Sara Freeman

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).

In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame. 

Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment. 

“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation. 

“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.” 

Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
 

Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway

“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained. 

The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.

The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
 

Related Work on Gout Incidence

Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England. 

“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.

“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.

Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care. 
 

COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases

“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”

While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested. 

Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
 

ULT Treatment Rates Low

“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L. 

“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.

There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels. 

As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”

The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).

In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame. 

Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment. 

“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation. 

“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.” 

Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
 

Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway

“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained. 

The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.

The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
 

Related Work on Gout Incidence

Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England. 

“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.

“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.

Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care. 
 

COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases

“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”

While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested. 

Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
 

ULT Treatment Rates Low

“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L. 

“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.

There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels. 

As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”

The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).

In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame. 

Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment. 

“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation. 

“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.” 

Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
 

Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway

“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained. 

The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.

The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
 

Related Work on Gout Incidence

Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England. 

“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.

“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.

Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care. 
 

COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases

“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”

While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested. 

Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
 

ULT Treatment Rates Low

“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L. 

“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.

There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels. 

As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”

The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Analyzing temporal changes in people’s speech could be a simple way of detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to see whether there is a risk of developing dementia in the future, suggests research.

János Kálmán, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Szeged in Hungary have developed an automated speech analysis approach called the Speech-Gap Test (S-GAP Test) that is unique because it focuses on the temporal changes made when someone talks. This means it does not overcomplicate matters by also assessing the phonetics and semantics of speech, Dr. Kálmán said. 

Dr. Kálmán presented his findings at the 32nd European Congress of Psychiatry. 
 

Temporal Speech Parameters

The test analyzes parameters such as how quickly someone speaks, whether they hesitate when they talk, how long the hesitation lasts, and how many silent pauses they make. This can be done with a mere 60-second sample of speech, Dr. Kálmán said, noting that other automated speech and language tools currently in development need much longer audio samples. 

“We tried different approaches and we finally ended up with the temporal speech parameters because these are not culture-dependent, not education-dependent, and could be more reliable than the semantic parts of [speech] analysis,” he explained.

The analysis of temporal speech parameters is also not language-dependent. Although the S-GAP Test was developed using audio samples from native Hungarian speakers, Dr. Kálmán and his collaborators have shown that it works just as well with samples from native English and German speakers. They now plan to validate the test further using samples from native Spanish speakers.
 

For Screening, Not Diagnosis

Currently, “the only purpose of this tool would be initial screening,” Dr. Kálmán said at the congress. It is not for diagnosis, and there is no intention to get it registered as a medical device. 

A national survey of primary care physicians conducted by Dr. Kálmán and collaborators showed that there was little time for performing standard cognitive tests during the average consultation. Thus, the original idea was that the S-GAP Test would be an aid to help primary care physicians quickly flag whether a patient might have cognitive problems that needed further assessment at a memory clinic or by more specialist neurology services. 

The goalposts have since been moved, from developing a pure telemedicine solution to a more widespread application that perhaps anyone could buy and download from the internet or using a smartphone. 

Dr. Kálmán doesn’t discount developing a more sophisticated version of the S-GAP Test in the future that combines temporal speech parameters with biomarkers for mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease and could be used in memory clinics and by neurologists for the purpose of diagnosis.
 

Detect to Prevent?

The big question is: What happens to all the people that could be flagged as needing further assessment using tools such as the S-GAP Test? 

Tackling risk factors for dementia will probably be key, said Robert Perneckzy, MD, MBA, professor of translational dementia research at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Imperial College London, and the University of Sheffield.

According to the Lancet Commission on dementia, there are 12 potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia. Their influence varies throughout the life course, but certain early events, such as the level of education attained, can’t be modified in an older patient. 

That said, there are many risk factors that might still be influenced later in life, such as adequately treating comorbid conditions such as diabetes, and addressing alcohol consumption and smoking practices. 

“We can do things in terms of personal risk, risk mitigation, which have a huge effect on dementia risk much later in life,” said Dr. Perneckzy.

“The speech-based assessments are another opportunity to save our time as doctors to do assessments before someone comes to the memory clinic,” he said.

