Spondyloarthropathies

Considerable uncertainty surrounds whether people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who are treated with biologic drugs have an increased risk for developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is higher than if they receive other treatments, according to data reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“We noticed two patterns,” Gary Macfarlane, MD, PhD, Dsc, of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) said in presenting findings from an analysis of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) and a meta-analysis of available studies.

copyright varaphoto/Thinkstock

There was a “large excess risk in observational studies associated with biologic therapies, which was not replicated in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” he said, “and trials under extensions suggested a small absolute increased risk associated with etanercept and with [interleukin]-17 [inhibitors], although again with considerable uncertainty.”

While these data make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions, “we should be reassured that the patient groups receiving these specific biologics in routine clinical care have not demonstrated an excess risk of IBD,” Dr. Macfarlane told delegates at the meeting.
 

Addressing clinical questions

IBD is a known extra-articular manifestation of axSpA, with an estimated prevalence of about 7%, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of 69 studies involving more than 30,000 patients.

The idea that people being treated with biologics may be at higher risk for developing IBD than those taking other treatments was suggested by the results of a large (n = 80,326) Danish study in which patients who were treated with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha medication were found to be more likely to develop de novo ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease than were patients who did not receive biologics.

Notably, the risk for IBD seemed higher with etanercept than with other anti–TNF-alpha agents, such as infliximab and adalimumab.

The aim of the analyses that Dr. Macfarlane presented was therefore to see if there was a difference in IBD risk among patients treated with biologic agents versus other agents, and if etanercept really did pose a greater cause for concern.

“The reason that we are asking this question is that a clinician called us up and asked us if we had any data on it,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “I think that’s really important to say that one of the things the registers are designed for are to answer questions that clinicians may have.”
 

Looking for new-onset IBD

Although no longer recruiting patients, the BSRBR-AS provides a wealth of data on the real-life management of patients with axSpA who were or were not taking a biologic. Patients were recruited into the register between 2012 and 2017, with follow-up until 2018. Data analyses are still ongoing and expected to continue for another couple of years.

The current analysis of data from the BSRBR-AS included patients who did not already have IBD at enrollment into the register, and patients who had been treated with a biologic could have been treated only with a single agent. Of just over 1,800 eligible patients, 793 had been treated with a biologic and 1,058 had been given nonbiologic treatment.

As expected, there were some differences between the two groups of patients studied, with biologic-treated patients having a younger age than non–biologic-treated patients. Those who took a biologic also had higher disease activity, inflammatory scores, and rates of psoriasis, enthesitis, and peripheral joint involvement.

Incidence rates for new-onset IBD per 1,000 person-years of treatment were calculated as 17 (95% confidence interval, 10.7-25.8) for patients taking a biologic and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.7-8.7) for those not taking a biologic, giving an incidence rate difference of 11.9 (95% CI, 4.3-19.6).

There was some observed differences in the incidence of new-onset IBD associated with specific agents. Etanercept did not have a higher rate (13.9/1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 5.1-30.3) than did other agents. But in comparison, the incidence of new-onset IBD for adalimumab was 20.4 (95% CI, 11.7-33.1) and zero for other anti-TNF agents such as certolizumab pegol and infliximab, although the duration of exposure to these drugs was much lower.

The IRDs for etanercept versus nonbiologic treatment and versus other anti-TNFs were 8.8 (95% CI, –2.7 to 20.3) and -6.4 (95% CI, –21.3 to 8.5), but with “considerable uncertainty” because the confidence intervals were very wide.
 

Uncertainty not helped by meta-analysis

“Given the uncertainty associated with the results from BSRBR-AS, we decided to undertake a meta-analysis to try to accumulate other data that could help us answer this question,” Dr. Macfarlane explained.

However, this didn’t really help clarify things because combining BSRBR-AS data with the results of a couple of observational studies suggested that the odds of of IBD doubled with any biologic treatment versus no biologic treatment (odds ratio, 2.19), and a 2.5-fold higher likelihood considering etanercept versus no biologic treatment, but no difference was seen comparing etanercept to other anti-TNF agents (OR, 0.93).

When the meta-analysis was restricted to RCTs, the rate of IBD per 1,000 person-years was 3.43 for placebo, 5.64 for all biologics, 8.14 for etanercept, 2.35 for other anti-TNFs, and 7.02 for IL-17 inhibitors.

For extensions of RCTs, IBD rates per 1,000 person-years of follow-up were 2.91 for etanercept, 0.83 for other anti-TNFs, 3.61 for IL-17 inhibitors, and 2.79 for all biologics.

“There was only a small difference in IBD incidence between the biologic therapy and the placebo groups” in the RCTs and associated studies, Dr. Macfarlane said, adding that “there was a small excess incidence associated with etanercept, compared to other anti-TNF agents, and [for] IL-17 therapy, compared to nonetanercept, anti–TNF-alpha therapies.”

Of course, the different study designs and durations of exposure to the various treatments raises significant methodological issues.

“Randomized, controlled trials should provide the highest quality evidence as a result of their design and randomizing patients to treatment,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “However, their relatively short follow-up, as well as their restrictive eligibility criteria, may work against finding a difference in IBD incidence if it were to exist.”

Observational studies are very valuable in the data they can provide but are also beset with problems, such as surveillance bias and confounding by indication.

The higher risk of IBD that was observed in observational studies could be an issue with study design, or perhaps, “in routine clinical practice, rheumatologists are taking on board factors that we have not measured, that are negating any slight increased risk,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Session chair Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Liverpool (England) University NHS Foundation Trust, commented: “I think that could well be a very reasonable explanation, because I think as a clinician, you do tend to channel drugs away from some people and channel drugs towards others.

However, Dr. Goodson noted that there was “a glimmer” of signal coming from the RCTs.

“Methodologically, that is what you would have to take as the most robust evidence,” Dr. Macfarlane said, “but even with all the evidence available, it’s still very hard for us to quantify; that has enormous uncertainty.”

Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Goodson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. The BSRBR-AS is supported by the BSR, which receives funds to support the registry from Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB.

Considerable uncertainty surrounds whether people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who are treated with biologic drugs have an increased risk for developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is higher than if they receive other treatments, according to data reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“We noticed two patterns,” Gary Macfarlane, MD, PhD, Dsc, of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) said in presenting findings from an analysis of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) and a meta-analysis of available studies.

copyright varaphoto/Thinkstock

There was a “large excess risk in observational studies associated with biologic therapies, which was not replicated in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” he said, “and trials under extensions suggested a small absolute increased risk associated with etanercept and with [interleukin]-17 [inhibitors], although again with considerable uncertainty.”

While these data make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions, “we should be reassured that the patient groups receiving these specific biologics in routine clinical care have not demonstrated an excess risk of IBD,” Dr. Macfarlane told delegates at the meeting.
 

Addressing clinical questions

IBD is a known extra-articular manifestation of axSpA, with an estimated prevalence of about 7%, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of 69 studies involving more than 30,000 patients.

