Rheumatoid Arthritis

Many patients struggle with healthcare costs and basic expenses, according to new research.

People with rheumatologic diseases often experience a hidden symptom: financial toxicity or significant economic strain from out-of-pocket costs. A new study of 41,502 patients published in JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology showed that 20% of those with rheumatologic diseases faced financial hardship from medical expenses, with 55% of those unable to pay their bills. 

Compared with patients who do not have rheumatologic diseases, and after clinical and sociodemographic factors were controlled for, patients with rheumatologic diseases were:

• 29% more likely to have high levels of financial hardship — difficulty paying; needing to pay over time; or inability to pay bills for doctors, dentists, hospitals, therapists, medication, equipment, nursing homes, or home care.
• 53% more likely to have high levels of financial distress — significant worry about having enough money for retirement, paying medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident, maintaining their standard of living, paying their usual healthcare costs, and affording their normal monthly bills and housing costs.
• 29% more likely to experience food insecurity, defined as limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
• 58% more likely to report cost-related medication nonadherence — skipping doses, taking less medication, or delaying filling a prescription to save money.

People who were younger than 64 years, male, Black, or uninsured had higher odds of experiencing financial hardship, financial distress, food insecurity, and cost-related medication nonadherence. 

This study highlights “just how costly everyday rheumatologic conditions can be for your average American,” said lead study author Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. These diseases can be disabling, limiting a patient’s ability to work at the very time when expensive medications are needed. 

“It’s critical for clinicians to recognize how common the financial burden from healthcare costs can be, and only then can they take steps to better support patients,” said G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not involved in the study. 

Here’s how healthcare providers can help. 

Consider skipped medication a red flag. It’s often the first sign of a financial concern. “Sometimes with these problems, it looks like simple medication noncompliance, but it’s really a more complex form of nonadherence,” said Susan M. Goodman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and a coauthor of the study. “And I think if someone’s not taking the medication that had been very helpful, it does behoove the physician to try and figure out why that is.”

Normalize the issue to help patients open up. “I will often say, ‘You know, many, many patients don’t take their medicines exactly as prescribed. About how many days a week do you take this medicine?’” said Dr. Alexander. “If you ask in a nonconfrontational, supportive manner, I’ve found that patients are quite candid.” 

Don’t assume insurance has it covered. If patients are uninsured, help them enroll in (or renew) insurance coverage. But don’t assume insurance will solve the whole problem. “There are many people who, although they do have coverage, still can’t afford their medications,” said Dr. Goodman.

For products on high formulary tiers, the patient’s monthly cost can be hundreds to thousands of dollars. “Over the past 10-20 years, we’ve seen remarkable technological innovation in the types of medicines being brought to market, and here, I’m referring primarily to biologics and medicines made from living cells,” said Dr. Alexander, “but many of these have a price tag that is simply astronomical, and insurers aren’t going to bear the brunt of these costs alone.” 

Biosimilars can be a bit more affordable, but “the dirty little secret of biosimilars is that they’re not really very much less expensive,” said Dr. Goodman. “If your patient is doing well on a drug that gets dropped from their insurance plan’s formulary, or if they switch to a plan that doesn’t cover it, try calling and advocating for an exception. It’s an uphill battle, but it sometimes works,” she said.

If not? Help your patients apply for a patient assistance program. Many drug manufacturers offer copay assistance through their websites, and nonprofit patient assistance organizations such as the PAN Foundation, the Patient Advocate Foundation’s Co-Pay Relief Program, or The Assistance Fund can also help fill the gaps. One study published in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, copay assistance was associated with 79% lower odds of prescription abandonment (failure to fill within 30 days of health plan approval).

Beware of “shiny penny syndrome.” It’s easy to get excited about new, innovative medications, especially when sales reps provide plenty of free samples. “There is a tendency to treat every new medicine as if it’s a bright shiny object in the streambed, and you know that’s not always the case,” said Dr. Alexander. “So, I think we have to be careful, especially in settings when we’re talking about ultra–high-cost medicines, that we’re aware of the burden these medicines may place on patients and that we’re navigating that with patients together, and not simply leaving that as a conversation that never happens in the exam room.”

