Spondyloarthropathies

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation of adalimumab-bwwd (Hadlima), the manufacturer, Samsung Bioepis, and its commercialization partner Organon said in an announcement.

Hadlima is a biosimilar of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor reference product adalimumab (Humira).

Hadlima was first approved in July 2019 in a citrated, 50-mg/mL formulation. The new citrate-free, 100-mg/mL version will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector options.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The 100-mg/mL formulation is indicated for the same seven conditions as its 50-mg/mL counterpart: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The approval was based on clinical data from a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel group, single-dose study that compared the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the 100-mg/mL and 50-mg/mL formulations of Hadlima in healthy volunteers.

Both low- and high-concentration formulations of Humira are currently marketed in the United States. Organon said that it expects to market Hadlima in the United States on or after July 1, 2023, in accordance with a licensing agreement with AbbVie.

The prescribing information for Hadlima includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals who are known to be hypersensitive to adalimumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, including serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, such as tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections (such as histoplasmosis), and infections attributable to other opportunistic pathogens.

A test for latent TB infection should be given before administration, and treatment of TB should begin before administration of Hadlima.

Patients taking Hadlima should not take a live vaccine.

The most common adverse effects (incidence > 10%) include infections (for example, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis), injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation of adalimumab-bwwd (Hadlima), the manufacturer, Samsung Bioepis, and its commercialization partner Organon said in an announcement.

Hadlima is a biosimilar of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor reference product adalimumab (Humira).

Hadlima was first approved in July 2019 in a citrated, 50-mg/mL formulation. The new citrate-free, 100-mg/mL version will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector options.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The 100-mg/mL formulation is indicated for the same seven conditions as its 50-mg/mL counterpart: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The approval was based on clinical data from a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel group, single-dose study that compared the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the 100-mg/mL and 50-mg/mL formulations of Hadlima in healthy volunteers.

Both low- and high-concentration formulations of Humira are currently marketed in the United States. Organon said that it expects to market Hadlima in the United States on or after July 1, 2023, in accordance with a licensing agreement with AbbVie.

The prescribing information for Hadlima includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals who are known to be hypersensitive to adalimumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, including serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, such as tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections (such as histoplasmosis), and infections attributable to other opportunistic pathogens.

A test for latent TB infection should be given before administration, and treatment of TB should begin before administration of Hadlima.

Patients taking Hadlima should not take a live vaccine.

The most common adverse effects (incidence > 10%) include infections (for example, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis), injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation of adalimumab-bwwd (Hadlima), the manufacturer, Samsung Bioepis, and its commercialization partner Organon said in an announcement.

Hadlima is a biosimilar of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor reference product adalimumab (Humira).

Hadlima was first approved in July 2019 in a citrated, 50-mg/mL formulation. The new citrate-free, 100-mg/mL version will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector options.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The 100-mg/mL formulation is indicated for the same seven conditions as its 50-mg/mL counterpart: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The approval was based on clinical data from a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel group, single-dose study that compared the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the 100-mg/mL and 50-mg/mL formulations of Hadlima in healthy volunteers.

Both low- and high-concentration formulations of Humira are currently marketed in the United States. Organon said that it expects to market Hadlima in the United States on or after July 1, 2023, in accordance with a licensing agreement with AbbVie.

The prescribing information for Hadlima includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals who are known to be hypersensitive to adalimumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, including serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, such as tuberculosis, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections (such as histoplasmosis), and infections attributable to other opportunistic pathogens.

A test for latent TB infection should be given before administration, and treatment of TB should begin before administration of Hadlima.

Patients taking Hadlima should not take a live vaccine.

The most common adverse effects (incidence > 10%) include infections (for example, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis), injection site reactions, headache, and rash.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases may need additional vaccines or different versions of vaccines they were not previously recommended to receive, according to updated guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on vaccinations for these patients. The new guidelines pertain to routine vaccinations for adults and children and are based on the most current evidence. They include recommendations on whether to hold certain medications before or after vaccination. They do not include recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

For guidance on COVID-19 vaccine timing and frequency, the ACR directs physicians to the CDC’s recommendations for people with mild or severe immunosuppression and the ACR’s previous clinical guidance summary on the topic, last revised in February 2022. The recommendations in the new guidance differ from ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines on whether and when to hold immunosuppressive medications when patients receive nonlive vaccines. The new guidelines now align more closely with those of EULAR, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the CDC’s recommendations for human papillomavirus (HPV), pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Vaccinations in this population are particularly important because “a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in those with rheumatic diseases is infections, due to the detrimental impact immunosuppression has on the ability for the patient to properly clear the pathogen,” Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization. While immunosuppressive medications are the most common reason patients with these conditions may have impaired immune function, “some of our patients with autoimmune disease also have a preexisting immunodeficiency that can inherently blunt immune responses to either infection or vaccination,” Dr. Kim explained.

“The authors of the guidelines have done a really nice job of making distinct recommendations based on the mechanism of action of various immunosuppressive medications,” Dr. Kim said. “This helps simplify the process of deciding the timing of vaccination for the health provider, especially for those on multiple immunosuppressives who represent an important proportion of our patients with rheumatic diseases.”

The main change to the guidelines for children, aside from those related to flu vaccination, is in regard to rotavirus vaccination for infants exposed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or rituximab in utero. Infants prenatally exposed to rituximab should not receive the rotavirus vaccine until they are older than 6 months. Those exposed prenatally to TNF inhibitors should receive the rotavirus vaccine on time, according to the CDC schedule for all infants.

The new rotavirus recommendations follow data showing that immune responses to rotavirus are blunted in those with infliximab exposure, according to Dr. Kim.

“Thus, this poses a serious theoretical risk in newborns with mothers on [a TNF inhibitor] of ineffective clearance of rotavirus infections,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “While rotavirus infections are quite common with typically self-limiting disease, sometimes requiring hydration to counteract diarrhea-induced dehydration, this can become severe in these newborns that have [a TNF inhibitor] in their system.”

For adults, the ACR issued the following expanded indications for four vaccines for patients currently taking immunosuppressive medication:

• Patients aged 18 and older should receive the recombinant zoster vaccine against shingles.
• For patients aged 27-44 who weren’t previously vaccinated against HPV, the HPV vaccine is “conditionally recommended.”
• Patients younger than 65 should receive the pneumococcal vaccine.
• Patients aged 19-64 are conditionally recommended to receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine rather than the regular-dose flu vaccine.

