrug antibodies for their impact on drug clearance to maximize treatment outcomes in rheumatology patients treated with biologics, Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Antidrug antibodies (ADAb) are associated with impaired drug efficacy and safety, he noted. Furthermore, he indicated that when ADAb bind to the drug, they can either block the activity of the drug directly and/or may cause the formation of complexes, leading to accelerated drug clearance and reduced drug exposure.

Dr. Vande Casteele, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, outlined factors that contribute to immunogenicity, which occurs when the body reacts to neoantigens, or when there is a breakdown in immune tolerance, he said.

Genetics can play a key role in the risk for immunogenicity, as can the route of administration, dose, treatment duration, and concomitant diseases or medications, he explained.

In addition, product-related factors including sequence variation, glycosylation, host cells, contaminants and processing impurities, formulation, and handling and storage issues can impact immunogenicity, he noted.

For example, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study in which the proportion of infliximab-treated patients with positive ADAbs was substantially higher among those receiving the drug intravenously, compared with those receiving it subcutaneously. As for treatment dosing, data on patients treated with infliximab have shown that maintenance therapy is associated with lower rates of immunogenicity, compared to episodic therapy, he said.

In terms of genetics, Dr. Vande Casteele cited a study published in January in Gastroenterology showing the presence of the HLA-DQA1*05 allele, carried by approximately 40% of the European population, significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity to infliximab and adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.90).
 

Therapeutic drug monitoring and overcoming immunogenicity

Dr. Vande Casteele also reviewed how to measure ADAbs. “Antidrug antibody units and concentrations can differ across assays,” he said.

In clinical practice, “the majority of patients at the time of secondary loss of response will present with low drug exposure, and that is when you measure antidrug antibodies,” he said.

In rheumatology patients, the presence of ADAbs against anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies conveys a risk for treatment discontinuation, as well as “a risk of development of hypersensitivity reactions in all immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Vande Casteele said.

However, “the combined use of anti–tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs reduces the development of antibodies and subsequent risks,” he noted.

For therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with a secondary loss of response, “first, look at the trough concentration,” Dr. Vande Casteele said. “If it is optimal, then ADAbs are probably inconsequential.” If the trough is low or undetectable, examine ADAbs, he added. To manage ADAbs, data support the use of drug dose escalation in some cases. However, “you may be able to overcome the antidrug antibodies in some patients with dose escalation, but this is not always a cost-effective strategy in the long term,” and some patients fail a drug despite adequate drug concentration, which may mean they are failing the mechanism, and not because of pharmacokinetic-related issues, he said.

Dr. Vande Casteele cited a post hoc analysis of the TAXIT trial, published in Gastroenterology. It was the first prospective study to look at proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases treated with maintenance infliximab. This post hoc analysis showed that ADAbs were overcome with dose escalation in nearly 50% of patients in the lowest two ADAb quartiles at the start of the trial, and although ADAb were masked by dose escalation in the highest two quartiles, measurement with a drug-sensitive assay showed that ADAb never disappeared, he said.

Another strategy to try to overcome immunogenicity is to add an immunomodulator, Dr. Vande Casteele said. He cited a recent study published in Rheumatology showing that the effect of methotrexate was mediated through immunogenicity for immunogenic compounds such as adalimumab.

Importantly, there is a risk for immunogenicity across agents, he noted. “Patients who are antibody positive to the prior anti-TNF are at a higher risk of developing antibodies to subsequent anti-TNFs.”

Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants from R-Biopharm; grants and personal fees from Takeda and UCB; and personal fees from Alimentiv (formerly Robarts Clinical Trials), Celltrion, and Prometheus. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

When it comes to preventing infection in rheumatology patients, “vaccination is the best mode of infection protection” and works synergistically with masks and hand washing, according to Leonard H. Calabrese, DO.

“Patients with rheumatic diseases have increased morbidity and mortality [from infection] and a lot of risk factors, including age, comorbidities, cytopenias, and extra-articular disease immunosuppression,” he said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Unfortunately, vaccination uptake remains “much lower than we would like in this country,” he said. Notably, influenza vaccination remains well below the World Health Organization target of 75%, he said.
 

Influenza vaccination

Flu vaccination will be even more important this year in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Calabrese, professor of medicine and the RJ Fasenmyer Chair of Clinical Immunology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “For everyone who comes in with a respiratory illness, we will have to figure out whether it is flu or COVID,” he emphasized.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations include a detailed special considerations section for patients with immunocompromising conditions; “the notes have everything you need to know” about advising rheumatology patients, most of whom can safely receive a flu vaccine, he said.

One concern that always comes up is whether an antibody response will be suppressed based on therapy, Dr. Calabrese noted. Two major drugs with the greatest ability to reduce response are methotrexate and rituximab, he said. His tip: “Withhold methotrexate for two doses following seasonal flu vaccination.” This advice stems from a series of “practice-changing” studies by Park et al. published in 2017, 2018, and 2019 that showed benefit in withholding methotrexate for two doses following vaccination.

In the past, high-dose trivalent flu vaccines have been more expensive, and not necessarily practice changing, with studies showing varying clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Dr. Calabrese said. This year, a high-dose quadrivalent vaccine should be available that showed a 24% improvement in protection from all strains of influenza, compared with the standard vaccine in a head-to-head, randomized, controlled trial, he noted.

“All patients in rheumatology practices should get a flu vaccine,” with a 2-week hold on methotrexate following vaccination, he advised, and those aged 65 years and older should receive the high-dose quadrivalent. Younger patients on immunosuppressive therapy also might be considered for the high-dose vaccine, he said.

Pneumococcal vaccination

Dr. Calabrese also emphasized the value of pneumococcal vaccines for rheumatology patients. “The mortality for invasive disease ranges from 5% to 32%, but patients with immunocompromising conditions are at increased risk.”

Dr. Calabrese added a note on safety: Patients with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS), a rare hereditary inflammatory disorder with cutaneous, neurologic, ophthalmologic, and rheumatologic manifestations, may have severe local and systemic reactions to the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), he said.

However, immunization against pneumococcal disease is safe and effective for most patients with autoimmune and inflammatory disorders regardless of their current therapy, he said. As with influenza, the CDC’s vaccination recommendations provide details for special situations, including immunocompromised individuals, he noted.

Dr. Calabrese recommended the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) as soon as possible for rheumatology patients who have never been vaccinated, with follow-up doses of the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) at least 8 weeks later, and a PPSV23 booster 5 years after the first PPSV23 dose.
 

Protecting against shingles

When it comes to managing the varicella zoster virus (VZV) in immunocompromised patients, “prevention is preferable to treatment, as our patients are particularly vulnerable because of age and declining immunity,” Dr. Calabrese said.

Prevention is important because “once herpes zoster develops, the available treatments, including antiviral therapy, do not prevent postherpetic neuralgia in all patients,” he emphasized. “The treatments are complicated and not always effective,” he added.

The complications of zoster are well known, but recent data show an increased risk of cardiovascular disease as well, Dr. Calabrese said. “All the more reason to protect rheumatology patients from incident zoster,” he said.

Currently, the nonlive recombinant subunit zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is the preferred option for VZV vaccination according to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Calabrese said. The CDC initially recommended its use to prevent herpes zoster and related complications in all immunocompetent adults aged 50 years and older; in an update, a C-level recommendation extends to “all patients aged 50 with or without immunosuppressive illnesses regardless of previous Zostavax exposure,” Dr. Calabrese said. “All patients on or starting [Janus] kinase inhibitors, regardless of age, should be considered” to receive the herpes zoster vaccine, he noted.

In general, promoting vaccination for rheumatology patients and for all patients is a multipronged effort that might include reminders, rewards, education, and standing orders, Dr. Calabrese said. Clinicians must continue to educate patients not only by strongly recommending the appropriate vaccines, but dispelling myths about vaccination, addressing fears, and providing current and accurate information, he said.

Dr. Calabrese disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

When it comes to preventing infection in rheumatology patients, “vaccination is the best mode of infection protection” and works synergistically with masks and hand washing, according to Leonard H. Calabrese, DO.

“Patients with rheumatic diseases have increased morbidity and mortality [from infection] and a lot of risk factors, including age, comorbidities, cytopenias, and extra-articular disease immunosuppression,” he said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Unfortunately, vaccination uptake remains “much lower than we would like in this country,” he said. Notably, influenza vaccination remains well below the World Health Organization target of 75%, he said.
 

Influenza vaccination

Flu vaccination will be even more important this year in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Calabrese, professor of medicine and the RJ Fasenmyer Chair of Clinical Immunology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “For everyone who comes in with a respiratory illness, we will have to figure out whether it is flu or COVID,” he emphasized.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations include a detailed special considerations section for patients with immunocompromising conditions; “the notes have everything you need to know” about advising rheumatology patients, most of whom can safely receive a flu vaccine, he said.

One concern that always comes up is whether an antibody response will be suppressed based on therapy, Dr. Calabrese noted. Two major drugs with the greatest ability to reduce response are methotrexate and rituximab, he said. His tip: “Withhold methotrexate for two doses following seasonal flu vaccination.” This advice stems from a series of “practice-changing” studies by Park et al. published in 2017, 2018, and 2019 that showed benefit in withholding methotrexate for two doses following vaccination.

In the past, high-dose trivalent flu vaccines have been more expensive, and not necessarily practice changing, with studies showing varying clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Dr. Calabrese said. This year, a high-dose quadrivalent vaccine should be available that showed a 24% improvement in protection from all strains of influenza, compared with the standard vaccine in a head-to-head, randomized, controlled trial, he noted.

“All patients in rheumatology practices should get a flu vaccine,” with a 2-week hold on methotrexate following vaccination, he advised, and those aged 65 years and older should receive the high-dose quadrivalent. Younger patients on immunosuppressive therapy also might be considered for the high-dose vaccine, he said.

Pneumococcal vaccination

Dr. Calabrese also emphasized the value of pneumococcal vaccines for rheumatology patients. “The mortality for invasive disease ranges from 5% to 32%, but patients with immunocompromising conditions are at increased risk.”

Dr. Calabrese added a note on safety: Patients with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS), a rare hereditary inflammatory disorder with cutaneous, neurologic, ophthalmologic, and rheumatologic manifestations, may have severe local and systemic reactions to the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), he said.

However, immunization against pneumococcal disease is safe and effective for most patients with autoimmune and inflammatory disorders regardless of their current therapy, he said. As with influenza, the CDC’s vaccination recommendations provide details for special situations, including immunocompromised individuals, he noted.

Dr. Calabrese recommended the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) as soon as possible for rheumatology patients who have never been vaccinated, with follow-up doses of the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) at least 8 weeks later, and a PPSV23 booster 5 years after the first PPSV23 dose.
 

Protecting against shingles

When it comes to managing the varicella zoster virus (VZV) in immunocompromised patients, “prevention is preferable to treatment, as our patients are particularly vulnerable because of age and declining immunity,” Dr. Calabrese said.

Prevention is important because “once herpes zoster develops, the available treatments, including antiviral therapy, do not prevent postherpetic neuralgia in all patients,” he emphasized. “The treatments are complicated and not always effective,” he added.

The complications of zoster are well known, but recent data show an increased risk of cardiovascular disease as well, Dr. Calabrese said. “All the more reason to protect rheumatology patients from incident zoster,” he said.

Currently, the nonlive recombinant subunit zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is the preferred option for VZV vaccination according to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Calabrese said. The CDC initially recommended its use to prevent herpes zoster and related complications in all immunocompetent adults aged 50 years and older; in an update, a C-level recommendation extends to “all patients aged 50 with or without immunosuppressive illnesses regardless of previous Zostavax exposure,” Dr. Calabrese said. “All patients on or starting [Janus] kinase inhibitors, regardless of age, should be considered” to receive the herpes zoster vaccine, he noted.

In general, promoting vaccination for rheumatology patients and for all patients is a multipronged effort that might include reminders, rewards, education, and standing orders, Dr. Calabrese said. Clinicians must continue to educate patients not only by strongly recommending the appropriate vaccines, but dispelling myths about vaccination, addressing fears, and providing current and accurate information, he said.

Dr. Calabrese disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

When it comes to preventing infection in rheumatology patients, “vaccination is the best mode of infection protection” and works synergistically with masks and hand washing, according to Leonard H. Calabrese, DO.

“Patients with rheumatic diseases have increased morbidity and mortality [from infection] and a lot of risk factors, including age, comorbidities, cytopenias, and extra-articular disease immunosuppression,” he said in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Unfortunately, vaccination uptake remains “much lower than we would like in this country,” he said. Notably, influenza vaccination remains well below the World Health Organization target of 75%, he said.
 

Influenza vaccination

Flu vaccination will be even more important this year in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Calabrese, professor of medicine and the RJ Fasenmyer Chair of Clinical Immunology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “For everyone who comes in with a respiratory illness, we will have to figure out whether it is flu or COVID,” he emphasized.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations include a detailed special considerations section for patients with immunocompromising conditions; “the notes have everything you need to know” about advising rheumatology patients, most of whom can safely receive a flu vaccine, he said.

One concern that always comes up is whether an antibody response will be suppressed based on therapy, Dr. Calabrese noted. Two major drugs with the greatest ability to reduce response are methotrexate and rituximab, he said. His tip: “Withhold methotrexate for two doses following seasonal flu vaccination.” This advice stems from a series of “practice-changing” studies by Park et al. published in 2017, 2018, and 2019 that showed benefit in withholding methotrexate for two doses following vaccination.

In the past, high-dose trivalent flu vaccines have been more expensive, and not necessarily practice changing, with studies showing varying clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Dr. Calabrese said. This year, a high-dose quadrivalent vaccine should be available that showed a 24% improvement in protection from all strains of influenza, compared with the standard vaccine in a head-to-head, randomized, controlled trial, he noted.

“All patients in rheumatology practices should get a flu vaccine,” with a 2-week hold on methotrexate following vaccination, he advised, and those aged 65 years and older should receive the high-dose quadrivalent. Younger patients on immunosuppressive therapy also might be considered for the high-dose vaccine, he said.