The idea that people being treated with biologics may be at higher risk for developing IBD than those taking other treatments was suggested by the results of a large (n = 80,326) Danish study in which patients who were treated with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha medication were found to be more likely to develop de novo ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease than were patients who did not receive biologics.

Notably, the risk for IBD seemed higher with etanercept than with other anti–TNF-alpha agents, such as infliximab and adalimumab.

The aim of the analyses that Dr. Macfarlane presented was therefore to see if there was a difference in IBD risk among patients treated with biologic agents versus other agents, and if etanercept really did pose a greater cause for concern.

“The reason that we are asking this question is that a clinician called us up and asked us if we had any data on it,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “I think that’s really important to say that one of the things the registers are designed for are to answer questions that clinicians may have.”
 

Looking for new-onset IBD

Although no longer recruiting patients, the BSRBR-AS provides a wealth of data on the real-life management of patients with axSpA who were or were not taking a biologic. Patients were recruited into the register between 2012 and 2017, with follow-up until 2018. Data analyses are still ongoing and expected to continue for another couple of years.

The current analysis of data from the BSRBR-AS included patients who did not already have IBD at enrollment into the register, and patients who had been treated with a biologic could have been treated only with a single agent. Of just over 1,800 eligible patients, 793 had been treated with a biologic and 1,058 had been given nonbiologic treatment.

As expected, there were some differences between the two groups of patients studied, with biologic-treated patients having a younger age than non–biologic-treated patients. Those who took a biologic also had higher disease activity, inflammatory scores, and rates of psoriasis, enthesitis, and peripheral joint involvement.

Incidence rates for new-onset IBD per 1,000 person-years of treatment were calculated as 17 (95% confidence interval, 10.7-25.8) for patients taking a biologic and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.7-8.7) for those not taking a biologic, giving an incidence rate difference of 11.9 (95% CI, 4.3-19.6).

There was some observed differences in the incidence of new-onset IBD associated with specific agents. Etanercept did not have a higher rate (13.9/1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 5.1-30.3) than did other agents. But in comparison, the incidence of new-onset IBD for adalimumab was 20.4 (95% CI, 11.7-33.1) and zero for other anti-TNF agents such as certolizumab pegol and infliximab, although the duration of exposure to these drugs was much lower.

The IRDs for etanercept versus nonbiologic treatment and versus other anti-TNFs were 8.8 (95% CI, –2.7 to 20.3) and -6.4 (95% CI, –21.3 to 8.5), but with “considerable uncertainty” because the confidence intervals were very wide.
 

Uncertainty not helped by meta-analysis

“Given the uncertainty associated with the results from BSRBR-AS, we decided to undertake a meta-analysis to try to accumulate other data that could help us answer this question,” Dr. Macfarlane explained.

However, this didn’t really help clarify things because combining BSRBR-AS data with the results of a couple of observational studies suggested that the odds of of IBD doubled with any biologic treatment versus no biologic treatment (odds ratio, 2.19), and a 2.5-fold higher likelihood considering etanercept versus no biologic treatment, but no difference was seen comparing etanercept to other anti-TNF agents (OR, 0.93).

When the meta-analysis was restricted to RCTs, the rate of IBD per 1,000 person-years was 3.43 for placebo, 5.64 for all biologics, 8.14 for etanercept, 2.35 for other anti-TNFs, and 7.02 for IL-17 inhibitors.

For extensions of RCTs, IBD rates per 1,000 person-years of follow-up were 2.91 for etanercept, 0.83 for other anti-TNFs, 3.61 for IL-17 inhibitors, and 2.79 for all biologics.

“There was only a small difference in IBD incidence between the biologic therapy and the placebo groups” in the RCTs and associated studies, Dr. Macfarlane said, adding that “there was a small excess incidence associated with etanercept, compared to other anti-TNF agents, and [for] IL-17 therapy, compared to nonetanercept, anti–TNF-alpha therapies.”

Of course, the different study designs and durations of exposure to the various treatments raises significant methodological issues.

“Randomized, controlled trials should provide the highest quality evidence as a result of their design and randomizing patients to treatment,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “However, their relatively short follow-up, as well as their restrictive eligibility criteria, may work against finding a difference in IBD incidence if it were to exist.”

Observational studies are very valuable in the data they can provide but are also beset with problems, such as surveillance bias and confounding by indication.

The higher risk of IBD that was observed in observational studies could be an issue with study design, or perhaps, “in routine clinical practice, rheumatologists are taking on board factors that we have not measured, that are negating any slight increased risk,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Session chair Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Liverpool (England) University NHS Foundation Trust, commented: “I think that could well be a very reasonable explanation, because I think as a clinician, you do tend to channel drugs away from some people and channel drugs towards others.

However, Dr. Goodson noted that there was “a glimmer” of signal coming from the RCTs.

“Methodologically, that is what you would have to take as the most robust evidence,” Dr. Macfarlane said, “but even with all the evidence available, it’s still very hard for us to quantify; that has enormous uncertainty.”

Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Goodson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. The BSRBR-AS is supported by the BSR, which receives funds to support the registry from Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB.

Considerable uncertainty surrounds whether people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who are treated with biologic drugs have an increased risk for developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that is higher than if they receive other treatments, according to data reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“We noticed two patterns,” Gary Macfarlane, MD, PhD, Dsc, of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) said in presenting findings from an analysis of the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) and a meta-analysis of available studies.

copyright varaphoto/Thinkstock

There was a “large excess risk in observational studies associated with biologic therapies, which was not replicated in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” he said, “and trials under extensions suggested a small absolute increased risk associated with etanercept and with [interleukin]-17 [inhibitors], although again with considerable uncertainty.”

While these data make it difficult to draw any firm conclusions, “we should be reassured that the patient groups receiving these specific biologics in routine clinical care have not demonstrated an excess risk of IBD,” Dr. Macfarlane told delegates at the meeting.
 

Addressing clinical questions

IBD is a known extra-articular manifestation of axSpA, with an estimated prevalence of about 7%, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of 69 studies involving more than 30,000 patients.

The idea that people being treated with biologics may be at higher risk for developing IBD than those taking other treatments was suggested by the results of a large (n = 80,326) Danish study in which patients who were treated with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha medication were found to be more likely to develop de novo ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease than were patients who did not receive biologics.

Notably, the risk for IBD seemed higher with etanercept than with other anti–TNF-alpha agents, such as infliximab and adalimumab.

The aim of the analyses that Dr. Macfarlane presented was therefore to see if there was a difference in IBD risk among patients treated with biologic agents versus other agents, and if etanercept really did pose a greater cause for concern.

“The reason that we are asking this question is that a clinician called us up and asked us if we had any data on it,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “I think that’s really important to say that one of the things the registers are designed for are to answer questions that clinicians may have.”
 

Looking for new-onset IBD

Although no longer recruiting patients, the BSRBR-AS provides a wealth of data on the real-life management of patients with axSpA who were or were not taking a biologic. Patients were recruited into the register between 2012 and 2017, with follow-up until 2018. Data analyses are still ongoing and expected to continue for another couple of years.