The guidelines also conditionally recommend that all patients aged 65 and older who have rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine, regardless of whether they are taking immunosuppressive medication. Another new conditional recommendation is to give multiple vaccinations to patients on the same day, rather than give individual vaccines on different days.

The guidelines make conditional recommendations regarding flu and nonlive attenuated vaccines for those taking methotrexate, rituximab, or glucocorticoids. Methotrexate should be held for 2 weeks after flu vaccination as long as disease activity allows it, but patients who are taking methotrexate should continue taking it for any other nonlive attenuated vaccinations.

“Non-rheumatology providers, such as general pediatricians and internists, are encouraged to give the influenza vaccination and then consult with the patient’s rheumatology provider about holding methotrexate to avoid a missed vaccination opportunity,” the guidelines state.

Patients taking rituximab should receive the flu vaccine on schedule and continue taking rituximab. However, for these patients, the guidelines recommend to “delay any subsequent rituximab dosing for at least two weeks after influenza vaccination if disease activity allows.”

“Because of the relatively short time period between the rollout of the influenza vaccine and its season, we can’t always wait to time the B-cell depletion dosage,” Dr. Kim said. “Also, it is not always easy to synchronize the patient’s B-cell depletion dosing schedule to the influenza vaccine rollout. Thus, we now just recommend getting the influenza vaccine regardless of the patient’s last B-cell depletion dosage despite its known strong attenuation of optimal immune responses.”

For other nonlive attenuated vaccines, providers should time vaccination for when the next rituximab dose is due and then hold the drug for at least 2 weeks thereafter, providing time for the B cells to mount a response before rituximab depletes B cells again.

Patients taking less than 20 mg of prednisone daily should still receive the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccines. Those taking 20 mg or more of prednisone each day should still receive the flu vaccine, but other vaccines should be deferred until their dose of glucocorticoids has been tapered down to less than 20 mg daily.

Patients taking all other immunosuppressive medications should continue taking them for the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, but it is conditionally recommended that live attenuated vaccines be deferred. For any patient with a rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease, regardless of disease activity, it is conditionally recommended that all routine nonlive attenuated vaccines be administered.

For live attenuated virus vaccines, the ACR provides a chart on which immunosuppressive medications to hold and for how long. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, and oral cyclophosphamide should all be held 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after administration of a live attenuated vaccine. For those taking JAK inhibitors, the medication should be halted 1 week before administration of a live vaccine and should continue to be withheld for 4 weeks after.

For most other biologics, the ACR recommends holding the medication for one dosing interval before the live vaccine and 4 weeks thereafter. The main exception is rituximab, which should be held for 6 months before a live vaccine and then for 4 more weeks thereafter.

For patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin, the drug should be held for 8-11 months before they are administered a live attenuated vaccine, depending on the dosage, and then 4 weeks after vaccination, regardless of dosage.

To reassure people with rheumatic disease who may have anxiety or concerns about receiving immunizations, whether taking immunosuppressive medication or not, Dr. Kim said it’s important to provide lots of education to patients.

“Fear and emotion have replaced facts, and data as a leading factor in decision-making, as seen with COVID-19,” Dr. Kim said. “The reality is that a small minority of people will have any issues with most vaccines, which include disease flares, adverse events, or acquisition of an autoimmune disease. We are not saying there is zero risk, rather, that the risk is quite small. This is where shared decision-making between the health care provider and the patient must be done effectively to enable the patient to properly weigh risk versus benefit.”

Dr. Kim has relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Kypha, Pfizer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, and Foghorn Therapeutics.

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

Patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases may need additional vaccines or different versions of vaccines they were not previously recommended to receive, according to updated guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on vaccinations for these patients. The new guidelines pertain to routine vaccinations for adults and children and are based on the most current evidence. They include recommendations on whether to hold certain medications before or after vaccination. They do not include recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

For guidance on COVID-19 vaccine timing and frequency, the ACR directs physicians to the CDC’s recommendations for people with mild or severe immunosuppression and the ACR’s previous clinical guidance summary on the topic, last revised in February 2022. The recommendations in the new guidance differ from ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines on whether and when to hold immunosuppressive medications when patients receive nonlive vaccines. The new guidelines now align more closely with those of EULAR, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the CDC’s recommendations for human papillomavirus (HPV), pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Vaccinations in this population are particularly important because “a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in those with rheumatic diseases is infections, due to the detrimental impact immunosuppression has on the ability for the patient to properly clear the pathogen,” Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization. While immunosuppressive medications are the most common reason patients with these conditions may have impaired immune function, “some of our patients with autoimmune disease also have a preexisting immunodeficiency that can inherently blunt immune responses to either infection or vaccination,” Dr. Kim explained.

“The authors of the guidelines have done a really nice job of making distinct recommendations based on the mechanism of action of various immunosuppressive medications,” Dr. Kim said. “This helps simplify the process of deciding the timing of vaccination for the health provider, especially for those on multiple immunosuppressives who represent an important proportion of our patients with rheumatic diseases.”

The main change to the guidelines for children, aside from those related to flu vaccination, is in regard to rotavirus vaccination for infants exposed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or rituximab in utero. Infants prenatally exposed to rituximab should not receive the rotavirus vaccine until they are older than 6 months. Those exposed prenatally to TNF inhibitors should receive the rotavirus vaccine on time, according to the CDC schedule for all infants.

The new rotavirus recommendations follow data showing that immune responses to rotavirus are blunted in those with infliximab exposure, according to Dr. Kim.

“Thus, this poses a serious theoretical risk in newborns with mothers on [a TNF inhibitor] of ineffective clearance of rotavirus infections,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “While rotavirus infections are quite common with typically self-limiting disease, sometimes requiring hydration to counteract diarrhea-induced dehydration, this can become severe in these newborns that have [a TNF inhibitor] in their system.”

For adults, the ACR issued the following expanded indications for four vaccines for patients currently taking immunosuppressive medication:

• Patients aged 18 and older should receive the recombinant zoster vaccine against shingles.
• For patients aged 27-44 who weren’t previously vaccinated against HPV, the HPV vaccine is “conditionally recommended.”
• Patients younger than 65 should receive the pneumococcal vaccine.
• Patients aged 19-64 are conditionally recommended to receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine rather than the regular-dose flu vaccine.