Pneumococcal vaccination

Dr. Calabrese also emphasized the value of pneumococcal vaccines for rheumatology patients. “The mortality for invasive disease ranges from 5% to 32%, but patients with immunocompromising conditions are at increased risk.”

Dr. Calabrese added a note on safety: Patients with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS), a rare hereditary inflammatory disorder with cutaneous, neurologic, ophthalmologic, and rheumatologic manifestations, may have severe local and systemic reactions to the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), he said.

However, immunization against pneumococcal disease is safe and effective for most patients with autoimmune and inflammatory disorders regardless of their current therapy, he said. As with influenza, the CDC’s vaccination recommendations provide details for special situations, including immunocompromised individuals, he noted.

Dr. Calabrese recommended the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) as soon as possible for rheumatology patients who have never been vaccinated, with follow-up doses of the 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) at least 8 weeks later, and a PPSV23 booster 5 years after the first PPSV23 dose.
 

Protecting against shingles

When it comes to managing the varicella zoster virus (VZV) in immunocompromised patients, “prevention is preferable to treatment, as our patients are particularly vulnerable because of age and declining immunity,” Dr. Calabrese said.

Prevention is important because “once herpes zoster develops, the available treatments, including antiviral therapy, do not prevent postherpetic neuralgia in all patients,” he emphasized. “The treatments are complicated and not always effective,” he added.

The complications of zoster are well known, but recent data show an increased risk of cardiovascular disease as well, Dr. Calabrese said. “All the more reason to protect rheumatology patients from incident zoster,” he said.

Currently, the nonlive recombinant subunit zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is the preferred option for VZV vaccination according to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Calabrese said. The CDC initially recommended its use to prevent herpes zoster and related complications in all immunocompetent adults aged 50 years and older; in an update, a C-level recommendation extends to “all patients aged 50 with or without immunosuppressive illnesses regardless of previous Zostavax exposure,” Dr. Calabrese said. “All patients on or starting [Janus] kinase inhibitors, regardless of age, should be considered” to receive the herpes zoster vaccine, he noted.

In general, promoting vaccination for rheumatology patients and for all patients is a multipronged effort that might include reminders, rewards, education, and standing orders, Dr. Calabrese said. Clinicians must continue to educate patients not only by strongly recommending the appropriate vaccines, but dispelling myths about vaccination, addressing fears, and providing current and accurate information, he said.

Dr. Calabrese disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, and UCB.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

In a national study of older Danes who had previously had a fracture and were taking bisphosphonates, the risk of having a serious though rare atypical femoral fracture (AFF) was greater after 3-5 years of bisphosphonate use.

The risk quickly dropped after patients stopped taking a bisphosphonate, which suggests that bisphosphonate “holidays” may be useful for some patients, the researchers said. These findings support previous work.

But the study also found that 34% of the AFFs occurred in patients who had not been taking a bisphosphonate. That rate is higher than the 6%-22% that has been reported by others.

Doug Bauer, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, presented the new study findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting.

“We found no clear risk factor that accounts for this increased risk [for AFFs] among those not exposed to bisphosphonates,” he said, “but we believe this was a real finding, as our study protocol ensured that the study radiologists were completely blinded to treatments received.”

Suzanne N. Morin, MD, who was not involved in this research, pointed out that the reported AFF risks related to bisphosphonate dose and cessation are in keeping with findings of other studies, including a recent large study by Dennis M. Black, MD, and colleagues that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

That study found that Asians are at higher risk for AFFs than White persons. Others have reported that specific femur geometry or physique and use of glucocorticoids increase AFF risk, Dr. Morin, from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, said in an interview.

The current study suggests that rheumatoid arthritis may be a risk factor, she added.

The fact that the rate of AFFs among patients who had not been exposed to bisphosphonates was higher than previously reported “may be due to differences in the method they used to ascertain the fractures or in medication use,” she speculated.

The clinical implications of research to date are that “the risk of AFF should not dissuade patients and providers from short-term use of bisphosphonates [3-5 years],” Dr. Bauer said. He noted that most patients should not take a bisphosphonate for longer than this unless they have a very high fracture risk.

Similarly, Dr. Morin said that clinicians “should consider initiating bisphosphonate in those at high risk for fractures and reevaluate their use after 3-6 years, depending on individual’s risk profile.”

AFF is serious but rare complication of bisphosphonate use

“Since first reported over 10 years ago, it has become clear that AFFs are a rare but serious complication of bisphosphonate therapy,” Dr. Bauer explained. However, there is still uncertainty about the magnitude of this risk, including the absolute risk for AFFs among adults who take bisphosphonates and those who do not.

To study this, the researchers analyzed data from national health care and pharmacy records and a radiology image database in Denmark. They identified almost 5,000 adults who were aged 50 years or older and who experienced a subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fracture during the period from 2010 to 2015. Two expert radiologists who were blinded to the patients’ clinical history or treatment identified AFF on the basis of ASBMR 2014 criteria.

The researchers compared three patient groups: 189 patients with AFF, 2,397 patients with typical subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures (no AFF), and35,946 adults aged older than 50 years (control persons).

Compared with patients with typical fractures, patients with AFF were younger (aged 71 vs. 77), more likely to be women (79% vs. 69%), and more likely to have RA (12% vs. 2.5%).

Compared with patients in the other two groups, those with AFF were more likely to use corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, statins, and hormone replacement therapy.

They were also more likely to use bisphosphonates (58%) than patients with typical subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures (19%) or control patients (10%).

The bisphosphonates used in Denmark at the time were mostly alendronate (85%) and rarely ibandronate (6%), intravenous zoledronic acid (5%), etidronate (3%), or risedronate (1%).
 

One-third of patients with AFFs had no bisphosphonate exposure

In this national cohort of adults aged older than 50 years, the absolute rates of AFF per 10,000 person-years were as follows: 0.07 in nonusers of bisphosphonates, 1.84 in those with 3-5 years of bisphosphonate use, and 4.63 in those with >7 years of bisphosphonate use. As a comparison, the rate of classic hip fracture was 43.8 per 10,000 person-years.

Compared with no bisphosphonate use, the relative risk for AFF was close to 40 times higher with more than 7 years of use, after adjusting for multiple confounders. The risk for AFF was also significantly higher among patients with RA or hypertension and for those who used proton pump inhibitors.

“Note that age, gender, and previous fracture were not associated with the risk of AFF” after controlling for multiple confounders, Dr. Bauer stressed.

The relative risk for AFF fell significantly after it had been withheld from use for more than 1 year.

Among the 189 patients with confirmed AFF, 64 patients (34%) had never taken a bisphosphonate.

Preliminary analysis showed that, among patients with AFF, those who had not been exposed to bisphosphonates were younger, more likely to be male, and less likely to have had a previous fracture, RA, or to have used corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, statins, or hormone-replacement therapy.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Bauer and Dr. Morin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a national study of older Danes who had previously had a fracture and were taking bisphosphonates, the risk of having a serious though rare atypical femoral fracture (AFF) was greater after 3-5 years of bisphosphonate use.

The risk quickly dropped after patients stopped taking a bisphosphonate, which suggests that bisphosphonate “holidays” may be useful for some patients, the researchers said. These findings support previous work.

But the study also found that 34% of the AFFs occurred in patients who had not been taking a bisphosphonate. That rate is higher than the 6%-22% that has been reported by others.

Doug Bauer, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, presented the new study findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting.

“We found no clear risk factor that accounts for this increased risk [for AFFs] among those not exposed to bisphosphonates,” he said, “but we believe this was a real finding, as our study protocol ensured that the study radiologists were completely blinded to treatments received.”

Suzanne N. Morin, MD, who was not involved in this research, pointed out that the reported AFF risks related to bisphosphonate dose and cessation are in keeping with findings of other studies, including a recent large study by Dennis M. Black, MD, and colleagues that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

That study found that Asians are at higher risk for AFFs than White persons. Others have reported that specific femur geometry or physique and use of glucocorticoids increase AFF risk, Dr. Morin, from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, said in an interview.

The current study suggests that rheumatoid arthritis may be a risk factor, she added.

The fact that the rate of AFFs among patients who had not been exposed to bisphosphonates was higher than previously reported “may be due to differences in the method they used to ascertain the fractures or in medication use,” she speculated.

The clinical implications of research to date are that “the risk of AFF should not dissuade patients and providers from short-term use of bisphosphonates [3-5 years],” Dr. Bauer said. He noted that most patients should not take a bisphosphonate for longer than this unless they have a very high fracture risk.

Similarly, Dr. Morin said that clinicians “should consider initiating bisphosphonate in those at high risk for fractures and reevaluate their use after 3-6 years, depending on individual’s risk profile.”

AFF is serious but rare complication of bisphosphonate use

“Since first reported over 10 years ago, it has become clear that AFFs are a rare but serious complication of bisphosphonate therapy,” Dr. Bauer explained. However, there is still uncertainty about the magnitude of this risk, including the absolute risk for AFFs among adults who take bisphosphonates and those who do not.

To study this, the researchers analyzed data from national health care and pharmacy records and a radiology image database in Denmark. They identified almost 5,000 adults who were aged 50 years or older and who experienced a subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fracture during the period from 2010 to 2015. Two expert radiologists who were blinded to the patients’ clinical history or treatment identified AFF on the basis of ASBMR 2014 criteria.

The researchers compared three patient groups: 189 patients with AFF, 2,397 patients with typical subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures (no AFF), and35,946 adults aged older than 50 years (control persons).

Compared with patients with typical fractures, patients with AFF were younger (aged 71 vs. 77), more likely to be women (79% vs. 69%), and more likely to have RA (12% vs. 2.5%).

Compared with patients in the other two groups, those with AFF were more likely to use corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, statins, and hormone replacement therapy.

They were also more likely to use bisphosphonates (58%) than patients with typical subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures (19%) or control patients (10%).

The bisphosphonates used in Denmark at the time were mostly alendronate (85%) and rarely ibandronate (6%), intravenous zoledronic acid (5%), etidronate (3%), or risedronate (1%).
 

One-third of patients with AFFs had no bisphosphonate exposure

In this national cohort of adults aged older than 50 years, the absolute rates of AFF per 10,000 person-years were as follows: 0.07 in nonusers of bisphosphonates, 1.84 in those with 3-5 years of bisphosphonate use, and 4.63 in those with >7 years of bisphosphonate use. As a comparison, the rate of classic hip fracture was 43.8 per 10,000 person-years.

Compared with no bisphosphonate use, the relative risk for AFF was close to 40 times higher with more than 7 years of use, after adjusting for multiple confounders. The risk for AFF was also significantly higher among patients with RA or hypertension and for those who used proton pump inhibitors.

“Note that age, gender, and previous fracture were not associated with the risk of AFF” after controlling for multiple confounders, Dr. Bauer stressed.

The relative risk for AFF fell significantly after it had been withheld from use for more than 1 year.

Among the 189 patients with confirmed AFF, 64 patients (34%) had never taken a bisphosphonate.

Preliminary analysis showed that, among patients with AFF, those who had not been exposed to bisphosphonates were younger, more likely to be male, and less likely to have had a previous fracture, RA, or to have used corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, statins, or hormone-replacement therapy.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Bauer and Dr. Morin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a national study of older Danes who had previously had a fracture and were taking bisphosphonates, the risk of having a serious though rare atypical femoral fracture (AFF) was greater after 3-5 years of bisphosphonate use.

The risk quickly dropped after patients stopped taking a bisphosphonate, which suggests that bisphosphonate “holidays” may be useful for some patients, the researchers said. These findings support previous work.

But the study also found that 34% of the AFFs occurred in patients who had not been taking a bisphosphonate. That rate is higher than the 6%-22% that has been reported by others.

Doug Bauer, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, presented the new study findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research 2020 annual meeting.

“We found no clear risk factor that accounts for this increased risk [for AFFs] among those not exposed to bisphosphonates,” he said, “but we believe this was a real finding, as our study protocol ensured that the study radiologists were completely blinded to treatments received.”

Suzanne N. Morin, MD, who was not involved in this research, pointed out that the reported AFF risks related to bisphosphonate dose and cessation are in keeping with findings of other studies, including a recent large study by Dennis M. Black, MD, and colleagues that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

That study found that Asians are at higher risk for AFFs than White persons. Others have reported that specific femur geometry or physique and use of glucocorticoids increase AFF risk, Dr. Morin, from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, said in an interview.

The current study suggests that rheumatoid arthritis may be a risk factor, she added.

The fact that the rate of AFFs among patients who had not been exposed to bisphosphonates was higher than previously reported “may be due to differences in the method they used to ascertain the fractures or in medication use,” she speculated.

The clinical implications of research to date are that “the risk of AFF should not dissuade patients and providers from short-term use of bisphosphonates [3-5 years],” Dr. Bauer said. He noted that most patients should not take a bisphosphonate for longer than this unless they have a very high fracture risk.

Similarly, Dr. Morin said that clinicians “should consider initiating bisphosphonate in those at high risk for fractures and reevaluate their use after 3-6 years, depending on individual’s risk profile.”

AFF is serious but rare complication of bisphosphonate use

“Since first reported over 10 years ago, it has become clear that AFFs are a rare but serious complication of bisphosphonate therapy,” Dr. Bauer explained. However, there is still uncertainty about the magnitude of this risk, including the absolute risk for AFFs among adults who take bisphosphonates and those who do not.

To study this, the researchers analyzed data from national health care and pharmacy records and a radiology image database in Denmark. They identified almost 5,000 adults who were aged 50 years or older and who experienced a subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fracture during the period from 2010 to 2015. Two expert radiologists who were blinded to the patients’ clinical history or treatment identified AFF on the basis of ASBMR 2014 criteria.

The researchers compared three patient groups: 189 patients with AFF, 2,397 patients with typical subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures (no AFF), and35,946 adults aged older than 50 years (control persons).

Compared with patients with typical fractures, patients with AFF were younger (aged 71 vs. 77), more likely to be women (79% vs. 69%), and more likely to have RA (12% vs. 2.5%).