The current analysis of data from the BSRBR-AS included patients who did not already have IBD at enrollment into the register, and patients who had been treated with a biologic could have been treated only with a single agent. Of just over 1,800 eligible patients, 793 had been treated with a biologic and 1,058 had been given nonbiologic treatment.

As expected, there were some differences between the two groups of patients studied, with biologic-treated patients having a younger age than non–biologic-treated patients. Those who took a biologic also had higher disease activity, inflammatory scores, and rates of psoriasis, enthesitis, and peripheral joint involvement.

Incidence rates for new-onset IBD per 1,000 person-years of treatment were calculated as 17 (95% confidence interval, 10.7-25.8) for patients taking a biologic and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.7-8.7) for those not taking a biologic, giving an incidence rate difference of 11.9 (95% CI, 4.3-19.6).

There was some observed differences in the incidence of new-onset IBD associated with specific agents. Etanercept did not have a higher rate (13.9/1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 5.1-30.3) than did other agents. But in comparison, the incidence of new-onset IBD for adalimumab was 20.4 (95% CI, 11.7-33.1) and zero for other anti-TNF agents such as certolizumab pegol and infliximab, although the duration of exposure to these drugs was much lower.

The IRDs for etanercept versus nonbiologic treatment and versus other anti-TNFs were 8.8 (95% CI, –2.7 to 20.3) and -6.4 (95% CI, –21.3 to 8.5), but with “considerable uncertainty” because the confidence intervals were very wide.
 

Uncertainty not helped by meta-analysis

“Given the uncertainty associated with the results from BSRBR-AS, we decided to undertake a meta-analysis to try to accumulate other data that could help us answer this question,” Dr. Macfarlane explained.

However, this didn’t really help clarify things because combining BSRBR-AS data with the results of a couple of observational studies suggested that the odds of of IBD doubled with any biologic treatment versus no biologic treatment (odds ratio, 2.19), and a 2.5-fold higher likelihood considering etanercept versus no biologic treatment, but no difference was seen comparing etanercept to other anti-TNF agents (OR, 0.93).

When the meta-analysis was restricted to RCTs, the rate of IBD per 1,000 person-years was 3.43 for placebo, 5.64 for all biologics, 8.14 for etanercept, 2.35 for other anti-TNFs, and 7.02 for IL-17 inhibitors.

For extensions of RCTs, IBD rates per 1,000 person-years of follow-up were 2.91 for etanercept, 0.83 for other anti-TNFs, 3.61 for IL-17 inhibitors, and 2.79 for all biologics.

“There was only a small difference in IBD incidence between the biologic therapy and the placebo groups” in the RCTs and associated studies, Dr. Macfarlane said, adding that “there was a small excess incidence associated with etanercept, compared to other anti-TNF agents, and [for] IL-17 therapy, compared to nonetanercept, anti–TNF-alpha therapies.”

Of course, the different study designs and durations of exposure to the various treatments raises significant methodological issues.

“Randomized, controlled trials should provide the highest quality evidence as a result of their design and randomizing patients to treatment,” Dr. Macfarlane said. “However, their relatively short follow-up, as well as their restrictive eligibility criteria, may work against finding a difference in IBD incidence if it were to exist.”

Observational studies are very valuable in the data they can provide but are also beset with problems, such as surveillance bias and confounding by indication.

The higher risk of IBD that was observed in observational studies could be an issue with study design, or perhaps, “in routine clinical practice, rheumatologists are taking on board factors that we have not measured, that are negating any slight increased risk,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Session chair Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Liverpool (England) University NHS Foundation Trust, commented: “I think that could well be a very reasonable explanation, because I think as a clinician, you do tend to channel drugs away from some people and channel drugs towards others.

However, Dr. Goodson noted that there was “a glimmer” of signal coming from the RCTs.

“Methodologically, that is what you would have to take as the most robust evidence,” Dr. Macfarlane said, “but even with all the evidence available, it’s still very hard for us to quantify; that has enormous uncertainty.”

Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Goodson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. The BSRBR-AS is supported by the BSR, which receives funds to support the registry from Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB.

A small number of patient and physician-reported outcomes, as well as laboratory and clinical factors, may help to predict the response of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors when they have never taken them before, according to an analysis of data from nearly 2,000 individuals in 10 clinical trials.

TNF inhibitors are recommended for patients with AS whose symptoms persist despite use of NSAIDs, Runsheng Wang, MD, adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and a practicing rheumatologist at Garden State Rheumatology Consultants, Union, N.J., and colleagues wrote. Randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown that TNF inhibitors are effective in treating AS, but approximately half of patients fail to achieve notable improvement, which suggests the need for a predictive model.

“In clinical practice, before starting a treatment, physicians and patients want to know how likely a patient would be to respond to the treatment, particularly when more than one treatment option is available,” Dr. Wang said in an interview. “In this study, we developed predictive models that can potentially answer this question.”

The results suggest that the models in the study can be used to personalize clinical decision-making for patients with AS, whether to promote confidence in choosing a TNF inhibitor or to terminate treatment in nonresponders who had a higher probability of nonresponse at baseline, the researchers wrote. Similar models for other biologic treatments can help prioritize treatment options.

The predictive models are practical for clinical use because the variables in the reduced models – can be collected easily during patient visits, Dr. Wang explained. However, data from clinical practice are needed to further validate the study findings.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data from 10 randomized, controlled clinical trials of TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with active AS conducted during 2002-2016. The study population included 1,899 adults with active AS who received an originator TNF inhibitor for at least 12 weeks, and the training set included 1,207 individuals. In the training set, the mean age of the participants was 39 years, and 75% were men.

The outcomes included major response and no response based on change in AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) from baseline to 12 weeks, and the researchers used machine-learning algorithms to estimate the probability of major response or no response. Major response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of 2.0 or greater; no response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of less than 1.1.

In the training set, a total of 407 patients (33.7%) had a major response, and 414 (34.3%) had no response.

The key features in the full, 21-variable model that increased the probability of a major response were higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, higher patient global assessment (PGA) of disease activity, and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) question 2 scores. (Question 2 asks for the overall level of back, hip, or neck pain associated with AS.) The probability of a major response decreased with higher body mass index and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores.

The key features in the model that increased the probability of no response were older age and higher BASFI scores. The probability of no response decreased with higher CRP levels, higher BASDAI question 2 scores, and higher PGA scores.

Overall, the researchers found that models using smaller subsets of variables (three or five variables in total) that would be easier to gather clinically yielded similar predictive performance.

The models were externally validated in a testing set of 692 individuals. Baseline characteristics were similar in the testing and training sets. In the testing set, the full models demonstrated moderate to high accuracy of 0.71 in the random forest model for major response and 0.76 in the random forest model for no response, with similar results in the reduced models.