Maybe there’s an older, time-tested drug that works just as well as the newer, more expensive one. Perhaps there is a slightly less effective medicine that costs a lot less. “These are cost–quality trade-offs that clinicians and patients should be navigating together,” said Dr. Alexander. For example, in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor might work similarly to or almost as well as an interleukin inhibitor, the newer and typically more expensive choice. 

“Some clinicians may find it quite unpalatable to be potentially compromising on safety or efficacy in the interest of reducing the cost of therapies, but as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, ‘Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them,’ ” said Dr. Alexander. “So, if the choice is for someone not to be taking a treatment, or to be taking one that may be a little bit less good, I’ll take the latter.”

Consider the patient’s broader care team. Encourage patients to discuss costs with their other healthcare providers. For patients taking multiple medications, a few adjustments could make a big impact on their wallets. Primary care providers or other specialists might recommend some older and less expensive, but still effective, drugs, such as thiazides for hypertension or metformin for type 2 diabetes. Another option might be to simplify the patient’s regimen or include some fixed-dose combination pills in place of two others.

And if no one has referred the patient to a medical social worker, make the connection. A social worker can put patients in touch with local agencies that can help them with food, housing, and other nonmedical costs. 

Talk about this problem with anyone who will listen. One of the best ways to help patients with rheumatologic diseases is to ensure that decision-makers don’t overlook them. Professional societies such as the American College of Rheumatology can be great resources for advocacy in Washington, DC. Political movements can make drugs more affordable — for example, insulin prices have dropped in recent years because of political pressure, said Dr. Goodman.

“A lot of our national policy now focuses on aiding patients with single high-cost events, but we hope studies like these can really get policymakers to think through how to better support patients with chronic conditions that may have been historically ignored, such as patients with rheumatologic disease,” said Dr. Amen. 

The first step is raising awareness and telling your story. “As providers, we are often [at the] forefront in witnessing how chronic conditions and their associated costs can negatively affect patients’ lives and even alter clinical outcomes,” Dr. Amen added. “By publishing data and sharing meaningful patient stories and clinical vignettes, we can begin to advocate and humanize these patients to policymakers.” 

Information on study funding was not available. All authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients struggle with healthcare costs and basic expenses, according to new research.

People with rheumatologic diseases often experience a hidden symptom: financial toxicity or significant economic strain from out-of-pocket costs. A new study of 41,502 patients published in JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology showed that 20% of those with rheumatologic diseases faced financial hardship from medical expenses, with 55% of those unable to pay their bills. 

Compared with patients who do not have rheumatologic diseases, and after clinical and sociodemographic factors were controlled for, patients with rheumatologic diseases were:

• 29% more likely to have high levels of financial hardship — difficulty paying; needing to pay over time; or inability to pay bills for doctors, dentists, hospitals, therapists, medication, equipment, nursing homes, or home care.
• 53% more likely to have high levels of financial distress — significant worry about having enough money for retirement, paying medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident, maintaining their standard of living, paying their usual healthcare costs, and affording their normal monthly bills and housing costs.
• 29% more likely to experience food insecurity, defined as limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
• 58% more likely to report cost-related medication nonadherence — skipping doses, taking less medication, or delaying filling a prescription to save money.

People who were younger than 64 years, male, Black, or uninsured had higher odds of experiencing financial hardship, financial distress, food insecurity, and cost-related medication nonadherence. 

This study highlights “just how costly everyday rheumatologic conditions can be for your average American,” said lead study author Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. These diseases can be disabling, limiting a patient’s ability to work at the very time when expensive medications are needed. 

“It’s critical for clinicians to recognize how common the financial burden from healthcare costs can be, and only then can they take steps to better support patients,” said G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not involved in the study. 

Here’s how healthcare providers can help. 

Consider skipped medication a red flag. It’s often the first sign of a financial concern. “Sometimes with these problems, it looks like simple medication noncompliance, but it’s really a more complex form of nonadherence,” said Susan M. Goodman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and a coauthor of the study. “And I think if someone’s not taking the medication that had been very helpful, it does behoove the physician to try and figure out why that is.”

Normalize the issue to help patients open up. “I will often say, ‘You know, many, many patients don’t take their medicines exactly as prescribed. About how many days a week do you take this medicine?’” said Dr. Alexander. “If you ask in a nonconfrontational, supportive manner, I’ve found that patients are quite candid.” 