Compared with patients in the other two groups, those with AFF were more likely to use corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, statins, and hormone replacement therapy.

They were also more likely to use bisphosphonates (58%) than patients with typical subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures (19%) or control patients (10%).

The bisphosphonates used in Denmark at the time were mostly alendronate (85%) and rarely ibandronate (6%), intravenous zoledronic acid (5%), etidronate (3%), or risedronate (1%).
 

One-third of patients with AFFs had no bisphosphonate exposure

In this national cohort of adults aged older than 50 years, the absolute rates of AFF per 10,000 person-years were as follows: 0.07 in nonusers of bisphosphonates, 1.84 in those with 3-5 years of bisphosphonate use, and 4.63 in those with >7 years of bisphosphonate use. As a comparison, the rate of classic hip fracture was 43.8 per 10,000 person-years.

Compared with no bisphosphonate use, the relative risk for AFF was close to 40 times higher with more than 7 years of use, after adjusting for multiple confounders. The risk for AFF was also significantly higher among patients with RA or hypertension and for those who used proton pump inhibitors.

“Note that age, gender, and previous fracture were not associated with the risk of AFF” after controlling for multiple confounders, Dr. Bauer stressed.

The relative risk for AFF fell significantly after it had been withheld from use for more than 1 year.

Among the 189 patients with confirmed AFF, 64 patients (34%) had never taken a bisphosphonate.

Preliminary analysis showed that, among patients with AFF, those who had not been exposed to bisphosphonates were younger, more likely to be male, and less likely to have had a previous fracture, RA, or to have used corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, statins, or hormone-replacement therapy.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Bauer and Dr. Morin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-dose aspirin may be considered for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases who are at particularly high risk because of their individual cardiovascular risk profile, according to authors of a new review article in the journal Rheumatology who acknowledge the controversial nature of the issue, because while significant cardiovascular benefit from aspirin for secondary prevention is well established, it has not been for primary prevention.

Secondary prevention with daily, low-dose aspirin is part of aggressive, comprehensive risk modification in patients who have experienced an MI or stroke or are considered at high risk for CVD. But when it comes to primary prevention of the onset of disease, the authors, led by Serena Fasano, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Campania, Naples, Italy, acknowledged the contradictory positions of international guidelines and uncertainty over balancing benefit versus harm – including risk of mortality in the context of excess bleeding. They called for “robust data” from high-quality randomized, controlled trials for subgroups of patients with specific rheumatologic diseases in order to better answer the question of aspirin for primary prevention.

“This review is devoted to reporting the present knowledge on the effectiveness of low-dose [aspirin] in primary CV prevention in a number of autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases, not a systematic review or meta-analysis,” the authors stated. “We are not claiming to have covered more than a selection of the literature for each disease. Available data are not high-quality data and do not provide firm conclusions.”

The authors focused primarily on accelerated, rather than spontaneous, atherosclerosis or buildup of plaque in artery walls, implicated in ischemic heart diseases such as MI and ischemic cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke. They looked at its association with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, primarily systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and RA, but also including antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic sclerosis, mixed connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis/polymyositis, primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic vasculitis.

They shared results from a review of 167 patients with SLE consecutively admitted to their tertiary medical center who had not previously experienced a cardiovascular event and who were prescribed low-dose (100 mg) aspirin on their first visit and followed for 8 years. The cardiovascular event-free rate was higher in the aspirin group and no excess bleeding was noted, although this may be attributable to a younger patient population and routine use of proton pump inhibitors. Subsequently, hydroxychloroquine was added to the aspirin treatment and was associated with further reduction in cardiovascular events.

The research group also conducted a retrospective analysis of 746 patients with RA consecutively admitted to four tertiary medical centers who hadn’t experienced a cardiovascular event previously. Incidence of cardiovascular events was significantly lower in aspirin-treated patients.
 

Individualized aspirin prescribing with cardiologist comanagement

There may be a modest benefit of using low-dose aspirin on a long-term basis, but that benefit needs to be offset by the risk of bleeds, said M. Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, vice chair of rheumatology and director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic. It’s important to remind clinicians of cardiovascular risk, she said. “But the message for rheumatologists is it needs to be prescribed on an individual basis, rather than based on diagnosis of a rheumatic condition – at least until we have better evidence.”

Dr. Husni recommended keeping an open mind regarding individual approaches – for example, low-dose aspirin plus statins. A composite approach to prevention likely is called for, including attention to lifestyle issues such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight loss. “That kind of complexity in decision-making highlights the need for comanagement with a cardiologist,” she said. “I’m a big believer in comanagement. At my multidisciplinary medical center, I am able to pick up the phone and talk to a cardiologist with whom our group has a relationship.” If physicians don’t have that kind of relationship with a cardiology group, she suggested reaching out to establish one.

The review paper could give some guidance to rheumatologists for use on an individual case, Michael Nurmohamed, MD, PhD, of the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center in the Netherlands commented in an interview. “However, firm recommendations cannot be given as proper investigations are still lacking, as acknowledged by the authors. In addition, the review paper itself has some methodological constraints. Although this is a narrative review, the search strategy should have been specified, and a quality assessment of the individual studies is lacking.”

There is no doubt that the CVD burden in RA and other rheumatologic conditions is substantially increased in comparison to the general population, Dr. Nurmohamed said. That has been assessed by several well-designed, prospective, controlled studies. Other relatively frequent inflammatory arthropathies, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, also pose cardiovascular risk.

“Aspirin cannot be recommended for primary CVD prevention in inflammatory arthropathies due to the absence of adequate studies. That’s why the EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] guidelines did not recommend its use,” he said. Currently, a EULAR task force is developing evidence-based guidelines for primary CVD prevention in the diseases discussed by Fasano et al., where the use of aspirin will be reassessed. “As these guidelines will consider the methodological quality of the underlying studies, they will enable a more refined use of aspirin in daily clinical practice.”

Primary prevention of CVD using aspirin is not currently the standard of care in taking care of patients with rheumatologic disease in the Netherlands, Ronald F. van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, Dr. Nurmohamed’s colleague and director of the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center and the chair of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said in an interview.

“One reason may be the limited data, as highlighted in the review by Dr. Fasano and colleagues. However, another consideration is the problem of polypharmacy. Rheumatic diseases usually require chronic treatment, sometimes with multiple medications. This makes it even more of a concern to add an additional medication, even a relatively innocuous one such as low-dose aspirin,” he said.

Dr. Husni, Dr. Nurmohamed, and Dr. van Vollenhoven reported having no relevant disclosures. The authors of the review article had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Fasano S et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa335.

Low-dose aspirin may be considered for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases who are at particularly high risk because of their individual cardiovascular risk profile, according to authors of a new review article in the journal Rheumatology who acknowledge the controversial nature of the issue, because while significant cardiovascular benefit from aspirin for secondary prevention is well established, it has not been for primary prevention.

Secondary prevention with daily, low-dose aspirin is part of aggressive, comprehensive risk modification in patients who have experienced an MI or stroke or are considered at high risk for CVD. But when it comes to primary prevention of the onset of disease, the authors, led by Serena Fasano, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Campania, Naples, Italy, acknowledged the contradictory positions of international guidelines and uncertainty over balancing benefit versus harm – including risk of mortality in the context of excess bleeding. They called for “robust data” from high-quality randomized, controlled trials for subgroups of patients with specific rheumatologic diseases in order to better answer the question of aspirin for primary prevention.

“This review is devoted to reporting the present knowledge on the effectiveness of low-dose [aspirin] in primary CV prevention in a number of autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases, not a systematic review or meta-analysis,” the authors stated. “We are not claiming to have covered more than a selection of the literature for each disease. Available data are not high-quality data and do not provide firm conclusions.”

The authors focused primarily on accelerated, rather than spontaneous, atherosclerosis or buildup of plaque in artery walls, implicated in ischemic heart diseases such as MI and ischemic cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke. They looked at its association with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, primarily systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and RA, but also including antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic sclerosis, mixed connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis/polymyositis, primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic vasculitis.

They shared results from a review of 167 patients with SLE consecutively admitted to their tertiary medical center who had not previously experienced a cardiovascular event and who were prescribed low-dose (100 mg) aspirin on their first visit and followed for 8 years. The cardiovascular event-free rate was higher in the aspirin group and no excess bleeding was noted, although this may be attributable to a younger patient population and routine use of proton pump inhibitors. Subsequently, hydroxychloroquine was added to the aspirin treatment and was associated with further reduction in cardiovascular events.

The research group also conducted a retrospective analysis of 746 patients with RA consecutively admitted to four tertiary medical centers who hadn’t experienced a cardiovascular event previously. Incidence of cardiovascular events was significantly lower in aspirin-treated patients.
 

Individualized aspirin prescribing with cardiologist comanagement

There may be a modest benefit of using low-dose aspirin on a long-term basis, but that benefit needs to be offset by the risk of bleeds, said M. Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, vice chair of rheumatology and director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic. It’s important to remind clinicians of cardiovascular risk, she said. “But the message for rheumatologists is it needs to be prescribed on an individual basis, rather than based on diagnosis of a rheumatic condition – at least until we have better evidence.”

Dr. Husni recommended keeping an open mind regarding individual approaches – for example, low-dose aspirin plus statins. A composite approach to prevention likely is called for, including attention to lifestyle issues such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight loss. “That kind of complexity in decision-making highlights the need for comanagement with a cardiologist,” she said. “I’m a big believer in comanagement. At my multidisciplinary medical center, I am able to pick up the phone and talk to a cardiologist with whom our group has a relationship.” If physicians don’t have that kind of relationship with a cardiology group, she suggested reaching out to establish one.

The review paper could give some guidance to rheumatologists for use on an individual case, Michael Nurmohamed, MD, PhD, of the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center in the Netherlands commented in an interview. “However, firm recommendations cannot be given as proper investigations are still lacking, as acknowledged by the authors. In addition, the review paper itself has some methodological constraints. Although this is a narrative review, the search strategy should have been specified, and a quality assessment of the individual studies is lacking.”

There is no doubt that the CVD burden in RA and other rheumatologic conditions is substantially increased in comparison to the general population, Dr. Nurmohamed said. That has been assessed by several well-designed, prospective, controlled studies. Other relatively frequent inflammatory arthropathies, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, also pose cardiovascular risk.

“Aspirin cannot be recommended for primary CVD prevention in inflammatory arthropathies due to the absence of adequate studies. That’s why the EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] guidelines did not recommend its use,” he said. Currently, a EULAR task force is developing evidence-based guidelines for primary CVD prevention in the diseases discussed by Fasano et al., where the use of aspirin will be reassessed. “As these guidelines will consider the methodological quality of the underlying studies, they will enable a more refined use of aspirin in daily clinical practice.”

Primary prevention of CVD using aspirin is not currently the standard of care in taking care of patients with rheumatologic disease in the Netherlands, Ronald F. van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, Dr. Nurmohamed’s colleague and director of the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center and the chair of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said in an interview.

“One reason may be the limited data, as highlighted in the review by Dr. Fasano and colleagues. However, another consideration is the problem of polypharmacy. Rheumatic diseases usually require chronic treatment, sometimes with multiple medications. This makes it even more of a concern to add an additional medication, even a relatively innocuous one such as low-dose aspirin,” he said.

Dr. Husni, Dr. Nurmohamed, and Dr. van Vollenhoven reported having no relevant disclosures. The authors of the review article had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Fasano S et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa335.

Low-dose aspirin may be considered for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases who are at particularly high risk because of their individual cardiovascular risk profile, according to authors of a new review article in the journal Rheumatology who acknowledge the controversial nature of the issue, because while significant cardiovascular benefit from aspirin for secondary prevention is well established, it has not been for primary prevention.

Secondary prevention with daily, low-dose aspirin is part of aggressive, comprehensive risk modification in patients who have experienced an MI or stroke or are considered at high risk for CVD. But when it comes to primary prevention of the onset of disease, the authors, led by Serena Fasano, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Campania, Naples, Italy, acknowledged the contradictory positions of international guidelines and uncertainty over balancing benefit versus harm – including risk of mortality in the context of excess bleeding. They called for “robust data” from high-quality randomized, controlled trials for subgroups of patients with specific rheumatologic diseases in order to better answer the question of aspirin for primary prevention.

“This review is devoted to reporting the present knowledge on the effectiveness of low-dose [aspirin] in primary CV prevention in a number of autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases, not a systematic review or meta-analysis,” the authors stated. “We are not claiming to have covered more than a selection of the literature for each disease. Available data are not high-quality data and do not provide firm conclusions.”

The authors focused primarily on accelerated, rather than spontaneous, atherosclerosis or buildup of plaque in artery walls, implicated in ischemic heart diseases such as MI and ischemic cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke. They looked at its association with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, primarily systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and RA, but also including antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic sclerosis, mixed connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis/polymyositis, primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic vasculitis.

They shared results from a review of 167 patients with SLE consecutively admitted to their tertiary medical center who had not previously experienced a cardiovascular event and who were prescribed low-dose (100 mg) aspirin on their first visit and followed for 8 years. The cardiovascular event-free rate was higher in the aspirin group and no excess bleeding was noted, although this may be attributable to a younger patient population and routine use of proton pump inhibitors. Subsequently, hydroxychloroquine was added to the aspirin treatment and was associated with further reduction in cardiovascular events.

The research group also conducted a retrospective analysis of 746 patients with RA consecutively admitted to four tertiary medical centers who hadn’t experienced a cardiovascular event previously. Incidence of cardiovascular events was significantly lower in aspirin-treated patients.
 

Individualized aspirin prescribing with cardiologist comanagement

There may be a modest benefit of using low-dose aspirin on a long-term basis, but that benefit needs to be offset by the risk of bleeds, said M. Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, vice chair of rheumatology and director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic. It’s important to remind clinicians of cardiovascular risk, she said. “But the message for rheumatologists is it needs to be prescribed on an individual basis, rather than based on diagnosis of a rheumatic condition – at least until we have better evidence.”