At a prevalence of 25% for major response, the positive predictive values (PPVs) for random forest and logistic regression models ranged from 0.49 to 0.60, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) ranged from 0.82 to 0.84. At a prevalence of 25% for no response, PPVs ranged from 0.61 to 0.77, and NPVs ranged from 0.81 to 0.83.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on smoking, which has been linked both to shorter treatment adherence and worse response to TNF inhibitors; the inclusion of only TNF inhibitor–naive patients; and the exclusion of NSAIDs from the models, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Wang disclosed support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The study’s two other authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The study was based on an analysis of data from AbbVie and Pfizer that were made available through Vivli.

A small number of patient and physician-reported outcomes, as well as laboratory and clinical factors, may help to predict the response of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors when they have never taken them before, according to an analysis of data from nearly 2,000 individuals in 10 clinical trials.

TNF inhibitors are recommended for patients with AS whose symptoms persist despite use of NSAIDs, Runsheng Wang, MD, adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and a practicing rheumatologist at Garden State Rheumatology Consultants, Union, N.J., and colleagues wrote. Randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown that TNF inhibitors are effective in treating AS, but approximately half of patients fail to achieve notable improvement, which suggests the need for a predictive model.

“In clinical practice, before starting a treatment, physicians and patients want to know how likely a patient would be to respond to the treatment, particularly when more than one treatment option is available,” Dr. Wang said in an interview. “In this study, we developed predictive models that can potentially answer this question.”

The results suggest that the models in the study can be used to personalize clinical decision-making for patients with AS, whether to promote confidence in choosing a TNF inhibitor or to terminate treatment in nonresponders who had a higher probability of nonresponse at baseline, the researchers wrote. Similar models for other biologic treatments can help prioritize treatment options.

The predictive models are practical for clinical use because the variables in the reduced models – can be collected easily during patient visits, Dr. Wang explained. However, data from clinical practice are needed to further validate the study findings.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data from 10 randomized, controlled clinical trials of TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with active AS conducted during 2002-2016. The study population included 1,899 adults with active AS who received an originator TNF inhibitor for at least 12 weeks, and the training set included 1,207 individuals. In the training set, the mean age of the participants was 39 years, and 75% were men.

The outcomes included major response and no response based on change in AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) from baseline to 12 weeks, and the researchers used machine-learning algorithms to estimate the probability of major response or no response. Major response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of 2.0 or greater; no response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of less than 1.1.

In the training set, a total of 407 patients (33.7%) had a major response, and 414 (34.3%) had no response.

The key features in the full, 21-variable model that increased the probability of a major response were higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, higher patient global assessment (PGA) of disease activity, and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) question 2 scores. (Question 2 asks for the overall level of back, hip, or neck pain associated with AS.) The probability of a major response decreased with higher body mass index and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores.

The key features in the model that increased the probability of no response were older age and higher BASFI scores. The probability of no response decreased with higher CRP levels, higher BASDAI question 2 scores, and higher PGA scores.

Overall, the researchers found that models using smaller subsets of variables (three or five variables in total) that would be easier to gather clinically yielded similar predictive performance.

The models were externally validated in a testing set of 692 individuals. Baseline characteristics were similar in the testing and training sets. In the testing set, the full models demonstrated moderate to high accuracy of 0.71 in the random forest model for major response and 0.76 in the random forest model for no response, with similar results in the reduced models.

At a prevalence of 25% for major response, the positive predictive values (PPVs) for random forest and logistic regression models ranged from 0.49 to 0.60, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) ranged from 0.82 to 0.84. At a prevalence of 25% for no response, PPVs ranged from 0.61 to 0.77, and NPVs ranged from 0.81 to 0.83.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on smoking, which has been linked both to shorter treatment adherence and worse response to TNF inhibitors; the inclusion of only TNF inhibitor–naive patients; and the exclusion of NSAIDs from the models, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Wang disclosed support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The study’s two other authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The study was based on an analysis of data from AbbVie and Pfizer that were made available through Vivli.

A small number of patient and physician-reported outcomes, as well as laboratory and clinical factors, may help to predict the response of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors when they have never taken them before, according to an analysis of data from nearly 2,000 individuals in 10 clinical trials.

TNF inhibitors are recommended for patients with AS whose symptoms persist despite use of NSAIDs, Runsheng Wang, MD, adjunct assistant professor at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and a practicing rheumatologist at Garden State Rheumatology Consultants, Union, N.J., and colleagues wrote. Randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown that TNF inhibitors are effective in treating AS, but approximately half of patients fail to achieve notable improvement, which suggests the need for a predictive model.

“In clinical practice, before starting a treatment, physicians and patients want to know how likely a patient would be to respond to the treatment, particularly when more than one treatment option is available,” Dr. Wang said in an interview. “In this study, we developed predictive models that can potentially answer this question.”

The results suggest that the models in the study can be used to personalize clinical decision-making for patients with AS, whether to promote confidence in choosing a TNF inhibitor or to terminate treatment in nonresponders who had a higher probability of nonresponse at baseline, the researchers wrote. Similar models for other biologic treatments can help prioritize treatment options.

The predictive models are practical for clinical use because the variables in the reduced models – can be collected easily during patient visits, Dr. Wang explained. However, data from clinical practice are needed to further validate the study findings.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data from 10 randomized, controlled clinical trials of TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with active AS conducted during 2002-2016. The study population included 1,899 adults with active AS who received an originator TNF inhibitor for at least 12 weeks, and the training set included 1,207 individuals. In the training set, the mean age of the participants was 39 years, and 75% were men.

The outcomes included major response and no response based on change in AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) from baseline to 12 weeks, and the researchers used machine-learning algorithms to estimate the probability of major response or no response. Major response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of 2.0 or greater; no response was defined as a decrease in ASDAS of less than 1.1.

In the training set, a total of 407 patients (33.7%) had a major response, and 414 (34.3%) had no response.

The key features in the full, 21-variable model that increased the probability of a major response were higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, higher patient global assessment (PGA) of disease activity, and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) question 2 scores. (Question 2 asks for the overall level of back, hip, or neck pain associated with AS.) The probability of a major response decreased with higher body mass index and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) scores.

The key features in the model that increased the probability of no response were older age and higher BASFI scores. The probability of no response decreased with higher CRP levels, higher BASDAI question 2 scores, and higher PGA scores.

Overall, the researchers found that models using smaller subsets of variables (three or five variables in total) that would be easier to gather clinically yielded similar predictive performance.

The models were externally validated in a testing set of 692 individuals. Baseline characteristics were similar in the testing and training sets. In the testing set, the full models demonstrated moderate to high accuracy of 0.71 in the random forest model for major response and 0.76 in the random forest model for no response, with similar results in the reduced models.

At a prevalence of 25% for major response, the positive predictive values (PPVs) for random forest and logistic regression models ranged from 0.49 to 0.60, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) ranged from 0.82 to 0.84. At a prevalence of 25% for no response, PPVs ranged from 0.61 to 0.77, and NPVs ranged from 0.81 to 0.83.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on smoking, which has been linked both to shorter treatment adherence and worse response to TNF inhibitors; the inclusion of only TNF inhibitor–naive patients; and the exclusion of NSAIDs from the models, the researchers wrote.