Don’t assume insurance has it covered. If patients are uninsured, help them enroll in (or renew) insurance coverage. But don’t assume insurance will solve the whole problem. “There are many people who, although they do have coverage, still can’t afford their medications,” said Dr. Goodman.

For products on high formulary tiers, the patient’s monthly cost can be hundreds to thousands of dollars. “Over the past 10-20 years, we’ve seen remarkable technological innovation in the types of medicines being brought to market, and here, I’m referring primarily to biologics and medicines made from living cells,” said Dr. Alexander, “but many of these have a price tag that is simply astronomical, and insurers aren’t going to bear the brunt of these costs alone.” 

Biosimilars can be a bit more affordable, but “the dirty little secret of biosimilars is that they’re not really very much less expensive,” said Dr. Goodman. “If your patient is doing well on a drug that gets dropped from their insurance plan’s formulary, or if they switch to a plan that doesn’t cover it, try calling and advocating for an exception. It’s an uphill battle, but it sometimes works,” she said.

If not? Help your patients apply for a patient assistance program. Many drug manufacturers offer copay assistance through their websites, and nonprofit patient assistance organizations such as the PAN Foundation, the Patient Advocate Foundation’s Co-Pay Relief Program, or The Assistance Fund can also help fill the gaps. One study published in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, copay assistance was associated with 79% lower odds of prescription abandonment (failure to fill within 30 days of health plan approval).

Beware of “shiny penny syndrome.” It’s easy to get excited about new, innovative medications, especially when sales reps provide plenty of free samples. “There is a tendency to treat every new medicine as if it’s a bright shiny object in the streambed, and you know that’s not always the case,” said Dr. Alexander. “So, I think we have to be careful, especially in settings when we’re talking about ultra–high-cost medicines, that we’re aware of the burden these medicines may place on patients and that we’re navigating that with patients together, and not simply leaving that as a conversation that never happens in the exam room.”

Maybe there’s an older, time-tested drug that works just as well as the newer, more expensive one. Perhaps there is a slightly less effective medicine that costs a lot less. “These are cost–quality trade-offs that clinicians and patients should be navigating together,” said Dr. Alexander. For example, in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor might work similarly to or almost as well as an interleukin inhibitor, the newer and typically more expensive choice. 

“Some clinicians may find it quite unpalatable to be potentially compromising on safety or efficacy in the interest of reducing the cost of therapies, but as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, ‘Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them,’ ” said Dr. Alexander. “So, if the choice is for someone not to be taking a treatment, or to be taking one that may be a little bit less good, I’ll take the latter.”

Consider the patient’s broader care team. Encourage patients to discuss costs with their other healthcare providers. For patients taking multiple medications, a few adjustments could make a big impact on their wallets. Primary care providers or other specialists might recommend some older and less expensive, but still effective, drugs, such as thiazides for hypertension or metformin for type 2 diabetes. Another option might be to simplify the patient’s regimen or include some fixed-dose combination pills in place of two others.

And if no one has referred the patient to a medical social worker, make the connection. A social worker can put patients in touch with local agencies that can help them with food, housing, and other nonmedical costs. 

Talk about this problem with anyone who will listen. One of the best ways to help patients with rheumatologic diseases is to ensure that decision-makers don’t overlook them. Professional societies such as the American College of Rheumatology can be great resources for advocacy in Washington, DC. Political movements can make drugs more affordable — for example, insulin prices have dropped in recent years because of political pressure, said Dr. Goodman.

“A lot of our national policy now focuses on aiding patients with single high-cost events, but we hope studies like these can really get policymakers to think through how to better support patients with chronic conditions that may have been historically ignored, such as patients with rheumatologic disease,” said Dr. Amen. 

The first step is raising awareness and telling your story. “As providers, we are often [at the] forefront in witnessing how chronic conditions and their associated costs can negatively affect patients’ lives and even alter clinical outcomes,” Dr. Amen added. “By publishing data and sharing meaningful patient stories and clinical vignettes, we can begin to advocate and humanize these patients to policymakers.” 

Information on study funding was not available. All authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients struggle with healthcare costs and basic expenses, according to new research.

People with rheumatologic diseases often experience a hidden symptom: financial toxicity or significant economic strain from out-of-pocket costs. A new study of 41,502 patients published in JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology showed that 20% of those with rheumatologic diseases faced financial hardship from medical expenses, with 55% of those unable to pay their bills. 