Dr. Husni recommended keeping an open mind regarding individual approaches – for example, low-dose aspirin plus statins. A composite approach to prevention likely is called for, including attention to lifestyle issues such as smoking cessation, exercise, and weight loss. “That kind of complexity in decision-making highlights the need for comanagement with a cardiologist,” she said. “I’m a big believer in comanagement. At my multidisciplinary medical center, I am able to pick up the phone and talk to a cardiologist with whom our group has a relationship.” If physicians don’t have that kind of relationship with a cardiology group, she suggested reaching out to establish one.

The review paper could give some guidance to rheumatologists for use on an individual case, Michael Nurmohamed, MD, PhD, of the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center in the Netherlands commented in an interview. “However, firm recommendations cannot be given as proper investigations are still lacking, as acknowledged by the authors. In addition, the review paper itself has some methodological constraints. Although this is a narrative review, the search strategy should have been specified, and a quality assessment of the individual studies is lacking.”

There is no doubt that the CVD burden in RA and other rheumatologic conditions is substantially increased in comparison to the general population, Dr. Nurmohamed said. That has been assessed by several well-designed, prospective, controlled studies. Other relatively frequent inflammatory arthropathies, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, also pose cardiovascular risk.

“Aspirin cannot be recommended for primary CVD prevention in inflammatory arthropathies due to the absence of adequate studies. That’s why the EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] guidelines did not recommend its use,” he said. Currently, a EULAR task force is developing evidence-based guidelines for primary CVD prevention in the diseases discussed by Fasano et al., where the use of aspirin will be reassessed. “As these guidelines will consider the methodological quality of the underlying studies, they will enable a more refined use of aspirin in daily clinical practice.”

Primary prevention of CVD using aspirin is not currently the standard of care in taking care of patients with rheumatologic disease in the Netherlands, Ronald F. van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, Dr. Nurmohamed’s colleague and director of the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center and the chair of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said in an interview.

“One reason may be the limited data, as highlighted in the review by Dr. Fasano and colleagues. However, another consideration is the problem of polypharmacy. Rheumatic diseases usually require chronic treatment, sometimes with multiple medications. This makes it even more of a concern to add an additional medication, even a relatively innocuous one such as low-dose aspirin,” he said.

Dr. Husni, Dr. Nurmohamed, and Dr. van Vollenhoven reported having no relevant disclosures. The authors of the review article had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Fasano S et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa335.

“A treat-to-target approach is useful in the management of osteoporosis” was the motion proposed in a debate during the recent virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and when the votes came in, Michael McClung, MD, who argued against the motion, carried the day.

Agreement with the motion dropped from 63%-46% after McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, put his views forward in opposition to those of Celia L. Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol (England), who argued for the motion on behalf of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

Disagreement with the statement rose from 37% predebate to 54% in the postdebate audience polls.

“The debate is part education and part entertainment,” said Dr. McClung, who represented the ASBMR. “I could just as easily have made a strong argument for the motion,” he emphasized in an interview.

On the other hand, “had I been in the audience, as a member of ASBMR relying on data and evidence to make clinical decisions, I would have voted against the motion. As appealing as the strategy sounds, we don’t yet have the hard evidence to support its use nor is there a consensus about what an appropriate target should be, he noted.

Similarly, the debate comoderator and incoming ASBMR President, Suzanne M. Jan de Beur, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that a treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis is an attractive idea, but there is no consensus on how to apply it nor evidence that it improves clinical outcomes.
 

Treat to target to guide osteoporosis therapy is like going “backwards”

In treat to target, the target – such as bone mineral density (BMD) (the most common one) – is identified before treatment is started, Dr. McClung explained (and as stated in a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine he coauthored on the topic). 

“While treat to target has appealing concepts, using risk factors to guide therapy is almost backwards,” he said. “We can’t change bone density very much.”

Treat to target is “not quite ready for prime time,” he concluded in his rebuttal.

Invited to speculate on which of Dr. McClung’s arguments swayed the audience, Dr. Gregson conceded that with a treat-to-target strategy “there is too much focus on getting one target for the whole global population with osteoporosis.”

“This is an oversimplification of a complex disease, and it misses the main message that the target should be decided with the patient not for the patient, which means one can’t just have one rule for everyone. There has to be scope to have different targets for different people so that we can deliver individualized care.”

Also, she noted, “generally people don’t vote to change familiar systems.”
 

Arguments for treat to target

Dr. Gregson began her argument, however, by stating that treat to target “is now a feasible and useful approach in osteoporosis care.”

The main reasons for adopting this treatment strategy are as follows:

• It provides a proactive approach with a clear goal.
• It includes periodic treatment reassessment, which allows for prompt revisions to treatment.
• It can use targets to guide treatment timing and patient monitoring.
• It includes shared decision-making, the preferred method of patient care.
• It could improve treatment adherence through patient “buy-in” of the target.
• It can use targets to address the risk of rare side effects.
• It allows for sequential treatments, especially for patients at highest risk of fracture.
• It can include more patient-centered outcomes such as reduced , restored range of movement, and ability to live independently.

“Patients are not interested in their T-score. They are interested in pain,” said Dr. Gregson.

“Reduced fracture risk is a very important goal,” she emphasized. Patients “with osteoporosis and a high fracture risk have the most to gain from a treat-to-target approach.”

“Improved access to anabolic osteoporosis treatments mean achieving those goals or targets are now more achievable than ever,” she concluded.

Arguments against treat to target

“Do we truly have an appropriate, meaningful target for osteoporosis?” Dr. McClung began in his counterargument, which cast a seed of doubt in the minds of the audience.

Targets such as no fractures, fracture risk (FRAX score), bone turnover markers, and bone strength have limitations.

Moreover, “do we have treatment strategies to move patients to the chosen target?” he continued. “What is the evidence that a treat-to-target strategy provides better outcomes than our current treatment paradigm?”

After pointing out a lack of evidence that treat to target leads to better outcomes in osteoporosis, he did allow that “recent data about the relationship between treatment-related BMD values and current fracture risk are appreciated and welcomed.”

“However, a treat-to-target strategy will only be successful if the targets are individualized for each patient, those targets are attainable for most patients, and we have evidence that adopting this strategy improves clinical outcomes,” he summarized.

He then quoted his late wife Betsy Love McClung, RN, MN, who had said, “We don’t treat osteoporosis; we treat patients with osteoporosis.”

Dr. McClung wrapped up by stressing: “We should not treat T-scores or any other specific target. We should individualize our therapy based upon the patient’s risk of fracture and other clinical factors.”

As members of the ECTS and ASBMR, and “proud of our reputation of our societies as being scientifically based and driven,” Dr. McClung concluded, “recognizing that a treat-to-target strategy has appeal, we should certainly encourage more research and be attentive to those results.

“But we must hold off on the adoption of the strategy until we have evidence convincing us of its clinical value.”
 

When to use a treat-to-target strategy

However, “there are some specific situations where I use something like a treat-to-target strategy,” Dr. McClung conceded. “That is, I make decisions and recommendations to the patients about one drug rather than another because I want to maximize the improvement in their bone density.”

For example, “We have known for 15 years that denosumab results in greater increases in bone density than do bisphosphonates,” he continued.

“So I have used that information to make treatment decisions long before the term ‘treat to target’ entered the vocabulary of osteoporosis experts. I simply wanted to induce the largest possible gains in bone density – but I didn’t have a ‘target’ in mind.”

But for most patients, treatment decisions are made based on other factors, such as their fracture risk, he added. BMD is an important risk factor for fracture, but not as important as having had a recent fracture or being old and frail.

“Unfortunately, in most of today’s health systems, decisions about treatment are made on the basis of cost,” he continued. “More often than not, the health plan rules rather than optimal medical practice are the main guides to treatment decisions.”   

According to Dr. Gregson, “in some instances, treat to target would be very helpful. I don’t think it will suit everyone, but I think we should have it in our portfolio of management approaches, and we should as an osteoporosis community be trained in its use.”
 

“Attractive idea, but ...”

Invited to weigh in, Dr. Jan de Beur noted that A1c, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol targets are used to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, respectively.

However, “treat to target for the treatment of low BMD is controversial because it is an attractive idea but without consensus on what the target should be and without evidence that treat to target improves clinical outcomes,” she reiterated.

“The potential benefits of treat to target are proactive, clear goals to achieve, shared decision-making with the patient, the possibility for improved adherence, justification for sequence treatments, and balancing risk of rare side effects.”

On the other hand, “barriers to operationalizing the treat-to-target concept is that there is lack of consensus on the target to be achieved [as any specific target may minimize other important risk factors],” she noted.

There is also a “lack of evidence that demonstrates improved clinical outcomes over choosing therapy based on fracture risk, and lack of ability to achieve the target with available therapies in those with very-low bone density,” she concluded.

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant and speaker honoraria from Amgen. Dr. Gregson and Dr. Jan de Beur have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“A treat-to-target approach is useful in the management of osteoporosis” was the motion proposed in a debate during the recent virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and when the votes came in, Michael McClung, MD, who argued against the motion, carried the day.

Agreement with the motion dropped from 63%-46% after McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, put his views forward in opposition to those of Celia L. Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol (England), who argued for the motion on behalf of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

Disagreement with the statement rose from 37% predebate to 54% in the postdebate audience polls.

“The debate is part education and part entertainment,” said Dr. McClung, who represented the ASBMR. “I could just as easily have made a strong argument for the motion,” he emphasized in an interview.

On the other hand, “had I been in the audience, as a member of ASBMR relying on data and evidence to make clinical decisions, I would have voted against the motion. As appealing as the strategy sounds, we don’t yet have the hard evidence to support its use nor is there a consensus about what an appropriate target should be, he noted.

Similarly, the debate comoderator and incoming ASBMR President, Suzanne M. Jan de Beur, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that a treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis is an attractive idea, but there is no consensus on how to apply it nor evidence that it improves clinical outcomes.
 

Treat to target to guide osteoporosis therapy is like going “backwards”

In treat to target, the target – such as bone mineral density (BMD) (the most common one) – is identified before treatment is started, Dr. McClung explained (and as stated in a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine he coauthored on the topic). 

“While treat to target has appealing concepts, using risk factors to guide therapy is almost backwards,” he said. “We can’t change bone density very much.”

Treat to target is “not quite ready for prime time,” he concluded in his rebuttal.

Invited to speculate on which of Dr. McClung’s arguments swayed the audience, Dr. Gregson conceded that with a treat-to-target strategy “there is too much focus on getting one target for the whole global population with osteoporosis.”

“This is an oversimplification of a complex disease, and it misses the main message that the target should be decided with the patient not for the patient, which means one can’t just have one rule for everyone. There has to be scope to have different targets for different people so that we can deliver individualized care.”

Also, she noted, “generally people don’t vote to change familiar systems.”
 

Arguments for treat to target

Dr. Gregson began her argument, however, by stating that treat to target “is now a feasible and useful approach in osteoporosis care.”

The main reasons for adopting this treatment strategy are as follows:

• It provides a proactive approach with a clear goal.
• It includes periodic treatment reassessment, which allows for prompt revisions to treatment.
• It can use targets to guide treatment timing and patient monitoring.
• It includes shared decision-making, the preferred method of patient care.
• It could improve treatment adherence through patient “buy-in” of the target.
• It can use targets to address the risk of rare side effects.
• It allows for sequential treatments, especially for patients at highest risk of fracture.
• It can include more patient-centered outcomes such as reduced , restored range of movement, and ability to live independently.

“Patients are not interested in their T-score. They are interested in pain,” said Dr. Gregson.

“Reduced fracture risk is a very important goal,” she emphasized. Patients “with osteoporosis and a high fracture risk have the most to gain from a treat-to-target approach.”

“Improved access to anabolic osteoporosis treatments mean achieving those goals or targets are now more achievable than ever,” she concluded.

Arguments against treat to target

“Do we truly have an appropriate, meaningful target for osteoporosis?” Dr. McClung began in his counterargument, which cast a seed of doubt in the minds of the audience.

Targets such as no fractures, fracture risk (FRAX score), bone turnover markers, and bone strength have limitations.

Moreover, “do we have treatment strategies to move patients to the chosen target?” he continued. “What is the evidence that a treat-to-target strategy provides better outcomes than our current treatment paradigm?”

After pointing out a lack of evidence that treat to target leads to better outcomes in osteoporosis, he did allow that “recent data about the relationship between treatment-related BMD values and current fracture risk are appreciated and welcomed.”

“However, a treat-to-target strategy will only be successful if the targets are individualized for each patient, those targets are attainable for most patients, and we have evidence that adopting this strategy improves clinical outcomes,” he summarized.

He then quoted his late wife Betsy Love McClung, RN, MN, who had said, “We don’t treat osteoporosis; we treat patients with osteoporosis.”

Dr. McClung wrapped up by stressing: “We should not treat T-scores or any other specific target. We should individualize our therapy based upon the patient’s risk of fracture and other clinical factors.”

As members of the ECTS and ASBMR, and “proud of our reputation of our societies as being scientifically based and driven,” Dr. McClung concluded, “recognizing that a treat-to-target strategy has appeal, we should certainly encourage more research and be attentive to those results.

“But we must hold off on the adoption of the strategy until we have evidence convincing us of its clinical value.”
 

When to use a treat-to-target strategy

However, “there are some specific situations where I use something like a treat-to-target strategy,” Dr. McClung conceded. “That is, I make decisions and recommendations to the patients about one drug rather than another because I want to maximize the improvement in their bone density.”

For example, “We have known for 15 years that denosumab results in greater increases in bone density than do bisphosphonates,” he continued.

“So I have used that information to make treatment decisions long before the term ‘treat to target’ entered the vocabulary of osteoporosis experts. I simply wanted to induce the largest possible gains in bone density – but I didn’t have a ‘target’ in mind.”

But for most patients, treatment decisions are made based on other factors, such as their fracture risk, he added. BMD is an important risk factor for fracture, but not as important as having had a recent fracture or being old and frail.