The S-GAP Test is under development by the University of Szeged. Dr. Kálmán is a co-inventor. Dr. Perneckzy had no relevant conflicts of interest but has helped validate the S-GAP Test in the German language. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Analyzing temporal changes in people’s speech could be a simple way of detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to see whether there is a risk of developing dementia in the future, suggests research.

János Kálmán, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Szeged in Hungary have developed an automated speech analysis approach called the Speech-Gap Test (S-GAP Test) that is unique because it focuses on the temporal changes made when someone talks. This means it does not overcomplicate matters by also assessing the phonetics and semantics of speech, Dr. Kálmán said. 

Dr. Kálmán presented his findings at the 32nd European Congress of Psychiatry. 
 

Temporal Speech Parameters

The test analyzes parameters such as how quickly someone speaks, whether they hesitate when they talk, how long the hesitation lasts, and how many silent pauses they make. This can be done with a mere 60-second sample of speech, Dr. Kálmán said, noting that other automated speech and language tools currently in development need much longer audio samples. 

“We tried different approaches and we finally ended up with the temporal speech parameters because these are not culture-dependent, not education-dependent, and could be more reliable than the semantic parts of [speech] analysis,” he explained.

The analysis of temporal speech parameters is also not language-dependent. Although the S-GAP Test was developed using audio samples from native Hungarian speakers, Dr. Kálmán and his collaborators have shown that it works just as well with samples from native English and German speakers. They now plan to validate the test further using samples from native Spanish speakers.
 

For Screening, Not Diagnosis

Currently, “the only purpose of this tool would be initial screening,” Dr. Kálmán said at the congress. It is not for diagnosis, and there is no intention to get it registered as a medical device. 

A national survey of primary care physicians conducted by Dr. Kálmán and collaborators showed that there was little time for performing standard cognitive tests during the average consultation. Thus, the original idea was that the S-GAP Test would be an aid to help primary care physicians quickly flag whether a patient might have cognitive problems that needed further assessment at a memory clinic or by more specialist neurology services. 

The goalposts have since been moved, from developing a pure telemedicine solution to a more widespread application that perhaps anyone could buy and download from the internet or using a smartphone. 

Dr. Kálmán doesn’t discount developing a more sophisticated version of the S-GAP Test in the future that combines temporal speech parameters with biomarkers for mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease and could be used in memory clinics and by neurologists for the purpose of diagnosis.
 

Detect to Prevent?

The big question is: What happens to all the people that could be flagged as needing further assessment using tools such as the S-GAP Test? 

Tackling risk factors for dementia will probably be key, said Robert Perneckzy, MD, MBA, professor of translational dementia research at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Imperial College London, and the University of Sheffield.

According to the Lancet Commission on dementia, there are 12 potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia. Their influence varies throughout the life course, but certain early events, such as the level of education attained, can’t be modified in an older patient. 

That said, there are many risk factors that might still be influenced later in life, such as adequately treating comorbid conditions such as diabetes, and addressing alcohol consumption and smoking practices. 

“We can do things in terms of personal risk, risk mitigation, which have a huge effect on dementia risk much later in life,” said Dr. Perneckzy.

“The speech-based assessments are another opportunity to save our time as doctors to do assessments before someone comes to the memory clinic,” he said.

The S-GAP Test is under development by the University of Szeged. Dr. Kálmán is a co-inventor. Dr. Perneckzy had no relevant conflicts of interest but has helped validate the S-GAP Test in the German language. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BUDAPEST, HUNGARY — Analyzing temporal changes in people’s speech could be a simple way of detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to see whether there is a risk of developing dementia in the future, suggests research.

János Kálmán, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Szeged in Hungary have developed an automated speech analysis approach called the Speech-Gap Test (S-GAP Test) that is unique because it focuses on the temporal changes made when someone talks. This means it does not overcomplicate matters by also assessing the phonetics and semantics of speech, Dr. Kálmán said. 

Dr. Kálmán presented his findings at the 32nd European Congress of Psychiatry. 
 