Compared with patients who do not have rheumatologic diseases, and after clinical and sociodemographic factors were controlled for, patients with rheumatologic diseases were:

• 29% more likely to have high levels of financial hardship — difficulty paying; needing to pay over time; or inability to pay bills for doctors, dentists, hospitals, therapists, medication, equipment, nursing homes, or home care.
• 53% more likely to have high levels of financial distress — significant worry about having enough money for retirement, paying medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident, maintaining their standard of living, paying their usual healthcare costs, and affording their normal monthly bills and housing costs.
• 29% more likely to experience food insecurity, defined as limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
• 58% more likely to report cost-related medication nonadherence — skipping doses, taking less medication, or delaying filling a prescription to save money.

People who were younger than 64 years, male, Black, or uninsured had higher odds of experiencing financial hardship, financial distress, food insecurity, and cost-related medication nonadherence. 

This study highlights “just how costly everyday rheumatologic conditions can be for your average American,” said lead study author Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. These diseases can be disabling, limiting a patient’s ability to work at the very time when expensive medications are needed. 

“It’s critical for clinicians to recognize how common the financial burden from healthcare costs can be, and only then can they take steps to better support patients,” said G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not involved in the study. 

Here’s how healthcare providers can help. 

Consider skipped medication a red flag. It’s often the first sign of a financial concern. “Sometimes with these problems, it looks like simple medication noncompliance, but it’s really a more complex form of nonadherence,” said Susan M. Goodman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and a coauthor of the study. “And I think if someone’s not taking the medication that had been very helpful, it does behoove the physician to try and figure out why that is.”

Normalize the issue to help patients open up. “I will often say, ‘You know, many, many patients don’t take their medicines exactly as prescribed. About how many days a week do you take this medicine?’” said Dr. Alexander. “If you ask in a nonconfrontational, supportive manner, I’ve found that patients are quite candid.” 

Don’t assume insurance has it covered. If patients are uninsured, help them enroll in (or renew) insurance coverage. But don’t assume insurance will solve the whole problem. “There are many people who, although they do have coverage, still can’t afford their medications,” said Dr. Goodman.

For products on high formulary tiers, the patient’s monthly cost can be hundreds to thousands of dollars. “Over the past 10-20 years, we’ve seen remarkable technological innovation in the types of medicines being brought to market, and here, I’m referring primarily to biologics and medicines made from living cells,” said Dr. Alexander, “but many of these have a price tag that is simply astronomical, and insurers aren’t going to bear the brunt of these costs alone.” 

Biosimilars can be a bit more affordable, but “the dirty little secret of biosimilars is that they’re not really very much less expensive,” said Dr. Goodman. “If your patient is doing well on a drug that gets dropped from their insurance plan’s formulary, or if they switch to a plan that doesn’t cover it, try calling and advocating for an exception. It’s an uphill battle, but it sometimes works,” she said.

If not? Help your patients apply for a patient assistance program. Many drug manufacturers offer copay assistance through their websites, and nonprofit patient assistance organizations such as the PAN Foundation, the Patient Advocate Foundation’s Co-Pay Relief Program, or The Assistance Fund can also help fill the gaps. One study published in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, copay assistance was associated with 79% lower odds of prescription abandonment (failure to fill within 30 days of health plan approval).

Beware of “shiny penny syndrome.” It’s easy to get excited about new, innovative medications, especially when sales reps provide plenty of free samples. “There is a tendency to treat every new medicine as if it’s a bright shiny object in the streambed, and you know that’s not always the case,” said Dr. Alexander. “So, I think we have to be careful, especially in settings when we’re talking about ultra–high-cost medicines, that we’re aware of the burden these medicines may place on patients and that we’re navigating that with patients together, and not simply leaving that as a conversation that never happens in the exam room.”

Maybe there’s an older, time-tested drug that works just as well as the newer, more expensive one. Perhaps there is a slightly less effective medicine that costs a lot less. “These are cost–quality trade-offs that clinicians and patients should be navigating together,” said Dr. Alexander. For example, in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor might work similarly to or almost as well as an interleukin inhibitor, the newer and typically more expensive choice. 

“Some clinicians may find it quite unpalatable to be potentially compromising on safety or efficacy in the interest of reducing the cost of therapies, but as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, ‘Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them,’ ” said Dr. Alexander. “So, if the choice is for someone not to be taking a treatment, or to be taking one that may be a little bit less good, I’ll take the latter.”