“Unfortunately, in most of today’s health systems, decisions about treatment are made on the basis of cost,” he continued. “More often than not, the health plan rules rather than optimal medical practice are the main guides to treatment decisions.”   

According to Dr. Gregson, “in some instances, treat to target would be very helpful. I don’t think it will suit everyone, but I think we should have it in our portfolio of management approaches, and we should as an osteoporosis community be trained in its use.”
 

“Attractive idea, but ...”

Invited to weigh in, Dr. Jan de Beur noted that A1c, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol targets are used to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, respectively.

However, “treat to target for the treatment of low BMD is controversial because it is an attractive idea but without consensus on what the target should be and without evidence that treat to target improves clinical outcomes,” she reiterated.

“The potential benefits of treat to target are proactive, clear goals to achieve, shared decision-making with the patient, the possibility for improved adherence, justification for sequence treatments, and balancing risk of rare side effects.”

On the other hand, “barriers to operationalizing the treat-to-target concept is that there is lack of consensus on the target to be achieved [as any specific target may minimize other important risk factors],” she noted.

There is also a “lack of evidence that demonstrates improved clinical outcomes over choosing therapy based on fracture risk, and lack of ability to achieve the target with available therapies in those with very-low bone density,” she concluded.

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant and speaker honoraria from Amgen. Dr. Gregson and Dr. Jan de Beur have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“A treat-to-target approach is useful in the management of osteoporosis” was the motion proposed in a debate during the recent virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and when the votes came in, Michael McClung, MD, who argued against the motion, carried the day.

Agreement with the motion dropped from 63%-46% after McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland, put his views forward in opposition to those of Celia L. Gregson, PhD, University of Bristol (England), who argued for the motion on behalf of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

Disagreement with the statement rose from 37% predebate to 54% in the postdebate audience polls.

“The debate is part education and part entertainment,” said Dr. McClung, who represented the ASBMR. “I could just as easily have made a strong argument for the motion,” he emphasized in an interview.

On the other hand, “had I been in the audience, as a member of ASBMR relying on data and evidence to make clinical decisions, I would have voted against the motion. As appealing as the strategy sounds, we don’t yet have the hard evidence to support its use nor is there a consensus about what an appropriate target should be, he noted.

Similarly, the debate comoderator and incoming ASBMR President, Suzanne M. Jan de Beur, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that a treat-to-target strategy for osteoporosis is an attractive idea, but there is no consensus on how to apply it nor evidence that it improves clinical outcomes.
 

Treat to target to guide osteoporosis therapy is like going “backwards”

In treat to target, the target – such as bone mineral density (BMD) (the most common one) – is identified before treatment is started, Dr. McClung explained (and as stated in a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine he coauthored on the topic). 

“While treat to target has appealing concepts, using risk factors to guide therapy is almost backwards,” he said. “We can’t change bone density very much.”

Treat to target is “not quite ready for prime time,” he concluded in his rebuttal.

Invited to speculate on which of Dr. McClung’s arguments swayed the audience, Dr. Gregson conceded that with a treat-to-target strategy “there is too much focus on getting one target for the whole global population with osteoporosis.”

“This is an oversimplification of a complex disease, and it misses the main message that the target should be decided with the patient not for the patient, which means one can’t just have one rule for everyone. There has to be scope to have different targets for different people so that we can deliver individualized care.”

Also, she noted, “generally people don’t vote to change familiar systems.”
 

Arguments for treat to target

Dr. Gregson began her argument, however, by stating that treat to target “is now a feasible and useful approach in osteoporosis care.”

The main reasons for adopting this treatment strategy are as follows:

• It provides a proactive approach with a clear goal.
• It includes periodic treatment reassessment, which allows for prompt revisions to treatment.
• It can use targets to guide treatment timing and patient monitoring.
• It includes shared decision-making, the preferred method of patient care.
• It could improve treatment adherence through patient “buy-in” of the target.
• It can use targets to address the risk of rare side effects.
• It allows for sequential treatments, especially for patients at highest risk of fracture.
• It can include more patient-centered outcomes such as reduced , restored range of movement, and ability to live independently.

“Patients are not interested in their T-score. They are interested in pain,” said Dr. Gregson.

“Reduced fracture risk is a very important goal,” she emphasized. Patients “with osteoporosis and a high fracture risk have the most to gain from a treat-to-target approach.”

“Improved access to anabolic osteoporosis treatments mean achieving those goals or targets are now more achievable than ever,” she concluded.

Arguments against treat to target

“Do we truly have an appropriate, meaningful target for osteoporosis?” Dr. McClung began in his counterargument, which cast a seed of doubt in the minds of the audience.

Targets such as no fractures, fracture risk (FRAX score), bone turnover markers, and bone strength have limitations.

Moreover, “do we have treatment strategies to move patients to the chosen target?” he continued. “What is the evidence that a treat-to-target strategy provides better outcomes than our current treatment paradigm?”

After pointing out a lack of evidence that treat to target leads to better outcomes in osteoporosis, he did allow that “recent data about the relationship between treatment-related BMD values and current fracture risk are appreciated and welcomed.”

“However, a treat-to-target strategy will only be successful if the targets are individualized for each patient, those targets are attainable for most patients, and we have evidence that adopting this strategy improves clinical outcomes,” he summarized.

He then quoted his late wife Betsy Love McClung, RN, MN, who had said, “We don’t treat osteoporosis; we treat patients with osteoporosis.”

Dr. McClung wrapped up by stressing: “We should not treat T-scores or any other specific target. We should individualize our therapy based upon the patient’s risk of fracture and other clinical factors.”

As members of the ECTS and ASBMR, and “proud of our reputation of our societies as being scientifically based and driven,” Dr. McClung concluded, “recognizing that a treat-to-target strategy has appeal, we should certainly encourage more research and be attentive to those results.

“But we must hold off on the adoption of the strategy until we have evidence convincing us of its clinical value.”
 

When to use a treat-to-target strategy

However, “there are some specific situations where I use something like a treat-to-target strategy,” Dr. McClung conceded. “That is, I make decisions and recommendations to the patients about one drug rather than another because I want to maximize the improvement in their bone density.”

For example, “We have known for 15 years that denosumab results in greater increases in bone density than do bisphosphonates,” he continued.

“So I have used that information to make treatment decisions long before the term ‘treat to target’ entered the vocabulary of osteoporosis experts. I simply wanted to induce the largest possible gains in bone density – but I didn’t have a ‘target’ in mind.”

But for most patients, treatment decisions are made based on other factors, such as their fracture risk, he added. BMD is an important risk factor for fracture, but not as important as having had a recent fracture or being old and frail.

“Unfortunately, in most of today’s health systems, decisions about treatment are made on the basis of cost,” he continued. “More often than not, the health plan rules rather than optimal medical practice are the main guides to treatment decisions.”   

According to Dr. Gregson, “in some instances, treat to target would be very helpful. I don’t think it will suit everyone, but I think we should have it in our portfolio of management approaches, and we should as an osteoporosis community be trained in its use.”
 

“Attractive idea, but ...”

Invited to weigh in, Dr. Jan de Beur noted that A1c, blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol targets are used to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, respectively.

However, “treat to target for the treatment of low BMD is controversial because it is an attractive idea but without consensus on what the target should be and without evidence that treat to target improves clinical outcomes,” she reiterated.

“The potential benefits of treat to target are proactive, clear goals to achieve, shared decision-making with the patient, the possibility for improved adherence, justification for sequence treatments, and balancing risk of rare side effects.”

On the other hand, “barriers to operationalizing the treat-to-target concept is that there is lack of consensus on the target to be achieved [as any specific target may minimize other important risk factors],” she noted.

There is also a “lack of evidence that demonstrates improved clinical outcomes over choosing therapy based on fracture risk, and lack of ability to achieve the target with available therapies in those with very-low bone density,” she concluded.

Dr. McClung has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and Myovant and speaker honoraria from Amgen. Dr. Gregson and Dr. Jan de Beur have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Systemic lupus erythematosus remains a treatment challenge, but a variety of drugs in the pipeline are set to target type I interferons, cytokines, and B cells, according to Richard Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

In general, when treating patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), “we just don’t see satisfactory response rates,” Dr. Furie said in an online presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“I think the greatest unmet need is in lupus nephritis,” he said. The data show that not even one-third of patients are adequately responding to standard of care treatment. “We need to do better in lupus nephritis but also for those patients with moderate-severe manifestations outside the kidney.”

Patients with SLE have elevated levels of interferon-alpha, Dr. Furie noted. Data from recent studies show that interferon inhibitors can reduce clinical activity in SLE patients, he said.

“About two-thirds to three-quarters of lupus patients have evidence of interferon pathway activation,” he said. There are three types of interferons, and five subtypes of type I interferon, and all five subtypes of type I interferon bind to the same receptor, which is an important strategy for drug development.

In particular, recent phase 2 and 3 trials have focused on targeting type I interferons with anifrolumab, which blocks all five subtypes.

Dr. Furie cited “very robust results” from a phase 2 study. Results of two phase 3 trials of anifrolumab led to a split decision, but the totality of the data collected across the phase 2 and 3 studies points to a drug that is effective for patients with SLE. The two phase 3 studies were published in Lancet Rheumatology and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Furie also identified recent studies of baricitinib (Olumiant), which has the ability to target several different cytokines. A phase 2 study in 2018 showed a significant difference in SLE Responder Index between lupus patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib or placebo, and a phase 3 study is underway, he said.

For lupus nephritis, Dr. Furie cited the BLISS-LN trial, a 104-week, randomized trial of patients with active lupus nephritis. The group of patients who received belimumab (Benlysta), a monoclonal antibody that targets B-cell activating factor, in addition to standard therapy had significant improvements in renal responses, compared with standard therapy alone (43.0% vs. 32.3%). The outcome measure was Primary Efficacy Renal Response, defined as urinary protein/creatinine ratio <0.7, eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m², confirmation on consecutive visits, and required tapering of background glucocorticoids.

Although belimumab was approved for SLE in 2011, the BLISS-LN study focused on SLE patients with active kidney disease. “Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys represented a compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” he explained.

Voclosporin, distinct from cyclosporine, has also been studied in lupus nephritis, Dr. Furie said. Voclosporin offers several benefits over cyclosporine, including greater potency and a lower drug and metabolite load, as well as a more consistent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationship, he said. In the phase 3 AURORA study, presented at this year’s EULAR congress, 40% of patients with lupus nephritis met the primary endpoint of a renal response at 52 weeks, compared with 22.5% of placebo patients.

Looking ahead to the treatment of SLE in 2021, “I feel very strongly that voclosporin will be approved for lupus nephritis,” he said. He also predicted that the use of belimumab will be officially extended for lupus nephritis and that anifrolumab will receive an approval for SLE patients.

In addition, the future may witness the increased use of biomarkers and development of more individualized therapy. These breakthroughs will yield better outcomes for all lupus patients, he said.

Dr. Furie disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Eli Lilly. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Systemic lupus erythematosus remains a treatment challenge, but a variety of drugs in the pipeline are set to target type I interferons, cytokines, and B cells, according to Richard Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

In general, when treating patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), “we just don’t see satisfactory response rates,” Dr. Furie said in an online presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“I think the greatest unmet need is in lupus nephritis,” he said. The data show that not even one-third of patients are adequately responding to standard of care treatment. “We need to do better in lupus nephritis but also for those patients with moderate-severe manifestations outside the kidney.”

Patients with SLE have elevated levels of interferon-alpha, Dr. Furie noted. Data from recent studies show that interferon inhibitors can reduce clinical activity in SLE patients, he said.

“About two-thirds to three-quarters of lupus patients have evidence of interferon pathway activation,” he said. There are three types of interferons, and five subtypes of type I interferon, and all five subtypes of type I interferon bind to the same receptor, which is an important strategy for drug development.

In particular, recent phase 2 and 3 trials have focused on targeting type I interferons with anifrolumab, which blocks all five subtypes.

Dr. Furie cited “very robust results” from a phase 2 study. Results of two phase 3 trials of anifrolumab led to a split decision, but the totality of the data collected across the phase 2 and 3 studies points to a drug that is effective for patients with SLE. The two phase 3 studies were published in Lancet Rheumatology and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Furie also identified recent studies of baricitinib (Olumiant), which has the ability to target several different cytokines. A phase 2 study in 2018 showed a significant difference in SLE Responder Index between lupus patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib or placebo, and a phase 3 study is underway, he said.

For lupus nephritis, Dr. Furie cited the BLISS-LN trial, a 104-week, randomized trial of patients with active lupus nephritis. The group of patients who received belimumab (Benlysta), a monoclonal antibody that targets B-cell activating factor, in addition to standard therapy had significant improvements in renal responses, compared with standard therapy alone (43.0% vs. 32.3%). The outcome measure was Primary Efficacy Renal Response, defined as urinary protein/creatinine ratio <0.7, eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m², confirmation on consecutive visits, and required tapering of background glucocorticoids.

Although belimumab was approved for SLE in 2011, the BLISS-LN study focused on SLE patients with active kidney disease. “Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys represented a compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” he explained.

Voclosporin, distinct from cyclosporine, has also been studied in lupus nephritis, Dr. Furie said. Voclosporin offers several benefits over cyclosporine, including greater potency and a lower drug and metabolite load, as well as a more consistent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationship, he said. In the phase 3 AURORA study, presented at this year’s EULAR congress, 40% of patients with lupus nephritis met the primary endpoint of a renal response at 52 weeks, compared with 22.5% of placebo patients.

Looking ahead to the treatment of SLE in 2021, “I feel very strongly that voclosporin will be approved for lupus nephritis,” he said. He also predicted that the use of belimumab will be officially extended for lupus nephritis and that anifrolumab will receive an approval for SLE patients.

In addition, the future may witness the increased use of biomarkers and development of more individualized therapy. These breakthroughs will yield better outcomes for all lupus patients, he said.