The guidelines also conditionally recommend that all patients aged 65 and older who have rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine, regardless of whether they are taking immunosuppressive medication. Another new conditional recommendation is to give multiple vaccinations to patients on the same day, rather than give individual vaccines on different days.

The guidelines make conditional recommendations regarding flu and nonlive attenuated vaccines for those taking methotrexate, rituximab, or glucocorticoids. Methotrexate should be held for 2 weeks after flu vaccination as long as disease activity allows it, but patients who are taking methotrexate should continue taking it for any other nonlive attenuated vaccinations.

“Non-rheumatology providers, such as general pediatricians and internists, are encouraged to give the influenza vaccination and then consult with the patient’s rheumatology provider about holding methotrexate to avoid a missed vaccination opportunity,” the guidelines state.

Patients taking rituximab should receive the flu vaccine on schedule and continue taking rituximab. However, for these patients, the guidelines recommend to “delay any subsequent rituximab dosing for at least two weeks after influenza vaccination if disease activity allows.”

“Because of the relatively short time period between the rollout of the influenza vaccine and its season, we can’t always wait to time the B-cell depletion dosage,” Dr. Kim said. “Also, it is not always easy to synchronize the patient’s B-cell depletion dosing schedule to the influenza vaccine rollout. Thus, we now just recommend getting the influenza vaccine regardless of the patient’s last B-cell depletion dosage despite its known strong attenuation of optimal immune responses.”

For other nonlive attenuated vaccines, providers should time vaccination for when the next rituximab dose is due and then hold the drug for at least 2 weeks thereafter, providing time for the B cells to mount a response before rituximab depletes B cells again.

Patients taking less than 20 mg of prednisone daily should still receive the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccines. Those taking 20 mg or more of prednisone each day should still receive the flu vaccine, but other vaccines should be deferred until their dose of glucocorticoids has been tapered down to less than 20 mg daily.

Patients taking all other immunosuppressive medications should continue taking them for the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, but it is conditionally recommended that live attenuated vaccines be deferred. For any patient with a rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease, regardless of disease activity, it is conditionally recommended that all routine nonlive attenuated vaccines be administered.

For live attenuated virus vaccines, the ACR provides a chart on which immunosuppressive medications to hold and for how long. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, and oral cyclophosphamide should all be held 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after administration of a live attenuated vaccine. For those taking JAK inhibitors, the medication should be halted 1 week before administration of a live vaccine and should continue to be withheld for 4 weeks after.

For most other biologics, the ACR recommends holding the medication for one dosing interval before the live vaccine and 4 weeks thereafter. The main exception is rituximab, which should be held for 6 months before a live vaccine and then for 4 more weeks thereafter.

For patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin, the drug should be held for 8-11 months before they are administered a live attenuated vaccine, depending on the dosage, and then 4 weeks after vaccination, regardless of dosage.

To reassure people with rheumatic disease who may have anxiety or concerns about receiving immunizations, whether taking immunosuppressive medication or not, Dr. Kim said it’s important to provide lots of education to patients.

“Fear and emotion have replaced facts, and data as a leading factor in decision-making, as seen with COVID-19,” Dr. Kim said. “The reality is that a small minority of people will have any issues with most vaccines, which include disease flares, adverse events, or acquisition of an autoimmune disease. We are not saying there is zero risk, rather, that the risk is quite small. This is where shared decision-making between the health care provider and the patient must be done effectively to enable the patient to properly weigh risk versus benefit.”

Dr. Kim has relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Kypha, Pfizer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, and Foghorn Therapeutics.

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

Patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases may need additional vaccines or different versions of vaccines they were not previously recommended to receive, according to updated guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on vaccinations for these patients. The new guidelines pertain to routine vaccinations for adults and children and are based on the most current evidence. They include recommendations on whether to hold certain medications before or after vaccination. They do not include recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

For guidance on COVID-19 vaccine timing and frequency, the ACR directs physicians to the CDC’s recommendations for people with mild or severe immunosuppression and the ACR’s previous clinical guidance summary on the topic, last revised in February 2022. The recommendations in the new guidance differ from ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines on whether and when to hold immunosuppressive medications when patients receive nonlive vaccines. The new guidelines now align more closely with those of EULAR, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the CDC’s recommendations for human papillomavirus (HPV), pneumococcal, and shingles vaccines.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

Vaccinations in this population are particularly important because “a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in those with rheumatic diseases is infections, due to the detrimental impact immunosuppression has on the ability for the patient to properly clear the pathogen,” Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization. While immunosuppressive medications are the most common reason patients with these conditions may have impaired immune function, “some of our patients with autoimmune disease also have a preexisting immunodeficiency that can inherently blunt immune responses to either infection or vaccination,” Dr. Kim explained.

“The authors of the guidelines have done a really nice job of making distinct recommendations based on the mechanism of action of various immunosuppressive medications,” Dr. Kim said. “This helps simplify the process of deciding the timing of vaccination for the health provider, especially for those on multiple immunosuppressives who represent an important proportion of our patients with rheumatic diseases.”

The main change to the guidelines for children, aside from those related to flu vaccination, is in regard to rotavirus vaccination for infants exposed to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or rituximab in utero. Infants prenatally exposed to rituximab should not receive the rotavirus vaccine until they are older than 6 months. Those exposed prenatally to TNF inhibitors should receive the rotavirus vaccine on time, according to the CDC schedule for all infants.

The new rotavirus recommendations follow data showing that immune responses to rotavirus are blunted in those with infliximab exposure, according to Dr. Kim.

“Thus, this poses a serious theoretical risk in newborns with mothers on [a TNF inhibitor] of ineffective clearance of rotavirus infections,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “While rotavirus infections are quite common with typically self-limiting disease, sometimes requiring hydration to counteract diarrhea-induced dehydration, this can become severe in these newborns that have [a TNF inhibitor] in their system.”

For adults, the ACR issued the following expanded indications for four vaccines for patients currently taking immunosuppressive medication:

• Patients aged 18 and older should receive the recombinant zoster vaccine against shingles.
• For patients aged 27-44 who weren’t previously vaccinated against HPV, the HPV vaccine is “conditionally recommended.”
• Patients younger than 65 should receive the pneumococcal vaccine.
• Patients aged 19-64 are conditionally recommended to receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine rather than the regular-dose flu vaccine.