Dr. Wang disclosed support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The study’s two other authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The study was based on an analysis of data from AbbVie and Pfizer that were made available through Vivli.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.

The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
 

The previous guidelines were published in 2017.

“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”

According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.

The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”

The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.

Withholding drugs in patients with SLE

“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.

In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:

• Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
• Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.

An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”

Timing of stopping and restarting medication

The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”

In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”

The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.

The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.

“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.

The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.

In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.

The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.

The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

This interview is a translation of a video blog that first appeared on Medscape France. It has been edited for clarity.

Which diet should we recommend to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriatic arthritis? Weight loss, omega-3 supplements, the Mediterranean diet? What about exclusion diets? Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD, from Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, summarizes the key points of the first set of dietary recommendations of the French Society for Rheumatology.

Transcript

Jérémie Sellam, MD, PhD: Hello, everyone. I’m Professor Jérémie Sellam. I’m a rheumatologist at Saint-Antoine Hospital, which is affiliated with the Sorbonne University in Paris. And I was fortunate enough to coordinate France’s first set of dietary recommendations – in fact, the world’s first set of dietary recommendations – for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. I worked on this project with Claire Daien, MD, PhD, who’s a rheumatologist at Montpellier University Hospital.

The idea of coming up with dietary recommendations for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases came, quite simply, from our clinical practice. We see that when patients learn they have polyarthritis or spondyloarthritis, they start to experiment with different diets. Many patients start exclusion diets and experiment in all sorts of ways with the food they eat. And although rheumatologists have been able to find some information here and there in the literature, they’ve been pretty much on their own when trying to come up with advice to give their patients. It was to address this issue that [Dr.] Daien and I set out to form a working group. Because when patients aren’t able to get sound advice and authoritative guidance from their doctors, medical associations, or patient advocacy organizations, they often look for information online, and that information is not always reliable or validated.

This group was made up of rheumatologists, some who work at hospitals and others in private practice. Also involved were physician nutrition specialists and registered dietitians. Operating under the auspices of the French Society for Rheumatology, these multidisciplinary experts conducted out a systematic literature review for the purpose of establishing and drafting recommendations. The result was a declaration of eight general principles and nine recommendations.
 

General principles

The first of the general principles states that nutritional advice is not a substitute for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. As you know, whether it’s methotrexate or biologics, pharmacologic treatments are essential for the proper management of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. We know that these medications have an anti-inflammatory effect, reduce pain, and – particularly in the case of rheumatoid arthritis – have a structural effect. In other words, they prevent joint deterioration and destruction. Now, I can tell you that there’s currently no diet, and no dietary supplement, that has proven to be structurally effective. So, yes, dietary intervention might turn out to be promising for patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but pharmacologic treatment must still be part of the picture.

Another general principle emphasizes that dietary intervention is a way for patients to be actively involved in the overall care of their disease, beyond just taking their medication. We know that patients, when they suffer from chronic diseases, are looking for something more, beyond just taking medications. Encouraging them to take an interest in their diet, asking them about what they eat, giving them advice, and supporting their desire to become involved in this aspect of their treatment plan can give them a sense of empowerment.

Dietary interventions can have articular effects, and I’m going to speak about which interventions you can propose, but also which can be beneficial in terms of cardiovascular health and bone health. All of this is based on the literature. In these recommendations, we’ve taken into account not only laboratory experiments – where this or that diet is given to a mouse with arthritis – but also reviewed randomized controlled trials that compare an intervention group with a control group. This is the benchmark we used to determine whether or not a diet should be recommended.
 

The recommendations

As for the recommendations themselves, we wanted to start off by emphasizing weight loss and what can be called weight-loss support. There’s a link between obesity and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, and also psoriatic arthropathy. And the more overweight a patient is, the more active their disease. In other words, patients with obesity are going to experience more pain, more instances of wakefulness, and more morning stiffness than their normal-weight peers. They’re also going to show symptoms that suggest that disease activity is not controlled well.

Several randomized controlled studies have shown that weight loss will improve systemic joint symptoms. In one particular study, patients with psoriatic arthropathy were started on [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor therapy and one group followed a prescribed diet and the other had no restrictions on eating. More patients in the diet group than in the no-diet group achieved minimal disease activity. Of course, in some cases – for example, patients with complicated morbid obesity – it might be necessary to have a discussion about bariatric surgery.

But practically speaking, how does one proceed? First of all, patients should be weighed at each visit and, if they’re overweight or obese, the subject should be broached. But even after that conversation, the reality remains that it’s not easy to lose weight. So in the recommendations, we focused on the fact that it shouldn’t be left to the rheumatologist or treating physician alone to handle this challenging aspect of treatment. They should incorporate dietary and nutritional care by reaching out to a dietician or, in the case of complicated obesity – especially when the BMI is higher than 35 kg/m² – they can refer patients to a nutrition expert who can manage the patient’s obesity, come up with a weight-loss plan, and handle any complications that might arise.

We don’t speak about a low-calorie diet in the recommendations because a diet has a beginning and an end and, quite often, patients regain weight after stopping a diet. Instead, we speak about weight-loss support to point out that weight loss maintained through dietary changes brings about long-term control of disease activity.

In addition, we make two positive recommendations, which overlap, that can help patients control their disease: a Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. One study showed that after participants with rheumatoid arthritis followed the Mediterranean diet for 1 year, those who also took omega-3 fish oil supplements were twice as likely to achieve remission (40% vs. 20%). This explains the interest in having omega-3 as part of the diet. Other studies have shown a broad benefit of the Mediterranean diet.

We know this diet: Fish, especially fatty fish; meat, but not every day, and white meat is best; and fruits and vegetables. In addition, exercise and stay hydrated. All of this can help patients who want to use diet as a means to control their disease. And, as I said earlier, studies have shown that omega-3 supplements have beneficial effects. These are essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, which can help control the disease and joint symptoms.

We also provide some exclusionary recommendations. Not all studies are done well, but it’s clear that there are no major benefits – in fact, no benefit at all – from vegan diets, gluten-free diets, or dairy-free diets. And with these diets, patients run the risk of developing deficiencies, so it’s important that patients are aware of this. We also have to keep in mind that exclusion diets can increase social isolation. Patients need to take part in meals; such gatherings are times for sharing and having social interactions. And I would say that they must be told that there are no data in the literature in support of these diets. But if they ever insist on this kind of intervention, I think that it’s better to advise them to do it under the supervision of a dietician and nutritionist, especially to prevent the development of deficiencies. We’re talking about deficiencies in things like calcium, vitamin B¹², and selenium.
 

Conclusion

As you can see, we have positive recommendations when the patient wants to do something beyond pharmacologic treatment: the Mediterranean diet and omega-3 supplements. And we have negative recommendations, marked by a warning about the risk of developing deficiencies. But I think we all understand the importance of paying close attention to how our patients are experimenting with food. Their diets and eating habits can give us ideas for research and reviews that could allow us to deepen our understanding of the effect of diet on disease, because currently, the quality of the data on some of the diets and types of dietary interventions out there is rather tenuous.