Dr. Furie disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Eli Lilly. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Systemic lupus erythematosus remains a treatment challenge, but a variety of drugs in the pipeline are set to target type I interferons, cytokines, and B cells, according to Richard Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

In general, when treating patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), “we just don’t see satisfactory response rates,” Dr. Furie said in an online presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“I think the greatest unmet need is in lupus nephritis,” he said. The data show that not even one-third of patients are adequately responding to standard of care treatment. “We need to do better in lupus nephritis but also for those patients with moderate-severe manifestations outside the kidney.”

Patients with SLE have elevated levels of interferon-alpha, Dr. Furie noted. Data from recent studies show that interferon inhibitors can reduce clinical activity in SLE patients, he said.

“About two-thirds to three-quarters of lupus patients have evidence of interferon pathway activation,” he said. There are three types of interferons, and five subtypes of type I interferon, and all five subtypes of type I interferon bind to the same receptor, which is an important strategy for drug development.

In particular, recent phase 2 and 3 trials have focused on targeting type I interferons with anifrolumab, which blocks all five subtypes.

Dr. Furie cited “very robust results” from a phase 2 study. Results of two phase 3 trials of anifrolumab led to a split decision, but the totality of the data collected across the phase 2 and 3 studies points to a drug that is effective for patients with SLE. The two phase 3 studies were published in Lancet Rheumatology and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Furie also identified recent studies of baricitinib (Olumiant), which has the ability to target several different cytokines. A phase 2 study in 2018 showed a significant difference in SLE Responder Index between lupus patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib or placebo, and a phase 3 study is underway, he said.

For lupus nephritis, Dr. Furie cited the BLISS-LN trial, a 104-week, randomized trial of patients with active lupus nephritis. The group of patients who received belimumab (Benlysta), a monoclonal antibody that targets B-cell activating factor, in addition to standard therapy had significant improvements in renal responses, compared with standard therapy alone (43.0% vs. 32.3%). The outcome measure was Primary Efficacy Renal Response, defined as urinary protein/creatinine ratio <0.7, eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m², confirmation on consecutive visits, and required tapering of background glucocorticoids.

Although belimumab was approved for SLE in 2011, the BLISS-LN study focused on SLE patients with active kidney disease. “Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys represented a compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” he explained.

Voclosporin, distinct from cyclosporine, has also been studied in lupus nephritis, Dr. Furie said. Voclosporin offers several benefits over cyclosporine, including greater potency and a lower drug and metabolite load, as well as a more consistent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationship, he said. In the phase 3 AURORA study, presented at this year’s EULAR congress, 40% of patients with lupus nephritis met the primary endpoint of a renal response at 52 weeks, compared with 22.5% of placebo patients.

Looking ahead to the treatment of SLE in 2021, “I feel very strongly that voclosporin will be approved for lupus nephritis,” he said. He also predicted that the use of belimumab will be officially extended for lupus nephritis and that anifrolumab will receive an approval for SLE patients.

In addition, the future may witness the increased use of biomarkers and development of more individualized therapy. These breakthroughs will yield better outcomes for all lupus patients, he said.

Dr. Furie disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Eli Lilly. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

A new study has found that late-onset neutropenia is a notably common and occasionally serious occurrence in rituximab-treated patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The literature on late-onset neutropenia – or LON – has, to date, been limited in size and scope,” first author Reza Zonozi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “At the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Mass General, we’ve seen a number of cases of LON. Even though most are incidental and can be self-limiting, some can be severe and associated with sepsis. As such, we’ve come to appreciate it as one of the more concerning side effects of rituximab.

“Our hope was to offer a practical analysis of LON, how often it happens, and what it looks like,” he added, “as well as to share our approach to its management.” Their findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To investigate the incidence, clinical features and outcomes of LON, the researchers launched a study of 738 adult patients with autoimmune diseases who were being treated with rituximab-induced continuous B-cell depletion. For the purposes of this study, LON was defined as an unexplained absolute neutrophil count of less than 1,000 cells/mcL during the period of B-cell depletion. Regarding disease type, 529 of the patients had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), 73 had membranous nephropathy (MN), 59 had minimal change disease or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (MCD/FSGS), 24 had lupus nephritis, and 53 had another autoimmune disease. Their average age was 58, and 53% were female.

All patients received a median of eight doses of rituximab – most commonly administered as one 1,000-mg IV dose every 4-6 months – and were in a state of B-cell depletion for a median of 2.5 years. Two months of low-dose daily oral cyclophosphamide was also used concurrently in 70% (n = 515) of patients. Glucocorticoids were used in 95% (n = 698) of patients.

During follow-up, 107 episodes of LON occurred in 71 patients. At 1, 2, and 5 years of continuous B-cell depletion, the incidence of LON was 6.6% (95% confidence interval, 5.0%-8.7%), 7.9% (95% CI, 6.1%-10.2%), and 13.5% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.4%), respectively. The first year following treatment initiation saw a much higher incidence rate of 7.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 5.4-9.6), compared with the rate thereafter of 1.5 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). LON occurred at a median of 4.1 months (interquartile range, 1.6-23.1) after the first rituximab infusion. The most common treatment for a LON episode was filgrastim.

Of the 107 episodes, 63 (59%) were asymptomatic. No infections were identified in asymptomatic episodes, while infections were identified in all symptomatic episodes. The most common symptom was a fever, and all 30 patients with LON and fever were hospitalized for management of febrile neutropenia. Four of the episodes included gingival soreness, and eight were complicated by sepsis. All the sepsis cases were resolved with standard therapy. One patient died with multiple relapsing LON.

Of the 71 patients with LON, 9 were not rechallenged with rituximab. A total of four of those patients had second LON episodes. Of the 62 patients who were rechallenged, 13 had second LON episodes over a median follow-up period of 2.4 years. The cumulative incidence of recurrent LON at 1, 2, and 5 years after rechallenge was 11.5% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.6%), 23.4% (95% CI, 13.8%-38.2%), and 30.4% (95% CI, 16.9%-50.9%), respectively.

Percentagewise, LON occurred significantly more often in patients with lupus nephritis (25%) than in patients with AAV (10.4%), MN (8.2%), or other diseases (7.6%) (P = .03). LON did not occur in any of the patients with MCD/FSGS. After multivariable analysis, lupus nephritis was associated with higher odds of developing LON (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.10-8.01). A multivariable model also found that patients treated with cyclophosphamide and rituximab had higher odds of developing LON, compared with patients who did not receive cyclophosphamide (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06-3.71).

 

Still more to learn about what leads to LON

“In large part, these findings quantify what our experience has been with LON in clinical practice,” Dr. Zonozi said. “It is indeed common, it’s often incidental, and most cases are reversible and respond well to treatment. But it can be associated with severe infections, including sepsis, and warrants close monitoring.”

In an interview, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, observed that this incidence rate was notably higher than what he’d seen previously. Dr. Md Yusof presented at EULAR Congress 2015 on rituximab and LON, finding that 23 patients (2.5%) from a cohort of 912 developed rituximab-associated neutropenia.

“Most of our cases were in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he added, “so it may just be a difference in cohorts.”

Regardless, he applauded additional research in this area, noting that “the etiology of rituximab-associated LON is still unclear. The reasons behind this occurrence need investigating, particularly in regard to severe neutropenia cases. If we can find the predictors of those, it will be extremely helpful for the future of treatment.”

Dr. Zonozi agreed that “more investigation is needed to accurately define the mechanism of LON, which remains unknown. This will likely lead to more targeted strategies to both prevent and treat it.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being a single-center study that relied on retrospective data collection. They also acknowledged that, because the center is a nephrology-based practice, there was a low number of certain diseases like RA, opening up the possibility that “rates of LON are different” in those patients.

Two authors’ work on the study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zonozi R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41501.

A new study has found that late-onset neutropenia is a notably common and occasionally serious occurrence in rituximab-treated patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The literature on late-onset neutropenia – or LON – has, to date, been limited in size and scope,” first author Reza Zonozi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “At the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Mass General, we’ve seen a number of cases of LON. Even though most are incidental and can be self-limiting, some can be severe and associated with sepsis. As such, we’ve come to appreciate it as one of the more concerning side effects of rituximab.

“Our hope was to offer a practical analysis of LON, how often it happens, and what it looks like,” he added, “as well as to share our approach to its management.” Their findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To investigate the incidence, clinical features and outcomes of LON, the researchers launched a study of 738 adult patients with autoimmune diseases who were being treated with rituximab-induced continuous B-cell depletion. For the purposes of this study, LON was defined as an unexplained absolute neutrophil count of less than 1,000 cells/mcL during the period of B-cell depletion. Regarding disease type, 529 of the patients had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), 73 had membranous nephropathy (MN), 59 had minimal change disease or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (MCD/FSGS), 24 had lupus nephritis, and 53 had another autoimmune disease. Their average age was 58, and 53% were female.

All patients received a median of eight doses of rituximab – most commonly administered as one 1,000-mg IV dose every 4-6 months – and were in a state of B-cell depletion for a median of 2.5 years. Two months of low-dose daily oral cyclophosphamide was also used concurrently in 70% (n = 515) of patients. Glucocorticoids were used in 95% (n = 698) of patients.

During follow-up, 107 episodes of LON occurred in 71 patients. At 1, 2, and 5 years of continuous B-cell depletion, the incidence of LON was 6.6% (95% confidence interval, 5.0%-8.7%), 7.9% (95% CI, 6.1%-10.2%), and 13.5% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.4%), respectively. The first year following treatment initiation saw a much higher incidence rate of 7.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 5.4-9.6), compared with the rate thereafter of 1.5 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). LON occurred at a median of 4.1 months (interquartile range, 1.6-23.1) after the first rituximab infusion. The most common treatment for a LON episode was filgrastim.

Of the 107 episodes, 63 (59%) were asymptomatic. No infections were identified in asymptomatic episodes, while infections were identified in all symptomatic episodes. The most common symptom was a fever, and all 30 patients with LON and fever were hospitalized for management of febrile neutropenia. Four of the episodes included gingival soreness, and eight were complicated by sepsis. All the sepsis cases were resolved with standard therapy. One patient died with multiple relapsing LON.

Of the 71 patients with LON, 9 were not rechallenged with rituximab. A total of four of those patients had second LON episodes. Of the 62 patients who were rechallenged, 13 had second LON episodes over a median follow-up period of 2.4 years. The cumulative incidence of recurrent LON at 1, 2, and 5 years after rechallenge was 11.5% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.6%), 23.4% (95% CI, 13.8%-38.2%), and 30.4% (95% CI, 16.9%-50.9%), respectively.

Percentagewise, LON occurred significantly more often in patients with lupus nephritis (25%) than in patients with AAV (10.4%), MN (8.2%), or other diseases (7.6%) (P = .03). LON did not occur in any of the patients with MCD/FSGS. After multivariable analysis, lupus nephritis was associated with higher odds of developing LON (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.10-8.01). A multivariable model also found that patients treated with cyclophosphamide and rituximab had higher odds of developing LON, compared with patients who did not receive cyclophosphamide (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06-3.71).

 

Still more to learn about what leads to LON

“In large part, these findings quantify what our experience has been with LON in clinical practice,” Dr. Zonozi said. “It is indeed common, it’s often incidental, and most cases are reversible and respond well to treatment. But it can be associated with severe infections, including sepsis, and warrants close monitoring.”

In an interview, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, observed that this incidence rate was notably higher than what he’d seen previously. Dr. Md Yusof presented at EULAR Congress 2015 on rituximab and LON, finding that 23 patients (2.5%) from a cohort of 912 developed rituximab-associated neutropenia.

“Most of our cases were in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he added, “so it may just be a difference in cohorts.”

Regardless, he applauded additional research in this area, noting that “the etiology of rituximab-associated LON is still unclear. The reasons behind this occurrence need investigating, particularly in regard to severe neutropenia cases. If we can find the predictors of those, it will be extremely helpful for the future of treatment.”

Dr. Zonozi agreed that “more investigation is needed to accurately define the mechanism of LON, which remains unknown. This will likely lead to more targeted strategies to both prevent and treat it.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being a single-center study that relied on retrospective data collection. They also acknowledged that, because the center is a nephrology-based practice, there was a low number of certain diseases like RA, opening up the possibility that “rates of LON are different” in those patients.

Two authors’ work on the study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zonozi R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41501.

A new study has found that late-onset neutropenia is a notably common and occasionally serious occurrence in rituximab-treated patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The literature on late-onset neutropenia – or LON – has, to date, been limited in size and scope,” first author Reza Zonozi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “At the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Mass General, we’ve seen a number of cases of LON. Even though most are incidental and can be self-limiting, some can be severe and associated with sepsis. As such, we’ve come to appreciate it as one of the more concerning side effects of rituximab.

“Our hope was to offer a practical analysis of LON, how often it happens, and what it looks like,” he added, “as well as to share our approach to its management.” Their findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To investigate the incidence, clinical features and outcomes of LON, the researchers launched a study of 738 adult patients with autoimmune diseases who were being treated with rituximab-induced continuous B-cell depletion. For the purposes of this study, LON was defined as an unexplained absolute neutrophil count of less than 1,000 cells/mcL during the period of B-cell depletion. Regarding disease type, 529 of the patients had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), 73 had membranous nephropathy (MN), 59 had minimal change disease or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (MCD/FSGS), 24 had lupus nephritis, and 53 had another autoimmune disease. Their average age was 58, and 53% were female.

All patients received a median of eight doses of rituximab – most commonly administered as one 1,000-mg IV dose every 4-6 months – and were in a state of B-cell depletion for a median of 2.5 years. Two months of low-dose daily oral cyclophosphamide was also used concurrently in 70% (n = 515) of patients. Glucocorticoids were used in 95% (n = 698) of patients.

During follow-up, 107 episodes of LON occurred in 71 patients. At 1, 2, and 5 years of continuous B-cell depletion, the incidence of LON was 6.6% (95% confidence interval, 5.0%-8.7%), 7.9% (95% CI, 6.1%-10.2%), and 13.5% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.4%), respectively. The first year following treatment initiation saw a much higher incidence rate of 7.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 5.4-9.6), compared with the rate thereafter of 1.5 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). LON occurred at a median of 4.1 months (interquartile range, 1.6-23.1) after the first rituximab infusion. The most common treatment for a LON episode was filgrastim.