The guidelines also conditionally recommend that all patients aged 65 and older who have rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases receive the high-dose or adjuvanted flu vaccine, regardless of whether they are taking immunosuppressive medication. Another new conditional recommendation is to give multiple vaccinations to patients on the same day, rather than give individual vaccines on different days.

The guidelines make conditional recommendations regarding flu and nonlive attenuated vaccines for those taking methotrexate, rituximab, or glucocorticoids. Methotrexate should be held for 2 weeks after flu vaccination as long as disease activity allows it, but patients who are taking methotrexate should continue taking it for any other nonlive attenuated vaccinations.

“Non-rheumatology providers, such as general pediatricians and internists, are encouraged to give the influenza vaccination and then consult with the patient’s rheumatology provider about holding methotrexate to avoid a missed vaccination opportunity,” the guidelines state.

Patients taking rituximab should receive the flu vaccine on schedule and continue taking rituximab. However, for these patients, the guidelines recommend to “delay any subsequent rituximab dosing for at least two weeks after influenza vaccination if disease activity allows.”

“Because of the relatively short time period between the rollout of the influenza vaccine and its season, we can’t always wait to time the B-cell depletion dosage,” Dr. Kim said. “Also, it is not always easy to synchronize the patient’s B-cell depletion dosing schedule to the influenza vaccine rollout. Thus, we now just recommend getting the influenza vaccine regardless of the patient’s last B-cell depletion dosage despite its known strong attenuation of optimal immune responses.”

For other nonlive attenuated vaccines, providers should time vaccination for when the next rituximab dose is due and then hold the drug for at least 2 weeks thereafter, providing time for the B cells to mount a response before rituximab depletes B cells again.

Patients taking less than 20 mg of prednisone daily should still receive the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccines. Those taking 20 mg or more of prednisone each day should still receive the flu vaccine, but other vaccines should be deferred until their dose of glucocorticoids has been tapered down to less than 20 mg daily.

Patients taking all other immunosuppressive medications should continue taking them for the flu vaccine and other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, but it is conditionally recommended that live attenuated vaccines be deferred. For any patient with a rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease, regardless of disease activity, it is conditionally recommended that all routine nonlive attenuated vaccines be administered.

For live attenuated virus vaccines, the ACR provides a chart on which immunosuppressive medications to hold and for how long. Glucocorticoids, methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, and oral cyclophosphamide should all be held 4 weeks before and 4 weeks after administration of a live attenuated vaccine. For those taking JAK inhibitors, the medication should be halted 1 week before administration of a live vaccine and should continue to be withheld for 4 weeks after.

For most other biologics, the ACR recommends holding the medication for one dosing interval before the live vaccine and 4 weeks thereafter. The main exception is rituximab, which should be held for 6 months before a live vaccine and then for 4 more weeks thereafter.

For patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin, the drug should be held for 8-11 months before they are administered a live attenuated vaccine, depending on the dosage, and then 4 weeks after vaccination, regardless of dosage.

To reassure people with rheumatic disease who may have anxiety or concerns about receiving immunizations, whether taking immunosuppressive medication or not, Dr. Kim said it’s important to provide lots of education to patients.

“Fear and emotion have replaced facts, and data as a leading factor in decision-making, as seen with COVID-19,” Dr. Kim said. “The reality is that a small minority of people will have any issues with most vaccines, which include disease flares, adverse events, or acquisition of an autoimmune disease. We are not saying there is zero risk, rather, that the risk is quite small. This is where shared decision-making between the health care provider and the patient must be done effectively to enable the patient to properly weigh risk versus benefit.”

Dr. Kim has relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Kypha, Pfizer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, and Foghorn Therapeutics.

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

More than half of patients with noninfectious acute anterior uveitis seen in ophthalmology clinics in a new cross-sectional study were found by rheumatologists to have spondyloarthritis (SpA), prompting the researchers to recommend referring “all patients with AAU reporting musculoskeletal symptoms to rheumatologists.”

The results also suggest that “rheumatologists should consider that SpA in AAU patients might present ‘atypically’ with no or mild back pain starting after the age of 45 years and lasting shorter than 3 months,” according to first author Judith Rademacher, MD, and colleagues at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, who published their work online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

During July 2017–April 2021, the study team prospectively assessed 189 consecutive adult patients with noninfectious AAU at ophthalmology clinics in the Berlin area. The patients had rheumatologic examinations and underwent pelvic x-ray if they had back pain as well as MRI of sacroiliac joints regardless of back pain unless there was a contraindication. The patients had a mean age of nearly 41 years, and 54.5% were male.

Of the 189 patients with AAU, the researchers diagnosed SpA in 106, including 74 (70%) who had been previously undiagnosed. A total of 99 (93%) had predominately axial SpA, and 7 (7%) had peripheral SpA.

A multivariable logistic regression assessment found that male sex (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.2), HLA-B27 positivity (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.4-16.4), elevated C-reactive protein (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.9-12.4), and psoriasis (OR, 12.5; 95% CI, 1.3-120.2) were significantly associated with SpA in patients with AAU. No ophthalmologic factors were significantly associated with SpA.

Among all patients, an adaptation of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) referral tool demonstrated lower specificity for SpA recognition than did the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool (28% vs. 42%). The ASAS referral took had a slightly greater sensitivity than the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool (80% vs. 78%).

“Taking into account only AAU patients without prior diagnosis of SpA, a rheumatologist would have to see 2.1 patients fulfilling the ASAS tool or 1.9 patients fulfilling the DUET to diagnose one patient with SpA. However, with both referral strategies more than 20% of SpA patients would have been missed,” the researchers wrote. “This might be due to an ‘unusual presentation’ of SpA in those patients as their back pain started more often after the age of 45 years, lasted shorter than 3 months and thus, ASAS classification criteria were less frequently fulfilled.”

The researchers acknowledged possible selection bias because 15 patients with an incomplete rheumatologic evaluation were excluded. MRI also was routinely done for sacroiliac joints alone, although it was possible for clinician to order spinal MRI. In addition, the researchers allowed patients with AAU into the study regardless of their current treatment, meaning that it may have been possible for some patients receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to not be correctly identified as having SpA if the treatment improved their musculoskeletal symptoms.

Expert commentary

There are a number of diseases associated with SpA, including AAU, noted Kristine Kuhn, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the study.

“As a rheumatologist, we are quite aware of [uveitis] as an association, and we are usually asking our patients about eye symptoms because of this association,” Dr. Kuhn said in an interview.