Consider the patient’s broader care team. Encourage patients to discuss costs with their other healthcare providers. For patients taking multiple medications, a few adjustments could make a big impact on their wallets. Primary care providers or other specialists might recommend some older and less expensive, but still effective, drugs, such as thiazides for hypertension or metformin for type 2 diabetes. Another option might be to simplify the patient’s regimen or include some fixed-dose combination pills in place of two others.

And if no one has referred the patient to a medical social worker, make the connection. A social worker can put patients in touch with local agencies that can help them with food, housing, and other nonmedical costs. 

Talk about this problem with anyone who will listen. One of the best ways to help patients with rheumatologic diseases is to ensure that decision-makers don’t overlook them. Professional societies such as the American College of Rheumatology can be great resources for advocacy in Washington, DC. Political movements can make drugs more affordable — for example, insulin prices have dropped in recent years because of political pressure, said Dr. Goodman.

“A lot of our national policy now focuses on aiding patients with single high-cost events, but we hope studies like these can really get policymakers to think through how to better support patients with chronic conditions that may have been historically ignored, such as patients with rheumatologic disease,” said Dr. Amen. 

The first step is raising awareness and telling your story. “As providers, we are often [at the] forefront in witnessing how chronic conditions and their associated costs can negatively affect patients’ lives and even alter clinical outcomes,” Dr. Amen added. “By publishing data and sharing meaningful patient stories and clinical vignettes, we can begin to advocate and humanize these patients to policymakers.” 