Of the 107 episodes, 63 (59%) were asymptomatic. No infections were identified in asymptomatic episodes, while infections were identified in all symptomatic episodes. The most common symptom was a fever, and all 30 patients with LON and fever were hospitalized for management of febrile neutropenia. Four of the episodes included gingival soreness, and eight were complicated by sepsis. All the sepsis cases were resolved with standard therapy. One patient died with multiple relapsing LON.

Of the 71 patients with LON, 9 were not rechallenged with rituximab. A total of four of those patients had second LON episodes. Of the 62 patients who were rechallenged, 13 had second LON episodes over a median follow-up period of 2.4 years. The cumulative incidence of recurrent LON at 1, 2, and 5 years after rechallenge was 11.5% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.6%), 23.4% (95% CI, 13.8%-38.2%), and 30.4% (95% CI, 16.9%-50.9%), respectively.

Percentagewise, LON occurred significantly more often in patients with lupus nephritis (25%) than in patients with AAV (10.4%), MN (8.2%), or other diseases (7.6%) (P = .03). LON did not occur in any of the patients with MCD/FSGS. After multivariable analysis, lupus nephritis was associated with higher odds of developing LON (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.10-8.01). A multivariable model also found that patients treated with cyclophosphamide and rituximab had higher odds of developing LON, compared with patients who did not receive cyclophosphamide (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06-3.71).

 

Still more to learn about what leads to LON

“In large part, these findings quantify what our experience has been with LON in clinical practice,” Dr. Zonozi said. “It is indeed common, it’s often incidental, and most cases are reversible and respond well to treatment. But it can be associated with severe infections, including sepsis, and warrants close monitoring.”

In an interview, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, observed that this incidence rate was notably higher than what he’d seen previously. Dr. Md Yusof presented at EULAR Congress 2015 on rituximab and LON, finding that 23 patients (2.5%) from a cohort of 912 developed rituximab-associated neutropenia.

“Most of our cases were in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he added, “so it may just be a difference in cohorts.”

Regardless, he applauded additional research in this area, noting that “the etiology of rituximab-associated LON is still unclear. The reasons behind this occurrence need investigating, particularly in regard to severe neutropenia cases. If we can find the predictors of those, it will be extremely helpful for the future of treatment.”

Dr. Zonozi agreed that “more investigation is needed to accurately define the mechanism of LON, which remains unknown. This will likely lead to more targeted strategies to both prevent and treat it.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being a single-center study that relied on retrospective data collection. They also acknowledged that, because the center is a nephrology-based practice, there was a low number of certain diseases like RA, opening up the possibility that “rates of LON are different” in those patients.

Two authors’ work on the study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zonozi R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41501.

Trabecular bone loss in patients with axial spondyloarthritis is associated with spinal progression in the form of more syndesmophytes, new research suggests.

A paper published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism reports the outcomes of a prospective observational cohort study in 245 patients with axial spondyloarthritis that sought to identify possible predictors of spinal radiographic progression of the disease.

Joon-Yong Jung, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea, wrote that inflammation of the vertebrae is the first stage of progression of axial spondyloarthritis. One hypothesis is that this inflammation is associated with trabecular bone loss, which then leads to spinal instability, which in turns causes biomechanical stress on the area and the formation of new bone as syndesmophytes.

To evaluate the possible relationship between trabecular bone loss and syndesmophytes, researchers used dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry imaging of the lumbar spine, which can assess the microarchitecture of trabecular bone, as well as radiographs of the cervical and lumbar spine at 2 and 4 years of follow-up to assess the presence of syndesmophytes.

At baseline, 40% of patients had syndesmophytes, and the mean number of syndesmophytes was 3.3. A total of 11% of patients at baseline had mild trabecular bone loss, defined as trabecular bone score values between 1.230 and 1.310, and 10% had severe trabecular bone loss, with a score of 1.230 or less.

While on average patients had an increase of 1.41 syndesmophytes every 2 years during the study, patients with severe trabecular bone loss at baseline formed 1.26 more syndesmophytes every 2 years than did patients with normal trabecular bone loss score. After adjusting for variables such as disease activity and clinical factors, the authors found that both mild and severe trabecular bone loss were independently associated with progression of structural damage in the cervical and lumbar spine.

Patients with mild trabecular bone loss had a 120% greater odds of new syndesmophyte formation over the next 2 years, compared with those with normal trabecular bone loss scores, while those with severe loss had a 280% greater odds.

“The more severe the trabecular bone loss, the stronger the effect on the progression of the spine,” the authors wrote. Other factors associated with new syndesmophyte formation included higher C-reactive protein levels, longer symptom duration, smoking, and high NSAID index.

The study also pointed to an association between trabecular bone loss and modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. Patients with severe trabecular bone loss showed an average increase of 0.37 in their modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score over 2 years, compared with patients with normal trabecular bone loss score at baseline, even after adjusting for confounders.

The authors commented that inflammation is hypothesized to lead to structural damage in two ways. “Inflammation-induced bone loss in the spine results in instability, another type of biomechanical stress, which then triggers a biomechanical response in an attempt to increase stability,” they wrote. Or inflammation leads to the formation of granulated repair tissue which then triggers new bone formation.

Whatever the mechanism, the authors said finding that trabecular bone loss is associated with disease progression suggests a possible use for the trabecular bone score as a practical and noninvasive means to predict spinal progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.

The study received no funding, and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Jung J-Y et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50(5):827-33.

Trabecular bone loss in patients with axial spondyloarthritis is associated with spinal progression in the form of more syndesmophytes, new research suggests.

A paper published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism reports the outcomes of a prospective observational cohort study in 245 patients with axial spondyloarthritis that sought to identify possible predictors of spinal radiographic progression of the disease.

Joon-Yong Jung, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea, wrote that inflammation of the vertebrae is the first stage of progression of axial spondyloarthritis. One hypothesis is that this inflammation is associated with trabecular bone loss, which then leads to spinal instability, which in turns causes biomechanical stress on the area and the formation of new bone as syndesmophytes.

To evaluate the possible relationship between trabecular bone loss and syndesmophytes, researchers used dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry imaging of the lumbar spine, which can assess the microarchitecture of trabecular bone, as well as radiographs of the cervical and lumbar spine at 2 and 4 years of follow-up to assess the presence of syndesmophytes.

At baseline, 40% of patients had syndesmophytes, and the mean number of syndesmophytes was 3.3. A total of 11% of patients at baseline had mild trabecular bone loss, defined as trabecular bone score values between 1.230 and 1.310, and 10% had severe trabecular bone loss, with a score of 1.230 or less.

While on average patients had an increase of 1.41 syndesmophytes every 2 years during the study, patients with severe trabecular bone loss at baseline formed 1.26 more syndesmophytes every 2 years than did patients with normal trabecular bone loss score. After adjusting for variables such as disease activity and clinical factors, the authors found that both mild and severe trabecular bone loss were independently associated with progression of structural damage in the cervical and lumbar spine.

Patients with mild trabecular bone loss had a 120% greater odds of new syndesmophyte formation over the next 2 years, compared with those with normal trabecular bone loss scores, while those with severe loss had a 280% greater odds.

“The more severe the trabecular bone loss, the stronger the effect on the progression of the spine,” the authors wrote. Other factors associated with new syndesmophyte formation included higher C-reactive protein levels, longer symptom duration, smoking, and high NSAID index.

The study also pointed to an association between trabecular bone loss and modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. Patients with severe trabecular bone loss showed an average increase of 0.37 in their modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score over 2 years, compared with patients with normal trabecular bone loss score at baseline, even after adjusting for confounders.

The authors commented that inflammation is hypothesized to lead to structural damage in two ways. “Inflammation-induced bone loss in the spine results in instability, another type of biomechanical stress, which then triggers a biomechanical response in an attempt to increase stability,” they wrote. Or inflammation leads to the formation of granulated repair tissue which then triggers new bone formation.

Whatever the mechanism, the authors said finding that trabecular bone loss is associated with disease progression suggests a possible use for the trabecular bone score as a practical and noninvasive means to predict spinal progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.

The study received no funding, and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Jung J-Y et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50(5):827-33.

Trabecular bone loss in patients with axial spondyloarthritis is associated with spinal progression in the form of more syndesmophytes, new research suggests.

A paper published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism reports the outcomes of a prospective observational cohort study in 245 patients with axial spondyloarthritis that sought to identify possible predictors of spinal radiographic progression of the disease.

Joon-Yong Jung, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea, wrote that inflammation of the vertebrae is the first stage of progression of axial spondyloarthritis. One hypothesis is that this inflammation is associated with trabecular bone loss, which then leads to spinal instability, which in turns causes biomechanical stress on the area and the formation of new bone as syndesmophytes.

To evaluate the possible relationship between trabecular bone loss and syndesmophytes, researchers used dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry imaging of the lumbar spine, which can assess the microarchitecture of trabecular bone, as well as radiographs of the cervical and lumbar spine at 2 and 4 years of follow-up to assess the presence of syndesmophytes.

At baseline, 40% of patients had syndesmophytes, and the mean number of syndesmophytes was 3.3. A total of 11% of patients at baseline had mild trabecular bone loss, defined as trabecular bone score values between 1.230 and 1.310, and 10% had severe trabecular bone loss, with a score of 1.230 or less.

While on average patients had an increase of 1.41 syndesmophytes every 2 years during the study, patients with severe trabecular bone loss at baseline formed 1.26 more syndesmophytes every 2 years than did patients with normal trabecular bone loss score. After adjusting for variables such as disease activity and clinical factors, the authors found that both mild and severe trabecular bone loss were independently associated with progression of structural damage in the cervical and lumbar spine.

Patients with mild trabecular bone loss had a 120% greater odds of new syndesmophyte formation over the next 2 years, compared with those with normal trabecular bone loss scores, while those with severe loss had a 280% greater odds.

“The more severe the trabecular bone loss, the stronger the effect on the progression of the spine,” the authors wrote. Other factors associated with new syndesmophyte formation included higher C-reactive protein levels, longer symptom duration, smoking, and high NSAID index.

The study also pointed to an association between trabecular bone loss and modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. Patients with severe trabecular bone loss showed an average increase of 0.37 in their modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score over 2 years, compared with patients with normal trabecular bone loss score at baseline, even after adjusting for confounders.

The authors commented that inflammation is hypothesized to lead to structural damage in two ways. “Inflammation-induced bone loss in the spine results in instability, another type of biomechanical stress, which then triggers a biomechanical response in an attempt to increase stability,” they wrote. Or inflammation leads to the formation of granulated repair tissue which then triggers new bone formation.

Whatever the mechanism, the authors said finding that trabecular bone loss is associated with disease progression suggests a possible use for the trabecular bone score as a practical and noninvasive means to predict spinal progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.

The study received no funding, and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest to declare.

SOURCE: Jung J-Y et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50(5):827-33.

More people with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) than is predicted by the Framingham Risk Score, results of an observational study have shown.

Atherosclerosis. 2019;287:24-9 (CC BY 4.0)

Notably, a higher rate of myocardial infarction (MI) was seen in those with DISH than in those without DISH over the 10-year follow-up period (24.4% vs. 4.3%; P = .0055).

“We propose more scrutiny is warranted in evaluating CV risk in these patients, more demanding treatment target goals should be established, and as a result, earlier and more aggressive preventive medical interventions instituted,” corresponding author Reuven Mader, MD, and associates wrote in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

“What Mader’s study is pointing out is that it’s worth the radiologist reporting [DISH],” Elizabeth A. Regan, MD, PhD, from the National Jewish Health Center in Denver, said in an interview.

DISH on a chest x-ray or CT scan should be another “red flag to be even more attentive to cardiovascular risk,” she added, particularly because studies have shown that people with DISH tend to be obese, have metabolic syndrome, or diabetes – all of which independently increase their risk for cardiovascular disease.
 

An old condition often found by accident

Physicians have known about DISH for many years, Dr. Mader of Ha’Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel, observed in an interview. Historical evidence suggests it was present more than a thousand years ago, but it wasn’t until the 1950s that it gained scientific interest. Originally coined Forestier’s disease, it was renamed DISH in the late 1960s following the realization that it was not limited to the spine.

“It is a condition which is characterized by new bone formation,” Dr. Mader explained. This new bone formation has some predilection for the entheses – the tendons, ligaments, or joint capsules, that attach to the bone.

“Diagnosis of the disease is based mainly on radiographs, especially of the thoracic spine, and it requires the formation of bridges that connect at least four contiguous vertebra,” he continued.

“The bridges are usually right-sided and usually the intervertebral spaces are spared. Classically there is no involvement of the sacroiliac joints, although there are some changes that might involve the sacroiliac joints but in a different manner than in inflammatory sacroiliitis.”

DISH was originally thought to be a pain syndrome, which has “not played out,” Dr. Regan noted in her interview. While there may be people who experience pain as a result of DISH, most cases are asymptomatic and usually picked up incidentally on a chest x-ray or CT scan.

“It’s something that’s not obvious,” she said. One of the main problems it can cause is stiffness and lack of mobility in the spine and this can lead to quite severe fractures in some cases, such as during a car accident. Hence spinal surgeons and other orthopedic specialists, such as Dr. Regan, have also taken an interest in the condition.

“Apart from the thoracic spine, DISH may also involve the cervical spine; there have been many reports about difficulty in swallowing, breathing, and in the lumbar spine, spinal stenosis and so forth,” Dr. Mader said. The differential diagnosis includes ankylosing spondylitis, although there is some evidence that the two can coexist.

“The diagnosis depends on the alertness of the examining physician,” he added, noting that rheumatologists and other specialists would be “very aware of this condition” and “sensitive to changes that we see when we examine these patients.”
 