Temporal Speech Parameters

The test analyzes parameters such as how quickly someone speaks, whether they hesitate when they talk, how long the hesitation lasts, and how many silent pauses they make. This can be done with a mere 60-second sample of speech, Dr. Kálmán said, noting that other automated speech and language tools currently in development need much longer audio samples. 

“We tried different approaches and we finally ended up with the temporal speech parameters because these are not culture-dependent, not education-dependent, and could be more reliable than the semantic parts of [speech] analysis,” he explained.

The analysis of temporal speech parameters is also not language-dependent. Although the S-GAP Test was developed using audio samples from native Hungarian speakers, Dr. Kálmán and his collaborators have shown that it works just as well with samples from native English and German speakers. They now plan to validate the test further using samples from native Spanish speakers.
 

For Screening, Not Diagnosis

Currently, “the only purpose of this tool would be initial screening,” Dr. Kálmán said at the congress. It is not for diagnosis, and there is no intention to get it registered as a medical device. 

A national survey of primary care physicians conducted by Dr. Kálmán and collaborators showed that there was little time for performing standard cognitive tests during the average consultation. Thus, the original idea was that the S-GAP Test would be an aid to help primary care physicians quickly flag whether a patient might have cognitive problems that needed further assessment at a memory clinic or by more specialist neurology services. 

The goalposts have since been moved, from developing a pure telemedicine solution to a more widespread application that perhaps anyone could buy and download from the internet or using a smartphone. 

Dr. Kálmán doesn’t discount developing a more sophisticated version of the S-GAP Test in the future that combines temporal speech parameters with biomarkers for mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease and could be used in memory clinics and by neurologists for the purpose of diagnosis.
 

Detect to Prevent?

The big question is: What happens to all the people that could be flagged as needing further assessment using tools such as the S-GAP Test? 

Tackling risk factors for dementia will probably be key, said Robert Perneckzy, MD, MBA, professor of translational dementia research at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Imperial College London, and the University of Sheffield.

According to the Lancet Commission on dementia, there are 12 potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia. Their influence varies throughout the life course, but certain early events, such as the level of education attained, can’t be modified in an older patient. 

That said, there are many risk factors that might still be influenced later in life, such as adequately treating comorbid conditions such as diabetes, and addressing alcohol consumption and smoking practices. 

“We can do things in terms of personal risk, risk mitigation, which have a huge effect on dementia risk much later in life,” said Dr. Perneckzy.

“The speech-based assessments are another opportunity to save our time as doctors to do assessments before someone comes to the memory clinic,” he said.

The S-GAP Test is under development by the University of Szeged. Dr. Kálmán is a co-inventor. Dr. Perneckzy had no relevant conflicts of interest but has helped validate the S-GAP Test in the German language. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Topical ivermectin has significant clinical efficacy and decreases the density of Demodex mites found in the skin of people with rosacea, but cutaneous dysbiosis remains, according to a report presented at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2023 Congress.

“This is the first hint that the host’s cutaneous microbiome plays a secondary role in the immunopathogenesis of rosacea,” said Bernard Homey, MD, director of the department of dermatology at University Hospital Düsseldorf in Germany.

“In rosacea, we are well aware of trigger factors such as stress, UV light, heat, cold, food, and alcohol,” he said. “We are also well aware that there is an increase in Demodex mites in the pilosebaceous unit.”

National Rosacea Society

Research over the past decade has also started to look at the potential role of the skin microbiome in the disease process, but answers have remained “largely elusive,” Dr. Homey said.
 

Ivermectin helps, but how?

Ivermectin 1% cream (Soolantra) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2014 for the treatment of the inflammatory lesions that are characteristic of rosacea, but its mechanism of action is not clear.

Dr. Homey presented the results of a study of 61 patients designed to look at how ivermectin might be working in the treatment of people with rosacea and investigate if there was any relation to the skin microbiome and transcriptome of patients.

The trial included 41 individuals with papulopustular rosacea and 20 individuals who did not have rosacea. For all patients, surface skin biopsies were performed twice 30 days apart using cyanoacrylate glue; patients with rosacea were treated with topical ivermectin 1% between biopsies. Skin samples obtained at day 0 and day 30 were examined under the microscope, and Demodex counts (mites/cm²) of skin and RNA sequencing of the cutaneous microbiome were undertaken.