While just over half of the patients with AAU also met the criteria for SpA, “that doesn’t necessarily mean diagnosis per se because classification criteria are based on a series of features to homogenize a group of people for clinical research studies. So it doesn’t always align 100% with diagnosis, but it does give us an indication that a little of over half of people with anterior uveitis will have underlying spondyloarthritis and should be evaluated by a rheumatologist.”

Dr. Kuhn also highlighted the associations of male sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and concomitant presence of psoriasis. “I bring those up because I find those to be interesting associations. We have known those for years to be associated with axial spondyloarthritis, but when you look at the actual data, I would just put a little bit of caution to those conclusions.”

She pointed out that, although the link of male sex to SpA in patients with AAU was statistically significant, it is not a clinically meaningful association.

Dr. Kuhn also noted that caution should be used when interpreting the HLA-B27 positivity data. “The caution that I put there is that this was conducted in Germany, and we know that Northern European populations tend to be more enriched for HLA-B27 genes, so what that association would be in a more diverse population is unknown.

“I think ophthalmologists are really good when they see a patient with [acute]-onset anterior uveitis; they have a suspicion that there’s probably another systemic disease that they should be looking at. What this tells us as a physician community is that maybe we should lower the threshold for getting patients into rheumatology and looking at whether or not the patient has underlying spondyloarthritis,” she said.

AbbVie supported the study with an unrestricted research grant but had no role in the study design or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Of the study’s 12 authors, 2 reported having no financial disclosures. All others reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

More than half of patients with noninfectious acute anterior uveitis seen in ophthalmology clinics in a new cross-sectional study were found by rheumatologists to have spondyloarthritis (SpA), prompting the researchers to recommend referring “all patients with AAU reporting musculoskeletal symptoms to rheumatologists.”

The results also suggest that “rheumatologists should consider that SpA in AAU patients might present ‘atypically’ with no or mild back pain starting after the age of 45 years and lasting shorter than 3 months,” according to first author Judith Rademacher, MD, and colleagues at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, who published their work online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

During July 2017–April 2021, the study team prospectively assessed 189 consecutive adult patients with noninfectious AAU at ophthalmology clinics in the Berlin area. The patients had rheumatologic examinations and underwent pelvic x-ray if they had back pain as well as MRI of sacroiliac joints regardless of back pain unless there was a contraindication. The patients had a mean age of nearly 41 years, and 54.5% were male.

Of the 189 patients with AAU, the researchers diagnosed SpA in 106, including 74 (70%) who had been previously undiagnosed. A total of 99 (93%) had predominately axial SpA, and 7 (7%) had peripheral SpA.

A multivariable logistic regression assessment found that male sex (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.2), HLA-B27 positivity (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.4-16.4), elevated C-reactive protein (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.9-12.4), and psoriasis (OR, 12.5; 95% CI, 1.3-120.2) were significantly associated with SpA in patients with AAU. No ophthalmologic factors were significantly associated with SpA.

Among all patients, an adaptation of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) referral tool demonstrated lower specificity for SpA recognition than did the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool (28% vs. 42%). The ASAS referral took had a slightly greater sensitivity than the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool (80% vs. 78%).

“Taking into account only AAU patients without prior diagnosis of SpA, a rheumatologist would have to see 2.1 patients fulfilling the ASAS tool or 1.9 patients fulfilling the DUET to diagnose one patient with SpA. However, with both referral strategies more than 20% of SpA patients would have been missed,” the researchers wrote. “This might be due to an ‘unusual presentation’ of SpA in those patients as their back pain started more often after the age of 45 years, lasted shorter than 3 months and thus, ASAS classification criteria were less frequently fulfilled.”

The researchers acknowledged possible selection bias because 15 patients with an incomplete rheumatologic evaluation were excluded. MRI also was routinely done for sacroiliac joints alone, although it was possible for clinician to order spinal MRI. In addition, the researchers allowed patients with AAU into the study regardless of their current treatment, meaning that it may have been possible for some patients receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to not be correctly identified as having SpA if the treatment improved their musculoskeletal symptoms.

Expert commentary

There are a number of diseases associated with SpA, including AAU, noted Kristine Kuhn, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the study.

“As a rheumatologist, we are quite aware of [uveitis] as an association, and we are usually asking our patients about eye symptoms because of this association,” Dr. Kuhn said in an interview.

While just over half of the patients with AAU also met the criteria for SpA, “that doesn’t necessarily mean diagnosis per se because classification criteria are based on a series of features to homogenize a group of people for clinical research studies. So it doesn’t always align 100% with diagnosis, but it does give us an indication that a little of over half of people with anterior uveitis will have underlying spondyloarthritis and should be evaluated by a rheumatologist.”

Dr. Kuhn also highlighted the associations of male sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and concomitant presence of psoriasis. “I bring those up because I find those to be interesting associations. We have known those for years to be associated with axial spondyloarthritis, but when you look at the actual data, I would just put a little bit of caution to those conclusions.”

She pointed out that, although the link of male sex to SpA in patients with AAU was statistically significant, it is not a clinically meaningful association.

Dr. Kuhn also noted that caution should be used when interpreting the HLA-B27 positivity data. “The caution that I put there is that this was conducted in Germany, and we know that Northern European populations tend to be more enriched for HLA-B27 genes, so what that association would be in a more diverse population is unknown.

“I think ophthalmologists are really good when they see a patient with [acute]-onset anterior uveitis; they have a suspicion that there’s probably another systemic disease that they should be looking at. What this tells us as a physician community is that maybe we should lower the threshold for getting patients into rheumatology and looking at whether or not the patient has underlying spondyloarthritis,” she said.

AbbVie supported the study with an unrestricted research grant but had no role in the study design or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Of the study’s 12 authors, 2 reported having no financial disclosures. All others reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

More than half of patients with noninfectious acute anterior uveitis seen in ophthalmology clinics in a new cross-sectional study were found by rheumatologists to have spondyloarthritis (SpA), prompting the researchers to recommend referring “all patients with AAU reporting musculoskeletal symptoms to rheumatologists.”

The results also suggest that “rheumatologists should consider that SpA in AAU patients might present ‘atypically’ with no or mild back pain starting after the age of 45 years and lasting shorter than 3 months,” according to first author Judith Rademacher, MD, and colleagues at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, who published their work online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

During July 2017–April 2021, the study team prospectively assessed 189 consecutive adult patients with noninfectious AAU at ophthalmology clinics in the Berlin area. The patients had rheumatologic examinations and underwent pelvic x-ray if they had back pain as well as MRI of sacroiliac joints regardless of back pain unless there was a contraindication. The patients had a mean age of nearly 41 years, and 54.5% were male.