DISH and heightened cardiovascular risk

Previous work by Dr. Mader and associates has shown that people with DISH are more often affected by the metabolic syndrome than are those without DISH. The cross-sectional study had excluded those with preexisting CVD and found that people with DISH had a significantly higher Framingham Risk Score, compared with a control group of people with osteoarthritis and no DISH (P = .004), which in turn meant they had a significantly (P = .007) higher 10-year risk for developing CVD.

The aim of their most recent study was to compare the actual rate of CV events in 2016 versus those predicted by the Framingham Risk Score in 2006. To do this, they compared the available electronic medical records of 45 individuals with DISH and 47 without it.

The results showed that almost 39% of people with DISH had developed CVD, whereas the Framingham Risk Score had estimated that just under 27% would develop CVD.

For every 1% increase in the CVD risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score, the odds of CVD increased by 4% in the DISH group versus the control group (P = .02).

While there was a significant (P < .003) difference in the Framingham Risk Score between the DISH and control groups in 2006 (28.6% vs. 17.8%), there was no overall statistical difference (P = .2) in the composite CVD outcome (38.8% vs. 25.5%) 10 years later, as calculated by the revised Framingham Risk Score, which included MI, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, peripheral artery disease, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

“We are dealing with patients who are in their 70s. So, it is expected that this group of patients will be more often affected by cardiovascular disease” than younger individuals, Dr. Mader observed. That said, the study’s findings “confirm the theory that patients with DISH have a high likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease,” he added, acknowledging that it was only the risk for MI that was statistically significantly higher in people with DISH than in the controls.
 

DISH and coronary artery calcification

“It might be even more interesting to have a different control population that had no osteoarthritis,” Dr. Regan observed.

As the associate director of the COPDGene study, Dr. Regan has access to data collected from a large cohort of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n = 2,728), around 13% of whom were identified as having DISH in one recent study.

In that study, the presence of DISH versus no DISH was associated with a 37% higher risk for having coronary artery calcification (CAC) – a marker for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Two-thirds of people with DISH had CAC, compared with 46.9% of those without DISH (P < .001). The prevalence of DISH was 8.8% in those without CAC, 12.8% in those with a CAC score of 1-100, 20% in those with a CAC score of 100-400, and 24.7% in those with a CAC score of more than 400, which is associated with a very high risk for coronary artery disease.

Dr. Regan observed that information on heart attacks and strokes were collected within the COPDGene study, so it would be possible to look at cardiovascular risk in their patients with DISH and confirm the findings of Mader and colleagues.

“I think the most important thing is recognizing that there are things going on in the spine that are important to people’s general health,” Dr. Regan said.

Dr. Mader noted: “It makes sense that patients with DISH should be more meticulously followed for at least the traditional risk factors and better treated because they are at a higher risk for these events.”

The study received no financial support. Neither Dr. Mader nor Dr. Regan had any conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Glick K et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02278-w.

More people with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) than is predicted by the Framingham Risk Score, results of an observational study have shown.

Atherosclerosis. 2019;287:24-9 (CC BY 4.0)

Notably, a higher rate of myocardial infarction (MI) was seen in those with DISH than in those without DISH over the 10-year follow-up period (24.4% vs. 4.3%; P = .0055).

“We propose more scrutiny is warranted in evaluating CV risk in these patients, more demanding treatment target goals should be established, and as a result, earlier and more aggressive preventive medical interventions instituted,” corresponding author Reuven Mader, MD, and associates wrote in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

“What Mader’s study is pointing out is that it’s worth the radiologist reporting [DISH],” Elizabeth A. Regan, MD, PhD, from the National Jewish Health Center in Denver, said in an interview.

DISH on a chest x-ray or CT scan should be another “red flag to be even more attentive to cardiovascular risk,” she added, particularly because studies have shown that people with DISH tend to be obese, have metabolic syndrome, or diabetes – all of which independently increase their risk for cardiovascular disease.
 

An old condition often found by accident

Physicians have known about DISH for many years, Dr. Mader of Ha’Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel, observed in an interview. Historical evidence suggests it was present more than a thousand years ago, but it wasn’t until the 1950s that it gained scientific interest. Originally coined Forestier’s disease, it was renamed DISH in the late 1960s following the realization that it was not limited to the spine.

“It is a condition which is characterized by new bone formation,” Dr. Mader explained. This new bone formation has some predilection for the entheses – the tendons, ligaments, or joint capsules, that attach to the bone.

“Diagnosis of the disease is based mainly on radiographs, especially of the thoracic spine, and it requires the formation of bridges that connect at least four contiguous vertebra,” he continued.

“The bridges are usually right-sided and usually the intervertebral spaces are spared. Classically there is no involvement of the sacroiliac joints, although there are some changes that might involve the sacroiliac joints but in a different manner than in inflammatory sacroiliitis.”

DISH was originally thought to be a pain syndrome, which has “not played out,” Dr. Regan noted in her interview. While there may be people who experience pain as a result of DISH, most cases are asymptomatic and usually picked up incidentally on a chest x-ray or CT scan.

“It’s something that’s not obvious,” she said. One of the main problems it can cause is stiffness and lack of mobility in the spine and this can lead to quite severe fractures in some cases, such as during a car accident. Hence spinal surgeons and other orthopedic specialists, such as Dr. Regan, have also taken an interest in the condition.

“Apart from the thoracic spine, DISH may also involve the cervical spine; there have been many reports about difficulty in swallowing, breathing, and in the lumbar spine, spinal stenosis and so forth,” Dr. Mader said. The differential diagnosis includes ankylosing spondylitis, although there is some evidence that the two can coexist.

“The diagnosis depends on the alertness of the examining physician,” he added, noting that rheumatologists and other specialists would be “very aware of this condition” and “sensitive to changes that we see when we examine these patients.”
 

DISH and heightened cardiovascular risk

Previous work by Dr. Mader and associates has shown that people with DISH are more often affected by the metabolic syndrome than are those without DISH. The cross-sectional study had excluded those with preexisting CVD and found that people with DISH had a significantly higher Framingham Risk Score, compared with a control group of people with osteoarthritis and no DISH (P = .004), which in turn meant they had a significantly (P = .007) higher 10-year risk for developing CVD.

The aim of their most recent study was to compare the actual rate of CV events in 2016 versus those predicted by the Framingham Risk Score in 2006. To do this, they compared the available electronic medical records of 45 individuals with DISH and 47 without it.

The results showed that almost 39% of people with DISH had developed CVD, whereas the Framingham Risk Score had estimated that just under 27% would develop CVD.

For every 1% increase in the CVD risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score, the odds of CVD increased by 4% in the DISH group versus the control group (P = .02).

While there was a significant (P < .003) difference in the Framingham Risk Score between the DISH and control groups in 2006 (28.6% vs. 17.8%), there was no overall statistical difference (P = .2) in the composite CVD outcome (38.8% vs. 25.5%) 10 years later, as calculated by the revised Framingham Risk Score, which included MI, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, peripheral artery disease, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

“We are dealing with patients who are in their 70s. So, it is expected that this group of patients will be more often affected by cardiovascular disease” than younger individuals, Dr. Mader observed. That said, the study’s findings “confirm the theory that patients with DISH have a high likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease,” he added, acknowledging that it was only the risk for MI that was statistically significantly higher in people with DISH than in the controls.
 

DISH and coronary artery calcification

“It might be even more interesting to have a different control population that had no osteoarthritis,” Dr. Regan observed.

As the associate director of the COPDGene study, Dr. Regan has access to data collected from a large cohort of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n = 2,728), around 13% of whom were identified as having DISH in one recent study.

In that study, the presence of DISH versus no DISH was associated with a 37% higher risk for having coronary artery calcification (CAC) – a marker for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Two-thirds of people with DISH had CAC, compared with 46.9% of those without DISH (P < .001). The prevalence of DISH was 8.8% in those without CAC, 12.8% in those with a CAC score of 1-100, 20% in those with a CAC score of 100-400, and 24.7% in those with a CAC score of more than 400, which is associated with a very high risk for coronary artery disease.

Dr. Regan observed that information on heart attacks and strokes were collected within the COPDGene study, so it would be possible to look at cardiovascular risk in their patients with DISH and confirm the findings of Mader and colleagues.

“I think the most important thing is recognizing that there are things going on in the spine that are important to people’s general health,” Dr. Regan said.

Dr. Mader noted: “It makes sense that patients with DISH should be more meticulously followed for at least the traditional risk factors and better treated because they are at a higher risk for these events.”

The study received no financial support. Neither Dr. Mader nor Dr. Regan had any conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Glick K et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02278-w.

More people with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) than is predicted by the Framingham Risk Score, results of an observational study have shown.

Atherosclerosis. 2019;287:24-9 (CC BY 4.0)

Notably, a higher rate of myocardial infarction (MI) was seen in those with DISH than in those without DISH over the 10-year follow-up period (24.4% vs. 4.3%; P = .0055).

“We propose more scrutiny is warranted in evaluating CV risk in these patients, more demanding treatment target goals should be established, and as a result, earlier and more aggressive preventive medical interventions instituted,” corresponding author Reuven Mader, MD, and associates wrote in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

“What Mader’s study is pointing out is that it’s worth the radiologist reporting [DISH],” Elizabeth A. Regan, MD, PhD, from the National Jewish Health Center in Denver, said in an interview.

DISH on a chest x-ray or CT scan should be another “red flag to be even more attentive to cardiovascular risk,” she added, particularly because studies have shown that people with DISH tend to be obese, have metabolic syndrome, or diabetes – all of which independently increase their risk for cardiovascular disease.
 

An old condition often found by accident

Physicians have known about DISH for many years, Dr. Mader of Ha’Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel, observed in an interview. Historical evidence suggests it was present more than a thousand years ago, but it wasn’t until the 1950s that it gained scientific interest. Originally coined Forestier’s disease, it was renamed DISH in the late 1960s following the realization that it was not limited to the spine.

“It is a condition which is characterized by new bone formation,” Dr. Mader explained. This new bone formation has some predilection for the entheses – the tendons, ligaments, or joint capsules, that attach to the bone.

“Diagnosis of the disease is based mainly on radiographs, especially of the thoracic spine, and it requires the formation of bridges that connect at least four contiguous vertebra,” he continued.

“The bridges are usually right-sided and usually the intervertebral spaces are spared. Classically there is no involvement of the sacroiliac joints, although there are some changes that might involve the sacroiliac joints but in a different manner than in inflammatory sacroiliitis.”

DISH was originally thought to be a pain syndrome, which has “not played out,” Dr. Regan noted in her interview. While there may be people who experience pain as a result of DISH, most cases are asymptomatic and usually picked up incidentally on a chest x-ray or CT scan.

“It’s something that’s not obvious,” she said. One of the main problems it can cause is stiffness and lack of mobility in the spine and this can lead to quite severe fractures in some cases, such as during a car accident. Hence spinal surgeons and other orthopedic specialists, such as Dr. Regan, have also taken an interest in the condition.

“Apart from the thoracic spine, DISH may also involve the cervical spine; there have been many reports about difficulty in swallowing, breathing, and in the lumbar spine, spinal stenosis and so forth,” Dr. Mader said. The differential diagnosis includes ankylosing spondylitis, although there is some evidence that the two can coexist.

“The diagnosis depends on the alertness of the examining physician,” he added, noting that rheumatologists and other specialists would be “very aware of this condition” and “sensitive to changes that we see when we examine these patients.”
 

DISH and heightened cardiovascular risk

Previous work by Dr. Mader and associates has shown that people with DISH are more often affected by the metabolic syndrome than are those without DISH. The cross-sectional study had excluded those with preexisting CVD and found that people with DISH had a significantly higher Framingham Risk Score, compared with a control group of people with osteoarthritis and no DISH (P = .004), which in turn meant they had a significantly (P = .007) higher 10-year risk for developing CVD.

The aim of their most recent study was to compare the actual rate of CV events in 2016 versus those predicted by the Framingham Risk Score in 2006. To do this, they compared the available electronic medical records of 45 individuals with DISH and 47 without it.

The results showed that almost 39% of people with DISH had developed CVD, whereas the Framingham Risk Score had estimated that just under 27% would develop CVD.

For every 1% increase in the CVD risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score, the odds of CVD increased by 4% in the DISH group versus the control group (P = .02).

While there was a significant (P < .003) difference in the Framingham Risk Score between the DISH and control groups in 2006 (28.6% vs. 17.8%), there was no overall statistical difference (P = .2) in the composite CVD outcome (38.8% vs. 25.5%) 10 years later, as calculated by the revised Framingham Risk Score, which included MI, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, peripheral artery disease, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

“We are dealing with patients who are in their 70s. So, it is expected that this group of patients will be more often affected by cardiovascular disease” than younger individuals, Dr. Mader observed. That said, the study’s findings “confirm the theory that patients with DISH have a high likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease,” he added, acknowledging that it was only the risk for MI that was statistically significantly higher in people with DISH than in the controls.
 

DISH and coronary artery calcification

“It might be even more interesting to have a different control population that had no osteoarthritis,” Dr. Regan observed.

As the associate director of the COPDGene study, Dr. Regan has access to data collected from a large cohort of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n = 2,728), around 13% of whom were identified as having DISH in one recent study.

In that study, the presence of DISH versus no DISH was associated with a 37% higher risk for having coronary artery calcification (CAC) – a marker for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Two-thirds of people with DISH had CAC, compared with 46.9% of those without DISH (P < .001). The prevalence of DISH was 8.8% in those without CAC, 12.8% in those with a CAC score of 1-100, 20% in those with a CAC score of 100-400, and 24.7% in those with a CAC score of more than 400, which is associated with a very high risk for coronary artery disease.

Dr. Regan observed that information on heart attacks and strokes were collected within the COPDGene study, so it would be possible to look at cardiovascular risk in their patients with DISH and confirm the findings of Mader and colleagues.

“I think the most important thing is recognizing that there are things going on in the spine that are important to people’s general health,” Dr. Regan said.

Dr. Mader noted: “It makes sense that patients with DISH should be more meticulously followed for at least the traditional risk factors and better treated because they are at a higher risk for these events.”

The study received no financial support. Neither Dr. Mader nor Dr. Regan had any conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Glick K et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02278-w.