The mean age of the patients with rosacea was 54.9 years, and the mean Demodex counts before and after treatment were a respective 7.2 cm2 and 0.9 cm2.

Using the Investigator’s General Assessment to assess the severity of rosacea, Homey reported that 43.9% of patients with rosacea had a decrease in scores at day 30, indicating improvement.

In addition, topical ivermectin resulted in a marked or total decrease in Demodex mite density for 87.5% of patients (n = 24) who were identified as having the mites.

Skin microbiome changes seen

As a form of quality control, skin microbiome changes among the patients were compared with control patients using 16S rRNA sequencing.

“The taxa we find within the cutaneous niche of inflammatory lesions of rosacea patients are significantly different from healthy volunteers,” Dr. Homey said.

Cutibacterium species are predominant in healthy control persons but are not present when there is inflammation in patients with rosacea. Instead, staphylococcus species “take over the niche, similar to atopic dermatitis,” he noted.

Looking at how treatment with ivermectin influences the organisms, the decrease in C. acnes seen in patients with rosacea persisted despite treatment, and the abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. capitis increased further. This suggests a possible protective or homeostatic role of C. acnes but a pathogenic role for staphylococci, explained Dr. Homey.

“Surprisingly, although inflammatory lesions decrease, patients get better, the cutaneous microbiome does not revert to homeostatic conditions during topical ivermectin treatment,” he observed.

There is, of course, variability among individuals.

Dr. Homey also reported that Snodgrassella alvi – a microorganism believed to reside in the gut of Demodex folliculorum mites – was found in the skin microbiome of patients with rosacea before but not after ivermectin treatment. This may mean that this microorganism could be partially triggering inflammation in rosacea patients.

Looking at the transcriptome of patients, Dr. Homey said that there was downregulation of distinct genes that might make for more favorable conditions for Demodex mites.

Moreover, insufficient upregulation of interleukin-17 pathways might be working together with barrier defects in the skin and metabolic changes to “pave the way” for colonization by S. epidermidis.
 

Pulling it together

Dr. Homey and associates conclude in their abstract that the findings “support that rosacea lesions are associated with dysbiosis.”

Although treatment with ivermectin did not normalize the skin’s microbiome, it was associated with a decrease in Demodex mite density and the reduction of microbes associated with Demodex.

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, who cochaired the late-breaking news session where the data were presented, asked whether healthy and affected skin in patients with rosacea had been compared, rather than comparing the skin of rosacea lesions with healthy control samples.

“No, we did not this, as this is methodologically a little bit more difficult,” Dr. Homey responded.

Also cochairing the session was Michel Gilliet, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the University Hospital CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland. He commented that these “data suggest that there’s an intimate link between Demodex and the skin microbiota and dysbiosis in in rosacea.”

Dr. Gilliet added: “You have a whole dysbiosis going on in rosacea, which is probably only dependent on these bacteria.”

It would be “very interesting,” as a “proof-of-concept” study, to look at whether depleting Demodex would also delete S. alvi, he suggested.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Homey has acted as a consultant, speaker or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies including Galderma.

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

Topical ivermectin has significant clinical efficacy and decreases the density of Demodex mites found in the skin of people with rosacea, but cutaneous dysbiosis remains, according to a report presented at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2023 Congress.

“This is the first hint that the host’s cutaneous microbiome plays a secondary role in the immunopathogenesis of rosacea,” said Bernard Homey, MD, director of the department of dermatology at University Hospital Düsseldorf in Germany.

“In rosacea, we are well aware of trigger factors such as stress, UV light, heat, cold, food, and alcohol,” he said. “We are also well aware that there is an increase in Demodex mites in the pilosebaceous unit.”

National Rosacea Society

Research over the past decade has also started to look at the potential role of the skin microbiome in the disease process, but answers have remained “largely elusive,” Dr. Homey said.
 

Ivermectin helps, but how?

Ivermectin 1% cream (Soolantra) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2014 for the treatment of the inflammatory lesions that are characteristic of rosacea, but its mechanism of action is not clear.