Of the 189 patients with AAU, the researchers diagnosed SpA in 106, including 74 (70%) who had been previously undiagnosed. A total of 99 (93%) had predominately axial SpA, and 7 (7%) had peripheral SpA.

A multivariable logistic regression assessment found that male sex (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.2), HLA-B27 positivity (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 2.4-16.4), elevated C-reactive protein (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.9-12.4), and psoriasis (OR, 12.5; 95% CI, 1.3-120.2) were significantly associated with SpA in patients with AAU. No ophthalmologic factors were significantly associated with SpA.

Among all patients, an adaptation of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) referral tool demonstrated lower specificity for SpA recognition than did the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool (28% vs. 42%). The ASAS referral took had a slightly greater sensitivity than the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool (80% vs. 78%).

“Taking into account only AAU patients without prior diagnosis of SpA, a rheumatologist would have to see 2.1 patients fulfilling the ASAS tool or 1.9 patients fulfilling the DUET to diagnose one patient with SpA. However, with both referral strategies more than 20% of SpA patients would have been missed,” the researchers wrote. “This might be due to an ‘unusual presentation’ of SpA in those patients as their back pain started more often after the age of 45 years, lasted shorter than 3 months and thus, ASAS classification criteria were less frequently fulfilled.”

The researchers acknowledged possible selection bias because 15 patients with an incomplete rheumatologic evaluation were excluded. MRI also was routinely done for sacroiliac joints alone, although it was possible for clinician to order spinal MRI. In addition, the researchers allowed patients with AAU into the study regardless of their current treatment, meaning that it may have been possible for some patients receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to not be correctly identified as having SpA if the treatment improved their musculoskeletal symptoms.

Expert commentary

There are a number of diseases associated with SpA, including AAU, noted Kristine Kuhn, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the study.

“As a rheumatologist, we are quite aware of [uveitis] as an association, and we are usually asking our patients about eye symptoms because of this association,” Dr. Kuhn said in an interview.

While just over half of the patients with AAU also met the criteria for SpA, “that doesn’t necessarily mean diagnosis per se because classification criteria are based on a series of features to homogenize a group of people for clinical research studies. So it doesn’t always align 100% with diagnosis, but it does give us an indication that a little of over half of people with anterior uveitis will have underlying spondyloarthritis and should be evaluated by a rheumatologist.”

Dr. Kuhn also highlighted the associations of male sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and concomitant presence of psoriasis. “I bring those up because I find those to be interesting associations. We have known those for years to be associated with axial spondyloarthritis, but when you look at the actual data, I would just put a little bit of caution to those conclusions.”

She pointed out that, although the link of male sex to SpA in patients with AAU was statistically significant, it is not a clinically meaningful association.

Dr. Kuhn also noted that caution should be used when interpreting the HLA-B27 positivity data. “The caution that I put there is that this was conducted in Germany, and we know that Northern European populations tend to be more enriched for HLA-B27 genes, so what that association would be in a more diverse population is unknown.

“I think ophthalmologists are really good when they see a patient with [acute]-onset anterior uveitis; they have a suspicion that there’s probably another systemic disease that they should be looking at. What this tells us as a physician community is that maybe we should lower the threshold for getting patients into rheumatology and looking at whether or not the patient has underlying spondyloarthritis,” she said.

AbbVie supported the study with an unrestricted research grant but had no role in the study design or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Of the study’s 12 authors, 2 reported having no financial disclosures. All others reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

A rheumatologist was suspended from a professional society and his license to practice medicine was threatened after he raised concerns about data manipulation in a published study for which he recruited patients, according to documents seen by Retraction Watch. 

The study, “Added Value of Anti-CD74 Autoantibodies in Axial SpondyloArthritis in a Population With Low HLA-B27 Prevalence,” was published in Frontiers in Immunology in 2019 and has been cited 13 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. In its acknowledgments, it listed Fouad Fayad, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Saint Joseph and Hotel-Dieu de France University Medical Center in Beirut, as one of the researchers who recruited patients for the trial. 

Dr. Fayad alleged that the researchers tested patient samples multiple times and used a mix of old and new values in their analysis. After he reported his concerns to the journal and then the university, which both concluded that they could not confirm or refute his allegations, he has faced apparent retaliation, including the suspension of his membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology. 

In comments to Retraction Watch, the corresponding author for the study noted that the two investigations did not find data manipulation, and said the issue was “based on a background of personal and professional conflicts.” 

In an April video recorded with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, PhD, a former quant trader and retired distinguished professor of finance and risk engineering at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering, Dr. Fayad explained that he was originally an author on the paper, but after expressing concerns about the methodology to the other authors, they didn’t respond to him and his name was dropped from the author list without warning or explanation. 

Dr. Taleb also detailed the issues with the study, showing graphs that indicate “very poor correlation” between the old and new test results from participant samples. 

In October 2019, Dr. Fayad contacted Frontiers in Immunology with his concerns. But the journal’s investigation was inconclusive, and a staffer on the research integrity team told him in July 2020 to contact his institution to investigate, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. 

Dr. Fayad did so, but the University of Saint Joseph “rushed an incomplete investigation,” he said. It began in September of 2021 and concluded 2 months later that the investigation committee could not confirm or disprove Dr. Fayad’s allegations of data manipulation, according to a copy of the report seen by Retraction Watch. He said that their statistical reviewer did not receive all of the relevant documents, although he had provided them to the university. 

A university official sent the findings from the investigation to the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Beirut, which decided to suspend Dr. Fayad’s membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology. It’s “needless to explain the damage resulting from this suspension,” Dr. Fayad said. 

The Beirut organization wrote to the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli, the body with which Dr. Fayad’s license is registered, informing them of the decision. In a copy of the letter seen by Retraction Watch, the Beirut organization cited the university investigation finding Dr. Fayad’s allegations to be invalid, as well as a letter in which he alleged mismanagement of the rheumatology society, as reasons for the decision, and referred the matter to the Tripoli organization for further investigation. 