Thank you for listening. I’d also like to thank Claire Daien, MD, PhD, for conducting this project with me so that we could come up with all of these recommendations. I’m also grateful to the following nutrition societies and associations who were our partners: the French Society of Nutrition, the French-Speaking Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the French Association for the Study of Obesity, and the French Association of Dieticians and Nutritionists. And patient associations, too, must be recognized, as some of their members participated: the French National Association Against Rheumatoid Arthritis, the French Spondyloarthritis Association, and the French Association for Polyarthritis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK

“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”

For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.

“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”

As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.

“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
 

Study details

To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.

The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.

Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.

A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.

Removing barriers to TDM

It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.

Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.

For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”

The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.

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

A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK

“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”

For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.

“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”

As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.

“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
 

Study details

To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.

The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.

Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.

A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.

Removing barriers to TDM

It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.

Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.

For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”

The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.

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

A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK

“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.

“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”

For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.

“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”

As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.

“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
 

Study details

To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.

The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.

Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.

A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.

Removing barriers to TDM

It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.

Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.

For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”

The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) that adds active ankylosing spondylitis in adults to its list of indications, according to a Dec. 14 announcement from manufacturer Pfizer.

The approval makes the drug the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor to be approved for ankylosing spondylitis, joining tofacitinib’s other indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Like other JAK inhibitors that are indicated for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, tofacitinib’s use for all indications is limited to patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers.

The agency based its decision on the results of a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 269 adults with active ankylosing spondylitis that tested tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily.

The study met its primary endpoint showing that at week 16 the percentage of tofacitinib-treated patients who achieved 20% improvement in Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) was significantly greater than with placebo (56.4% vs. 29.4%; P < .0001). The percentage of responders for ASAS40 criteria was likewise significantly greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo (40.6% vs. 12.5%; P < .0001). Pfizer said that the safety profile of tofacitinib observed in patients with ankylosing spondylitis was consistent with the safety profile observed in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Pfizer noted in its announcement that the FDA updated the prescribing information this month for tofacitinib (and other JAK inhibitors approved for immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, upadacitinib [Rinvoq] and baricitinib [Olumiant]). This update included a new boxed warning for major adverse cardiovascular events and updated boxed warnings regarding mortality, malignancies, and thrombosis. These changes were made in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance postmarketing study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. That study found an association between tofacitinib and increased risk of heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death in comparison with patients who took the TNF blockers adalimumab or etanercept.

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

Peripheral manifestations contribute significantly to disease activity in adults with spondyloarthritis (SpA), point toward a generally worse prognosis, and play a big role in defining the phenotypic clustering of the heterogenous disease, according to findings from what researchers called the first prospective study “to comprehensively describe the prevalence, clinical patterns, and prognostic implications of peripheral manifestations across the entire SpA spectrum.”

The stratification of patients in the study based on the presence of peripheral manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis, and/or dactylitis) led to the identification of an endotype with unfavorable outcomes, which not only has prognostic value but supports the need for an endotype-based treatment approach rather than one centered on C-reactive protein (CRP) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

The findings “advocate strongly for the presence of a distinct SpA endotype, based on potentially different immunopathological mechanisms and characterized by high disease activity at initial presentation with lack of substantial improvement upon follow-up,” first author Ann-Sophie De Craemer, MD, of Ghent, Belgium, and colleagues wrote.

Because the diagnostic and prognostic value of peripheral manifestations has not been well studied in SpA in general and in newly diagnosed patients in particular, Dr. De Craemer and associates decided to analyze their impact in 367 patients in the Be-Giant (BelGian Inflammatory Arthritis and spoNdylitis cohorT) cohort, a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort of newly diagnosed patients with SpA in Belgium. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The study population included 257 (70%) patients with axial-predominant SpA (axSpA) as classified by Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria and 110 (30%) with peripheral-predominant SpA (pSpA) as defined by ASAS criteria. A total of 52 patients with axSpA had peripheral manifestations at baseline. The mean age of the patients was 34 years, and 52% were male.

The 162 patients with peripheral manifestations included 143 with arthritis, 52 with enthesitis, and 55 with dactylitis.

Two patient clusters emerge from data

In a cluster analysis that used baseline clinical features, the researchers divided the patients into cluster A (of which 242 of 248 were patients with axSpA) and cluster B (of which 104 of 119 were patients with pSpA). Most of the patients with peripheral manifestations were in cluster B (117 of 162 [72%]), compared with cluster A (45 of 162 [28%]).

A longitudinal analysis included 195 patients who completed a minimum 2-year follow-up. The longitudinal analysis identified high- and low-disease activity trajectories in each cluster.

In axSpA-predominant cluster A, patients with “high” trajectory had high disease activity levels at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 3.2) that remained relatively stable, while those in the low-trajectory group (62%) had less disease activity at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 2.0), which then further declined during follow-up.

Patients in the high trajectory in cluster A were more often affected by peripheral manifestations, “which remained a significant predictor in multivariate analysis,” with an odds ratio of 2.4, the researchers noted. In addition, patients with peripheral manifestations were significantly more likely to have persistent high disease activity despite starting biologics earlier than patients without peripheral manifestations (hazard ratio, 2.1).

Patients in pSpA-predominant cluster B showed differences that were similar to those seen in cluster A in terms of high– and low–disease activity trajectories (mean ASDAS-CRP of 3.6 and 2.8, respectively), but among these patients, a high level of disease activity was significantly associated with elevated CRP, rather than with peripheral disease, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of patients who did not complete the follow-up, which reduced the sample size for longitudinal analysis. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of patients from the full SpA spectrum, a geographically spread-out patient population, and a study design that mirrored clinical practice, the researchers noted.

The Be-Giant cohort was supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie. Several authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies.

Peripheral manifestations contribute significantly to disease activity in adults with spondyloarthritis (SpA), point toward a generally worse prognosis, and play a big role in defining the phenotypic clustering of the heterogenous disease, according to findings from what researchers called the first prospective study “to comprehensively describe the prevalence, clinical patterns, and prognostic implications of peripheral manifestations across the entire SpA spectrum.”

The stratification of patients in the study based on the presence of peripheral manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis, and/or dactylitis) led to the identification of an endotype with unfavorable outcomes, which not only has prognostic value but supports the need for an endotype-based treatment approach rather than one centered on C-reactive protein (CRP) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

The findings “advocate strongly for the presence of a distinct SpA endotype, based on potentially different immunopathological mechanisms and characterized by high disease activity at initial presentation with lack of substantial improvement upon follow-up,” first author Ann-Sophie De Craemer, MD, of Ghent, Belgium, and colleagues wrote.