Dr. Homey presented the results of a study of 61 patients designed to look at how ivermectin might be working in the treatment of people with rosacea and investigate if there was any relation to the skin microbiome and transcriptome of patients.

The trial included 41 individuals with papulopustular rosacea and 20 individuals who did not have rosacea. For all patients, surface skin biopsies were performed twice 30 days apart using cyanoacrylate glue; patients with rosacea were treated with topical ivermectin 1% between biopsies. Skin samples obtained at day 0 and day 30 were examined under the microscope, and Demodex counts (mites/cm²) of skin and RNA sequencing of the cutaneous microbiome were undertaken.

The mean age of the patients with rosacea was 54.9 years, and the mean Demodex counts before and after treatment were a respective 7.2 cm2 and 0.9 cm2.

Using the Investigator’s General Assessment to assess the severity of rosacea, Homey reported that 43.9% of patients with rosacea had a decrease in scores at day 30, indicating improvement.

In addition, topical ivermectin resulted in a marked or total decrease in Demodex mite density for 87.5% of patients (n = 24) who were identified as having the mites.

Skin microbiome changes seen

As a form of quality control, skin microbiome changes among the patients were compared with control patients using 16S rRNA sequencing.

“The taxa we find within the cutaneous niche of inflammatory lesions of rosacea patients are significantly different from healthy volunteers,” Dr. Homey said.

Cutibacterium species are predominant in healthy control persons but are not present when there is inflammation in patients with rosacea. Instead, staphylococcus species “take over the niche, similar to atopic dermatitis,” he noted.

Looking at how treatment with ivermectin influences the organisms, the decrease in C. acnes seen in patients with rosacea persisted despite treatment, and the abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. capitis increased further. This suggests a possible protective or homeostatic role of C. acnes but a pathogenic role for staphylococci, explained Dr. Homey.

“Surprisingly, although inflammatory lesions decrease, patients get better, the cutaneous microbiome does not revert to homeostatic conditions during topical ivermectin treatment,” he observed.

There is, of course, variability among individuals.

Dr. Homey also reported that Snodgrassella alvi – a microorganism believed to reside in the gut of Demodex folliculorum mites – was found in the skin microbiome of patients with rosacea before but not after ivermectin treatment. This may mean that this microorganism could be partially triggering inflammation in rosacea patients.

Looking at the transcriptome of patients, Dr. Homey said that there was downregulation of distinct genes that might make for more favorable conditions for Demodex mites.

Moreover, insufficient upregulation of interleukin-17 pathways might be working together with barrier defects in the skin and metabolic changes to “pave the way” for colonization by S. epidermidis.
 

Pulling it together

Dr. Homey and associates conclude in their abstract that the findings “support that rosacea lesions are associated with dysbiosis.”

Although treatment with ivermectin did not normalize the skin’s microbiome, it was associated with a decrease in Demodex mite density and the reduction of microbes associated with Demodex.

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, who cochaired the late-breaking news session where the data were presented, asked whether healthy and affected skin in patients with rosacea had been compared, rather than comparing the skin of rosacea lesions with healthy control samples.

“No, we did not this, as this is methodologically a little bit more difficult,” Dr. Homey responded.

Also cochairing the session was Michel Gilliet, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the University Hospital CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland. He commented that these “data suggest that there’s an intimate link between Demodex and the skin microbiota and dysbiosis in in rosacea.”

Dr. Gilliet added: “You have a whole dysbiosis going on in rosacea, which is probably only dependent on these bacteria.”

It would be “very interesting,” as a “proof-of-concept” study, to look at whether depleting Demodex would also delete S. alvi, he suggested.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Homey has acted as a consultant, speaker or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies including Galderma.

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

Topical ivermectin has significant clinical efficacy and decreases the density of Demodex mites found in the skin of people with rosacea, but cutaneous dysbiosis remains, according to a report presented at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2023 Congress.

“This is the first hint that the host’s cutaneous microbiome plays a secondary role in the immunopathogenesis of rosacea,” said Bernard Homey, MD, director of the department of dermatology at University Hospital Düsseldorf in Germany.

“In rosacea, we are well aware of trigger factors such as stress, UV light, heat, cold, food, and alcohol,” he said. “We are also well aware that there is an increase in Demodex mites in the pilosebaceous unit.”