Dr. Fayad told us that the letter asking the Tripoli organization to investigate him could have led to the suspension of his license to practice medicine: 

“My license is registered with the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli. So legally speaking, it is only Tripoli organization that can suspend my license/permit to practice. Beirut Organization has tried to summon me to their investigation committee, but my license (being registered in Tripoli Organization) does not fall under Beirut’s jurisdiction; in other words Beirut Organization violated the law; they can not approach me directly, they have to go through the Tripoli Organization.

“As such, and since Beirut organization could not suspend my license (as they did for my membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology) they sent the letter to Tripoli organization asking them to investigate the matter and take necessary disciplinary action. This was a threat to suspending my license to practice medicine. Should Tripoli Organization have used the [University of Saint Joseph] letter and investigation report without conducting their own international investigation, my permit to practice would have been suspended.”

The Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli conducted its own investigation and confirmed “the existence of manipulation in the study data and failure to respect the data integrity,” according to an official translation of the investigation report seen by Retraction Watch. The Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli decided after its investigation that Dr. Fayad’s suspension from the rheumatology society was invalid. 

The lead author of the study in question, Nelly R. Ziade of Saint Joseph University and Hotel-Dieu de France Hospital in Beirut, told Retraction Watch that the investigation by the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli “cannot be considered as final or official” and that she was “never approached, interviewed, or asked to provide any documents related to this complaint.”

She continued: “I will always be available to give any scientific clarification requested by the Order of Physicians in Beirut where a serious investigation giving equal voice to both parties is currently conducted.

“Kindly note that the concerned journal has already conducted an internal investigation where both parties provided all documents and it was concluded that there was no scientific foundation for the accusations.

“Again, a similar investigation was conducted by the Saint-Joseph University in Beirut (where myself and the other party work). Both parties presented study documents to a committee including the president of the IRB, the vice president of the University, the medical director of the University Hospital, experts in musculoskeletal system and biostatistics. In brief, the case against the authors was dismissed, no data manipulation was found and the colleague from Tripoli also was submitted to University sanctions. The report of the University can be shared with you should you need it.

“I’m afraid that this issue is based on a background of personal and professional conflicts.”

Dr. Fayad added: “The beauty of science is that the truth will always prevail and cannot be obscured for long time.”

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

A rheumatologist was suspended from a professional society and his license to practice medicine was threatened after he raised concerns about data manipulation in a published study for which he recruited patients, according to documents seen by Retraction Watch. 

The study, “Added Value of Anti-CD74 Autoantibodies in Axial SpondyloArthritis in a Population With Low HLA-B27 Prevalence,” was published in Frontiers in Immunology in 2019 and has been cited 13 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. In its acknowledgments, it listed Fouad Fayad, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Saint Joseph and Hotel-Dieu de France University Medical Center in Beirut, as one of the researchers who recruited patients for the trial. 

Dr. Fayad alleged that the researchers tested patient samples multiple times and used a mix of old and new values in their analysis. After he reported his concerns to the journal and then the university, which both concluded that they could not confirm or refute his allegations, he has faced apparent retaliation, including the suspension of his membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology. 

In comments to Retraction Watch, the corresponding author for the study noted that the two investigations did not find data manipulation, and said the issue was “based on a background of personal and professional conflicts.” 

In an April video recorded with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, PhD, a former quant trader and retired distinguished professor of finance and risk engineering at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering, Dr. Fayad explained that he was originally an author on the paper, but after expressing concerns about the methodology to the other authors, they didn’t respond to him and his name was dropped from the author list without warning or explanation. 

Dr. Taleb also detailed the issues with the study, showing graphs that indicate “very poor correlation” between the old and new test results from participant samples. 

In October 2019, Dr. Fayad contacted Frontiers in Immunology with his concerns. But the journal’s investigation was inconclusive, and a staffer on the research integrity team told him in July 2020 to contact his institution to investigate, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. 

Dr. Fayad did so, but the University of Saint Joseph “rushed an incomplete investigation,” he said. It began in September of 2021 and concluded 2 months later that the investigation committee could not confirm or disprove Dr. Fayad’s allegations of data manipulation, according to a copy of the report seen by Retraction Watch. He said that their statistical reviewer did not receive all of the relevant documents, although he had provided them to the university. 

A university official sent the findings from the investigation to the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Beirut, which decided to suspend Dr. Fayad’s membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology. It’s “needless to explain the damage resulting from this suspension,” Dr. Fayad said. 

The Beirut organization wrote to the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli, the body with which Dr. Fayad’s license is registered, informing them of the decision. In a copy of the letter seen by Retraction Watch, the Beirut organization cited the university investigation finding Dr. Fayad’s allegations to be invalid, as well as a letter in which he alleged mismanagement of the rheumatology society, as reasons for the decision, and referred the matter to the Tripoli organization for further investigation. 

Dr. Fayad told us that the letter asking the Tripoli organization to investigate him could have led to the suspension of his license to practice medicine: 

“My license is registered with the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli. So legally speaking, it is only Tripoli organization that can suspend my license/permit to practice. Beirut Organization has tried to summon me to their investigation committee, but my license (being registered in Tripoli Organization) does not fall under Beirut’s jurisdiction; in other words Beirut Organization violated the law; they can not approach me directly, they have to go through the Tripoli Organization.

“As such, and since Beirut organization could not suspend my license (as they did for my membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology) they sent the letter to Tripoli organization asking them to investigate the matter and take necessary disciplinary action. This was a threat to suspending my license to practice medicine. Should Tripoli Organization have used the [University of Saint Joseph] letter and investigation report without conducting their own international investigation, my permit to practice would have been suspended.”

The Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli conducted its own investigation and confirmed “the existence of manipulation in the study data and failure to respect the data integrity,” according to an official translation of the investigation report seen by Retraction Watch. The Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli decided after its investigation that Dr. Fayad’s suspension from the rheumatology society was invalid. 

The lead author of the study in question, Nelly R. Ziade of Saint Joseph University and Hotel-Dieu de France Hospital in Beirut, told Retraction Watch that the investigation by the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli “cannot be considered as final or official” and that she was “never approached, interviewed, or asked to provide any documents related to this complaint.”

She continued: “I will always be available to give any scientific clarification requested by the Order of Physicians in Beirut where a serious investigation giving equal voice to both parties is currently conducted.

“Kindly note that the concerned journal has already conducted an internal investigation where both parties provided all documents and it was concluded that there was no scientific foundation for the accusations.