Because the diagnostic and prognostic value of peripheral manifestations has not been well studied in SpA in general and in newly diagnosed patients in particular, Dr. De Craemer and associates decided to analyze their impact in 367 patients in the Be-Giant (BelGian Inflammatory Arthritis and spoNdylitis cohorT) cohort, a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort of newly diagnosed patients with SpA in Belgium. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The study population included 257 (70%) patients with axial-predominant SpA (axSpA) as classified by Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria and 110 (30%) with peripheral-predominant SpA (pSpA) as defined by ASAS criteria. A total of 52 patients with axSpA had peripheral manifestations at baseline. The mean age of the patients was 34 years, and 52% were male.

The 162 patients with peripheral manifestations included 143 with arthritis, 52 with enthesitis, and 55 with dactylitis.

Two patient clusters emerge from data

In a cluster analysis that used baseline clinical features, the researchers divided the patients into cluster A (of which 242 of 248 were patients with axSpA) and cluster B (of which 104 of 119 were patients with pSpA). Most of the patients with peripheral manifestations were in cluster B (117 of 162 [72%]), compared with cluster A (45 of 162 [28%]).

A longitudinal analysis included 195 patients who completed a minimum 2-year follow-up. The longitudinal analysis identified high- and low-disease activity trajectories in each cluster.

In axSpA-predominant cluster A, patients with “high” trajectory had high disease activity levels at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 3.2) that remained relatively stable, while those in the low-trajectory group (62%) had less disease activity at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 2.0), which then further declined during follow-up.

Patients in the high trajectory in cluster A were more often affected by peripheral manifestations, “which remained a significant predictor in multivariate analysis,” with an odds ratio of 2.4, the researchers noted. In addition, patients with peripheral manifestations were significantly more likely to have persistent high disease activity despite starting biologics earlier than patients without peripheral manifestations (hazard ratio, 2.1).

Patients in pSpA-predominant cluster B showed differences that were similar to those seen in cluster A in terms of high– and low–disease activity trajectories (mean ASDAS-CRP of 3.6 and 2.8, respectively), but among these patients, a high level of disease activity was significantly associated with elevated CRP, rather than with peripheral disease, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of patients who did not complete the follow-up, which reduced the sample size for longitudinal analysis. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of patients from the full SpA spectrum, a geographically spread-out patient population, and a study design that mirrored clinical practice, the researchers noted.

The Be-Giant cohort was supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie. Several authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies.

Peripheral manifestations contribute significantly to disease activity in adults with spondyloarthritis (SpA), point toward a generally worse prognosis, and play a big role in defining the phenotypic clustering of the heterogenous disease, according to findings from what researchers called the first prospective study “to comprehensively describe the prevalence, clinical patterns, and prognostic implications of peripheral manifestations across the entire SpA spectrum.”

The stratification of patients in the study based on the presence of peripheral manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis, and/or dactylitis) led to the identification of an endotype with unfavorable outcomes, which not only has prognostic value but supports the need for an endotype-based treatment approach rather than one centered on C-reactive protein (CRP) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

The findings “advocate strongly for the presence of a distinct SpA endotype, based on potentially different immunopathological mechanisms and characterized by high disease activity at initial presentation with lack of substantial improvement upon follow-up,” first author Ann-Sophie De Craemer, MD, of Ghent, Belgium, and colleagues wrote.

Because the diagnostic and prognostic value of peripheral manifestations has not been well studied in SpA in general and in newly diagnosed patients in particular, Dr. De Craemer and associates decided to analyze their impact in 367 patients in the Be-Giant (BelGian Inflammatory Arthritis and spoNdylitis cohorT) cohort, a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort of newly diagnosed patients with SpA in Belgium. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The study population included 257 (70%) patients with axial-predominant SpA (axSpA) as classified by Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria and 110 (30%) with peripheral-predominant SpA (pSpA) as defined by ASAS criteria. A total of 52 patients with axSpA had peripheral manifestations at baseline. The mean age of the patients was 34 years, and 52% were male.

The 162 patients with peripheral manifestations included 143 with arthritis, 52 with enthesitis, and 55 with dactylitis.

Two patient clusters emerge from data

In a cluster analysis that used baseline clinical features, the researchers divided the patients into cluster A (of which 242 of 248 were patients with axSpA) and cluster B (of which 104 of 119 were patients with pSpA). Most of the patients with peripheral manifestations were in cluster B (117 of 162 [72%]), compared with cluster A (45 of 162 [28%]).

A longitudinal analysis included 195 patients who completed a minimum 2-year follow-up. The longitudinal analysis identified high- and low-disease activity trajectories in each cluster.

In axSpA-predominant cluster A, patients with “high” trajectory had high disease activity levels at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 3.2) that remained relatively stable, while those in the low-trajectory group (62%) had less disease activity at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 2.0), which then further declined during follow-up.

Patients in the high trajectory in cluster A were more often affected by peripheral manifestations, “which remained a significant predictor in multivariate analysis,” with an odds ratio of 2.4, the researchers noted. In addition, patients with peripheral manifestations were significantly more likely to have persistent high disease activity despite starting biologics earlier than patients without peripheral manifestations (hazard ratio, 2.1).

Patients in pSpA-predominant cluster B showed differences that were similar to those seen in cluster A in terms of high– and low–disease activity trajectories (mean ASDAS-CRP of 3.6 and 2.8, respectively), but among these patients, a high level of disease activity was significantly associated with elevated CRP, rather than with peripheral disease, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of patients who did not complete the follow-up, which reduced the sample size for longitudinal analysis. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of patients from the full SpA spectrum, a geographically spread-out patient population, and a study design that mirrored clinical practice, the researchers noted.

The Be-Giant cohort was supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie. Several authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Reducing the dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors by approximately one-third did not increase disease activity in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a stable low–disease activity state, according to findings from two parallel controlled retrospective cohort studies.

Disease activity–guided dose optimization (DAGDO) can reduce drug exposure in patients with PsA or axSpA who have low disease activity, but its impact on increased disease activity has not been as well studied as full-dose continuation, Celia A.J. Michielsens, MD, of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

“DAGDO or discontinuation of bDMARDs [biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] as a standard of care in adults with stable axSpA is currently discouraged by” the American College of Rheumatology, the researchers said. However, guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology allow for the slow tapering of bDMARDs in patients with sustained remission.

In a controlled, retrospective cohort study published in Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from their outpatient clinic, which initiated a specific TNF inhibitor DAGDO protocol in 2010 for patients with RA, PsA, and axSpA. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) for patients with PsA and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for patients with axSpA.

The study population included 153 patients with PsA who had a mean DAS28-CRP of 6.5 and 171 with axSpA who had a similar mean number of disease activity measurements (6.5 with DAS28-CRP and 6.4 with BASDAI). Median follow-up time was several months short of 4 years in each group. Treatment was divided into three periods: continuation of full TNF inhibitor dose, TNF inhibitor DAGDO, and a period with stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO.