National Rosacea Society

Research over the past decade has also started to look at the potential role of the skin microbiome in the disease process, but answers have remained “largely elusive,” Dr. Homey said.
 

Ivermectin helps, but how?

Ivermectin 1% cream (Soolantra) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2014 for the treatment of the inflammatory lesions that are characteristic of rosacea, but its mechanism of action is not clear.

Dr. Homey presented the results of a study of 61 patients designed to look at how ivermectin might be working in the treatment of people with rosacea and investigate if there was any relation to the skin microbiome and transcriptome of patients.

The trial included 41 individuals with papulopustular rosacea and 20 individuals who did not have rosacea. For all patients, surface skin biopsies were performed twice 30 days apart using cyanoacrylate glue; patients with rosacea were treated with topical ivermectin 1% between biopsies. Skin samples obtained at day 0 and day 30 were examined under the microscope, and Demodex counts (mites/cm²) of skin and RNA sequencing of the cutaneous microbiome were undertaken.

The mean age of the patients with rosacea was 54.9 years, and the mean Demodex counts before and after treatment were a respective 7.2 cm2 and 0.9 cm2.

Using the Investigator’s General Assessment to assess the severity of rosacea, Homey reported that 43.9% of patients with rosacea had a decrease in scores at day 30, indicating improvement.

In addition, topical ivermectin resulted in a marked or total decrease in Demodex mite density for 87.5% of patients (n = 24) who were identified as having the mites.

Skin microbiome changes seen

As a form of quality control, skin microbiome changes among the patients were compared with control patients using 16S rRNA sequencing.

“The taxa we find within the cutaneous niche of inflammatory lesions of rosacea patients are significantly different from healthy volunteers,” Dr. Homey said.

Cutibacterium species are predominant in healthy control persons but are not present when there is inflammation in patients with rosacea. Instead, staphylococcus species “take over the niche, similar to atopic dermatitis,” he noted.

Looking at how treatment with ivermectin influences the organisms, the decrease in C. acnes seen in patients with rosacea persisted despite treatment, and the abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. capitis increased further. This suggests a possible protective or homeostatic role of C. acnes but a pathogenic role for staphylococci, explained Dr. Homey.

“Surprisingly, although inflammatory lesions decrease, patients get better, the cutaneous microbiome does not revert to homeostatic conditions during topical ivermectin treatment,” he observed.

There is, of course, variability among individuals.

Dr. Homey also reported that Snodgrassella alvi – a microorganism believed to reside in the gut of Demodex folliculorum mites – was found in the skin microbiome of patients with rosacea before but not after ivermectin treatment. This may mean that this microorganism could be partially triggering inflammation in rosacea patients.

Looking at the transcriptome of patients, Dr. Homey said that there was downregulation of distinct genes that might make for more favorable conditions for Demodex mites.

Moreover, insufficient upregulation of interleukin-17 pathways might be working together with barrier defects in the skin and metabolic changes to “pave the way” for colonization by S. epidermidis.
 

Pulling it together

Dr. Homey and associates conclude in their abstract that the findings “support that rosacea lesions are associated with dysbiosis.”

Although treatment with ivermectin did not normalize the skin’s microbiome, it was associated with a decrease in Demodex mite density and the reduction of microbes associated with Demodex.

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, who cochaired the late-breaking news session where the data were presented, asked whether healthy and affected skin in patients with rosacea had been compared, rather than comparing the skin of rosacea lesions with healthy control samples.

“No, we did not this, as this is methodologically a little bit more difficult,” Dr. Homey responded.

Also cochairing the session was Michel Gilliet, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the University Hospital CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland. He commented that these “data suggest that there’s an intimate link between Demodex and the skin microbiota and dysbiosis in in rosacea.”

Dr. Gilliet added: “You have a whole dysbiosis going on in rosacea, which is probably only dependent on these bacteria.”

It would be “very interesting,” as a “proof-of-concept” study, to look at whether depleting Demodex would also delete S. alvi, he suggested.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Homey has acted as a consultant, speaker or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies including Galderma.

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