“Again, a similar investigation was conducted by the Saint-Joseph University in Beirut (where myself and the other party work). Both parties presented study documents to a committee including the president of the IRB, the vice president of the University, the medical director of the University Hospital, experts in musculoskeletal system and biostatistics. In brief, the case against the authors was dismissed, no data manipulation was found and the colleague from Tripoli also was submitted to University sanctions. The report of the University can be shared with you should you need it.

“I’m afraid that this issue is based on a background of personal and professional conflicts.”

Dr. Fayad added: “The beauty of science is that the truth will always prevail and cannot be obscured for long time.”

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

A rheumatologist was suspended from a professional society and his license to practice medicine was threatened after he raised concerns about data manipulation in a published study for which he recruited patients, according to documents seen by Retraction Watch. 

The study, “Added Value of Anti-CD74 Autoantibodies in Axial SpondyloArthritis in a Population With Low HLA-B27 Prevalence,” was published in Frontiers in Immunology in 2019 and has been cited 13 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. In its acknowledgments, it listed Fouad Fayad, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Saint Joseph and Hotel-Dieu de France University Medical Center in Beirut, as one of the researchers who recruited patients for the trial. 

Dr. Fayad alleged that the researchers tested patient samples multiple times and used a mix of old and new values in their analysis. After he reported his concerns to the journal and then the university, which both concluded that they could not confirm or refute his allegations, he has faced apparent retaliation, including the suspension of his membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology. 

In comments to Retraction Watch, the corresponding author for the study noted that the two investigations did not find data manipulation, and said the issue was “based on a background of personal and professional conflicts.” 

In an April video recorded with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, PhD, a former quant trader and retired distinguished professor of finance and risk engineering at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering, Dr. Fayad explained that he was originally an author on the paper, but after expressing concerns about the methodology to the other authors, they didn’t respond to him and his name was dropped from the author list without warning or explanation. 

Dr. Taleb also detailed the issues with the study, showing graphs that indicate “very poor correlation” between the old and new test results from participant samples. 

In October 2019, Dr. Fayad contacted Frontiers in Immunology with his concerns. But the journal’s investigation was inconclusive, and a staffer on the research integrity team told him in July 2020 to contact his institution to investigate, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. 

Dr. Fayad did so, but the University of Saint Joseph “rushed an incomplete investigation,” he said. It began in September of 2021 and concluded 2 months later that the investigation committee could not confirm or disprove Dr. Fayad’s allegations of data manipulation, according to a copy of the report seen by Retraction Watch. He said that their statistical reviewer did not receive all of the relevant documents, although he had provided them to the university. 

A university official sent the findings from the investigation to the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Beirut, which decided to suspend Dr. Fayad’s membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology. It’s “needless to explain the damage resulting from this suspension,” Dr. Fayad said. 

The Beirut organization wrote to the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli, the body with which Dr. Fayad’s license is registered, informing them of the decision. In a copy of the letter seen by Retraction Watch, the Beirut organization cited the university investigation finding Dr. Fayad’s allegations to be invalid, as well as a letter in which he alleged mismanagement of the rheumatology society, as reasons for the decision, and referred the matter to the Tripoli organization for further investigation. 

Dr. Fayad told us that the letter asking the Tripoli organization to investigate him could have led to the suspension of his license to practice medicine: 

“My license is registered with the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli. So legally speaking, it is only Tripoli organization that can suspend my license/permit to practice. Beirut Organization has tried to summon me to their investigation committee, but my license (being registered in Tripoli Organization) does not fall under Beirut’s jurisdiction; in other words Beirut Organization violated the law; they can not approach me directly, they have to go through the Tripoli Organization.

“As such, and since Beirut organization could not suspend my license (as they did for my membership in the Lebanese Society of Rheumatology) they sent the letter to Tripoli organization asking them to investigate the matter and take necessary disciplinary action. This was a threat to suspending my license to practice medicine. Should Tripoli Organization have used the [University of Saint Joseph] letter and investigation report without conducting their own international investigation, my permit to practice would have been suspended.”

The Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli conducted its own investigation and confirmed “the existence of manipulation in the study data and failure to respect the data integrity,” according to an official translation of the investigation report seen by Retraction Watch. The Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli decided after its investigation that Dr. Fayad’s suspension from the rheumatology society was invalid. 

The lead author of the study in question, Nelly R. Ziade of Saint Joseph University and Hotel-Dieu de France Hospital in Beirut, told Retraction Watch that the investigation by the Lebanese Order of Physicians – Tripoli “cannot be considered as final or official” and that she was “never approached, interviewed, or asked to provide any documents related to this complaint.”

She continued: “I will always be available to give any scientific clarification requested by the Order of Physicians in Beirut where a serious investigation giving equal voice to both parties is currently conducted.

“Kindly note that the concerned journal has already conducted an internal investigation where both parties provided all documents and it was concluded that there was no scientific foundation for the accusations.

“Again, a similar investigation was conducted by the Saint-Joseph University in Beirut (where myself and the other party work). Both parties presented study documents to a committee including the president of the IRB, the vice president of the University, the medical director of the University Hospital, experts in musculoskeletal system and biostatistics. In brief, the case against the authors was dismissed, no data manipulation was found and the colleague from Tripoli also was submitted to University sanctions. The report of the University can be shared with you should you need it.

“I’m afraid that this issue is based on a background of personal and professional conflicts.”

Dr. Fayad added: “The beauty of science is that the truth will always prevail and cannot be obscured for long time.”

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

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.

In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.

In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
 

Pausing methotrexate after booster

The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.

It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.

“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.

In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.

However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.

Expert commentary

This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.

“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”

Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.

It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
 

Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses

Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.

Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.

In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.

The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).

The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).

The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.

Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II

Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.

“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.

“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.

Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth  and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.

In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.

In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
 

Pausing methotrexate after booster

The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.

It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.

“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.

In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.

However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.

Expert commentary

This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.

“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”

Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.

It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
 

Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses

Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.

Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.

In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.

The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).

The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).

The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.

Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II

Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.

“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.

“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.

Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth  and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.

In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.

In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
 

Pausing methotrexate after booster

The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.

It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.

“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.

In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.

However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.

Expert commentary

This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.

“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”

Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.

It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
 

Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses

Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.

Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.

In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.

The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).

The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).

The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.

Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II

Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.

“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.

“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.

Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth  and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.

The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.

In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.

Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.

Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.

A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.

“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).

Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).

Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.

For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.

AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.

The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.

In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.

Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.

Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.

A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.

“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).

Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).

Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.

For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.

AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.

The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.

In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.

Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.

Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.

A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.

“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).

Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).

Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.

For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.

AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.