Overall, no significant differences appeared in mean DAS28-CRP and BASDAI over the course of the study between the period of the full TNF inhibitor dose continuation and both the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period and the stable TNF inhibitor dose period. Among PsA patients, the mean DAS28-CRP was 1.94 for the full-dose period, 2.0 in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 1.97 in the stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO period. For axSpA patients, the mean BASDAI was 3.44, 3.47, and 3.48, respectively, for the three periods. Older age, longer disease duration, and longer follow-up were significantly associated with higher DAS28-CRP scores in patients with PsA, and older age and female gender were significantly associated with higher BASDAI scores in patients with axSpA.

The mean percentage of daily defined dose (%DDD) for patients with PsA was 108% during the full dose period, 62% in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 78% with stable TNF inhibitor after DAGDO, and nearly the same for patients with axSPA at 108%, 62%, and 72%, respectively.

The %DDD represents “a modest degree of tapering,” compared with studies in RA patients, the researchers noted. “Explanations for this difference could be that the full dose-reduction potential was not met due to suboptimal execution of the local protocol, whereas in prospective intervention trials, protocol adherence is likely higher.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and potential for nocebo effects, possible incorrect attribution, and information bias, as well as the use of DAS28-CRP and BASDAI rather than more modern measurement tools, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and real-world clinical setting, frequent assessment of disease activity, long-term follow-up, and the performance of DAGDO by rheumatologists familiar with the measuring tools, they said. The results suggest that DAGDO is safe and effective for patients with low disease activity in either condition, but randomized, prospective studies can provide more definitive evidence.

The study received no outside funding. One author disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Reducing the dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors by approximately one-third did not increase disease activity in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a stable low–disease activity state, according to findings from two parallel controlled retrospective cohort studies.

Disease activity–guided dose optimization (DAGDO) can reduce drug exposure in patients with PsA or axSpA who have low disease activity, but its impact on increased disease activity has not been as well studied as full-dose continuation, Celia A.J. Michielsens, MD, of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

“DAGDO or discontinuation of bDMARDs [biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] as a standard of care in adults with stable axSpA is currently discouraged by” the American College of Rheumatology, the researchers said. However, guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology allow for the slow tapering of bDMARDs in patients with sustained remission.

In a controlled, retrospective cohort study published in Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from their outpatient clinic, which initiated a specific TNF inhibitor DAGDO protocol in 2010 for patients with RA, PsA, and axSpA. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) for patients with PsA and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for patients with axSpA.

The study population included 153 patients with PsA who had a mean DAS28-CRP of 6.5 and 171 with axSpA who had a similar mean number of disease activity measurements (6.5 with DAS28-CRP and 6.4 with BASDAI). Median follow-up time was several months short of 4 years in each group. Treatment was divided into three periods: continuation of full TNF inhibitor dose, TNF inhibitor DAGDO, and a period with stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO.

Overall, no significant differences appeared in mean DAS28-CRP and BASDAI over the course of the study between the period of the full TNF inhibitor dose continuation and both the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period and the stable TNF inhibitor dose period. Among PsA patients, the mean DAS28-CRP was 1.94 for the full-dose period, 2.0 in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 1.97 in the stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO period. For axSpA patients, the mean BASDAI was 3.44, 3.47, and 3.48, respectively, for the three periods. Older age, longer disease duration, and longer follow-up were significantly associated with higher DAS28-CRP scores in patients with PsA, and older age and female gender were significantly associated with higher BASDAI scores in patients with axSpA.

The mean percentage of daily defined dose (%DDD) for patients with PsA was 108% during the full dose period, 62% in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 78% with stable TNF inhibitor after DAGDO, and nearly the same for patients with axSPA at 108%, 62%, and 72%, respectively.

The %DDD represents “a modest degree of tapering,” compared with studies in RA patients, the researchers noted. “Explanations for this difference could be that the full dose-reduction potential was not met due to suboptimal execution of the local protocol, whereas in prospective intervention trials, protocol adherence is likely higher.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and potential for nocebo effects, possible incorrect attribution, and information bias, as well as the use of DAS28-CRP and BASDAI rather than more modern measurement tools, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and real-world clinical setting, frequent assessment of disease activity, long-term follow-up, and the performance of DAGDO by rheumatologists familiar with the measuring tools, they said. The results suggest that DAGDO is safe and effective for patients with low disease activity in either condition, but randomized, prospective studies can provide more definitive evidence.

The study received no outside funding. One author disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Reducing the dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors by approximately one-third did not increase disease activity in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a stable low–disease activity state, according to findings from two parallel controlled retrospective cohort studies.

Disease activity–guided dose optimization (DAGDO) can reduce drug exposure in patients with PsA or axSpA who have low disease activity, but its impact on increased disease activity has not been as well studied as full-dose continuation, Celia A.J. Michielsens, MD, of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

“DAGDO or discontinuation of bDMARDs [biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] as a standard of care in adults with stable axSpA is currently discouraged by” the American College of Rheumatology, the researchers said. However, guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology allow for the slow tapering of bDMARDs in patients with sustained remission.

In a controlled, retrospective cohort study published in Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from their outpatient clinic, which initiated a specific TNF inhibitor DAGDO protocol in 2010 for patients with RA, PsA, and axSpA. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) for patients with PsA and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for patients with axSpA.

The study population included 153 patients with PsA who had a mean DAS28-CRP of 6.5 and 171 with axSpA who had a similar mean number of disease activity measurements (6.5 with DAS28-CRP and 6.4 with BASDAI). Median follow-up time was several months short of 4 years in each group. Treatment was divided into three periods: continuation of full TNF inhibitor dose, TNF inhibitor DAGDO, and a period with stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO.

Overall, no significant differences appeared in mean DAS28-CRP and BASDAI over the course of the study between the period of the full TNF inhibitor dose continuation and both the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period and the stable TNF inhibitor dose period. Among PsA patients, the mean DAS28-CRP was 1.94 for the full-dose period, 2.0 in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 1.97 in the stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO period. For axSpA patients, the mean BASDAI was 3.44, 3.47, and 3.48, respectively, for the three periods. Older age, longer disease duration, and longer follow-up were significantly associated with higher DAS28-CRP scores in patients with PsA, and older age and female gender were significantly associated with higher BASDAI scores in patients with axSpA.

The mean percentage of daily defined dose (%DDD) for patients with PsA was 108% during the full dose period, 62% in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 78% with stable TNF inhibitor after DAGDO, and nearly the same for patients with axSPA at 108%, 62%, and 72%, respectively.

The %DDD represents “a modest degree of tapering,” compared with studies in RA patients, the researchers noted. “Explanations for this difference could be that the full dose-reduction potential was not met due to suboptimal execution of the local protocol, whereas in prospective intervention trials, protocol adherence is likely higher.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and potential for nocebo effects, possible incorrect attribution, and information bias, as well as the use of DAS28-CRP and BASDAI rather than more modern measurement tools, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and real-world clinical setting, frequent assessment of disease activity, long-term follow-up, and the performance of DAGDO by rheumatologists familiar with the measuring tools, they said. The results suggest that DAGDO is safe and effective for patients with low disease activity in either condition, but randomized, prospective studies can provide more definitive evidence.

The study received no outside funding. One author disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.