Information on study funding was not available. All authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Microwave ablation reduces synovial hypertrophy, the number of monoarthritis attacks, and the need for intra-articular aspiration (IAA) in patients with recurrent monoarthritis, significantly improving functional disability and pain scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to assess the long-term effects of microwave ablation as adjunct therapy in patients with various rheumatic diseases and recurrent monoarthritis resistant to medical treatment.
• Overall, 24 knee joints of 22 patients (10 women; 12 men; median age, 37 years) with recurrent monoarthritis were included.
• Microwave ablation (15 or 20 W) was performed until microbubbles indicating coagulation necrosis were observed.
• Patients underwent clinical and radiologic follow-up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post procedure.
• Clinical follow-up included monitoring for remission or recurrence of monoarthritis and any complications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Microwave ablation significantly reduced the IAA count in the last 6 months before ablation from 129 (144 months total) to 7 in a total of 226 months post ablation (P < .001).
• Functional disability and pain scores improved significantly after microwave ablation, with median scores dropping from 9 to 1 (both P < .0001).
• No complications were observed during the procedure or follow-up, indicating the safety of microwave ablation.
• MRI findings showed a significant regression in synovial hypertrophy at 6 months post microwave ablation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Reducing the volume of intractable synovial hypertrophy by shrinking and inactivating with heat-based degradation by MWA [microwave ablation] makes it possible to avoid more systemic treatments or invasive approach and their possible side effects,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rabia Deniz, MD, Department of Rheumatology, University of Health Sciences Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively small sample size and enrollment of patients with heterogeneous severity and diagnosis of rheumatic diseases may limit the generalizability of the findings. Patient noncompliance with medical treatment and additional mechanical trauma to the targeted joints may have resulted in follow-up problems. The semiobjective evaluation of the ultrasonography and MRI findings with regard to the synovial hypertrophy volume was another limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Microwave ablation reduces synovial hypertrophy, the number of monoarthritis attacks, and the need for intra-articular aspiration (IAA) in patients with recurrent monoarthritis, significantly improving functional disability and pain scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to assess the long-term effects of microwave ablation as adjunct therapy in patients with various rheumatic diseases and recurrent monoarthritis resistant to medical treatment.
• Overall, 24 knee joints of 22 patients (10 women; 12 men; median age, 37 years) with recurrent monoarthritis were included.
• Microwave ablation (15 or 20 W) was performed until microbubbles indicating coagulation necrosis were observed.
• Patients underwent clinical and radiologic follow-up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post procedure.
• Clinical follow-up included monitoring for remission or recurrence of monoarthritis and any complications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Microwave ablation significantly reduced the IAA count in the last 6 months before ablation from 129 (144 months total) to 7 in a total of 226 months post ablation (P < .001).
• Functional disability and pain scores improved significantly after microwave ablation, with median scores dropping from 9 to 1 (both P < .0001).
• No complications were observed during the procedure or follow-up, indicating the safety of microwave ablation.
• MRI findings showed a significant regression in synovial hypertrophy at 6 months post microwave ablation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Reducing the volume of intractable synovial hypertrophy by shrinking and inactivating with heat-based degradation by MWA [microwave ablation] makes it possible to avoid more systemic treatments or invasive approach and their possible side effects,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rabia Deniz, MD, Department of Rheumatology, University of Health Sciences Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively small sample size and enrollment of patients with heterogeneous severity and diagnosis of rheumatic diseases may limit the generalizability of the findings. Patient noncompliance with medical treatment and additional mechanical trauma to the targeted joints may have resulted in follow-up problems. The semiobjective evaluation of the ultrasonography and MRI findings with regard to the synovial hypertrophy volume was another limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Microwave ablation reduces synovial hypertrophy, the number of monoarthritis attacks, and the need for intra-articular aspiration (IAA) in patients with recurrent monoarthritis, significantly improving functional disability and pain scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to assess the long-term effects of microwave ablation as adjunct therapy in patients with various rheumatic diseases and recurrent monoarthritis resistant to medical treatment.
• Overall, 24 knee joints of 22 patients (10 women; 12 men; median age, 37 years) with recurrent monoarthritis were included.
• Microwave ablation (15 or 20 W) was performed until microbubbles indicating coagulation necrosis were observed.
• Patients underwent clinical and radiologic follow-up at 2 weeks and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post procedure.
• Clinical follow-up included monitoring for remission or recurrence of monoarthritis and any complications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Microwave ablation significantly reduced the IAA count in the last 6 months before ablation from 129 (144 months total) to 7 in a total of 226 months post ablation (P < .001).
• Functional disability and pain scores improved significantly after microwave ablation, with median scores dropping from 9 to 1 (both P < .0001).
• No complications were observed during the procedure or follow-up, indicating the safety of microwave ablation.
• MRI findings showed a significant regression in synovial hypertrophy at 6 months post microwave ablation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Reducing the volume of intractable synovial hypertrophy by shrinking and inactivating with heat-based degradation by MWA [microwave ablation] makes it possible to avoid more systemic treatments or invasive approach and their possible side effects,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rabia Deniz, MD, Department of Rheumatology, University of Health Sciences Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The relatively small sample size and enrollment of patients with heterogeneous severity and diagnosis of rheumatic diseases may limit the generalizability of the findings. Patient noncompliance with medical treatment and additional mechanical trauma to the targeted joints may have resulted in follow-up problems. The semiobjective evaluation of the ultrasonography and MRI findings with regard to the synovial hypertrophy volume was another limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early detection and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA; within 12 weeks of symptom onset) results in lower treatment-related costs over 5 years compared with later diagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 431 patients in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic at Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
• Symptom duration was defined as time between symptom onset and first clinic visit.
• Early treatment was defined as a symptom duration of under 12 weeks, and later treatment defined as symptom duration over 12 weeks.
• Prescription data from patient records and 2022 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prices (including biologics) was used to determine overall costs over 5 years.
• Autoantibody-negative and autoantibody-positive RA were studied separately because of possible differences in disease severity.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the 165 patients with autoantibody-negative RA, late treatment was associated with 316% higher costs over 5 years than early treatment (€4856/$5292 vs €1159/$1263)
• For antibody-positive RA, costs were 19% higher in the late-treatment group.
• In the 43 patients with antibody-positive RA only prescribed biologics, costs were 46% higher for those with delayed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“This is the first study showing the effect of early diagnosis and treatment on treatment-related costs,” wrote the authors. “When RA is detected within 12 weeks after symptom onset, treatment-related costs seem to be lower.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elise van Mulligen, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center. It was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 

LIMITATIONS:

The division of symptom duration by 12 weeks was “arbitrary.” Baseline characteristics, though similar, showed differences for inflammatory markers in autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA. Thirty seven patients were lost to follow-up, which could induce attrition bias, though the percentage of these patients in the early- and late-treatment groups was similar.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for healthcare research. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early detection and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA; within 12 weeks of symptom onset) results in lower treatment-related costs over 5 years compared with later diagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 431 patients in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic at Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
• Symptom duration was defined as time between symptom onset and first clinic visit.
• Early treatment was defined as a symptom duration of under 12 weeks, and later treatment defined as symptom duration over 12 weeks.
• Prescription data from patient records and 2022 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prices (including biologics) was used to determine overall costs over 5 years.
• Autoantibody-negative and autoantibody-positive RA were studied separately because of possible differences in disease severity.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the 165 patients with autoantibody-negative RA, late treatment was associated with 316% higher costs over 5 years than early treatment (€4856/$5292 vs €1159/$1263)
• For antibody-positive RA, costs were 19% higher in the late-treatment group.
• In the 43 patients with antibody-positive RA only prescribed biologics, costs were 46% higher for those with delayed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“This is the first study showing the effect of early diagnosis and treatment on treatment-related costs,” wrote the authors. “When RA is detected within 12 weeks after symptom onset, treatment-related costs seem to be lower.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elise van Mulligen, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center. It was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 

LIMITATIONS:

The division of symptom duration by 12 weeks was “arbitrary.” Baseline characteristics, though similar, showed differences for inflammatory markers in autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA. Thirty seven patients were lost to follow-up, which could induce attrition bias, though the percentage of these patients in the early- and late-treatment groups was similar.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for healthcare research. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early detection and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA; within 12 weeks of symptom onset) results in lower treatment-related costs over 5 years compared with later diagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study enrolled 431 patients in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic at Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
• Symptom duration was defined as time between symptom onset and first clinic visit.
• Early treatment was defined as a symptom duration of under 12 weeks, and later treatment defined as symptom duration over 12 weeks.
• Prescription data from patient records and 2022 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prices (including biologics) was used to determine overall costs over 5 years.
• Autoantibody-negative and autoantibody-positive RA were studied separately because of possible differences in disease severity.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the 165 patients with autoantibody-negative RA, late treatment was associated with 316% higher costs over 5 years than early treatment (€4856/$5292 vs €1159/$1263)
• For antibody-positive RA, costs were 19% higher in the late-treatment group.
• In the 43 patients with antibody-positive RA only prescribed biologics, costs were 46% higher for those with delayed treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“This is the first study showing the effect of early diagnosis and treatment on treatment-related costs,” wrote the authors. “When RA is detected within 12 weeks after symptom onset, treatment-related costs seem to be lower.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elise van Mulligen, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center. It was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 

LIMITATIONS:

The division of symptom duration by 12 weeks was “arbitrary.” Baseline characteristics, though similar, showed differences for inflammatory markers in autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA. Thirty seven patients were lost to follow-up, which could induce attrition bias, though the percentage of these patients in the early- and late-treatment groups was similar.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for healthcare research. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Baricitinib may be the superior choice to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for whom conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) have failed, according to a new study.

After 12 weeks, patients taking baricitinib achieved a 50% improvement in RA symptoms according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at twice the rate as in patients assigned to receive TNF inhibitors. In addition, 75% of the baricitinib group achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein under 2.6, compared with less than half of patients taking TNF inhibitors.
 

Putting Safety Into the Equation

However, safety concerns also need to be considered when prescribing medication, noted Andrew Wang, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. He was not involved with the study, called PERFECTRA.

“This category of drugs — JAK-STAT [inhibitors] — are much newer than TNF inhibitors, CTLAs, B-cell depleters, and the other tools we have,” he said, “with relatively less real-world experience and potential downsides in the future.”

Study Details

In the study, researchers enrolled 199 patients with active RA for which previous use of at least one csDMARD had failed and randomly assigned 97 patients to receive baricitinib and the remainder to receive a TNF inhibitor: 64% started on adalimumab, 33% started on etanercept, and the rest used golimumab or infliximab.

For all patients, the suggested treatment allocation was provided via randomization lists, but physicians and patients ultimately decided treatment via shared decision-making.

Patients were diagnosed less than 5 years ago, had received no previous treatment with biologics or targeted synthetic DMARDs, and had no contraindications for TNF inhibitors or baricitinib. Researchers recruited patients from September 2019 through February 2022 across 15 health centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. The study was funded by Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, although the study was investigator initiated.

Patients were on average aged 55 years, and about two thirds were women. The average disease duration was 2 years.

At 12 weeks, 42% of the baricitinib group achieved ACR50, compared with 20% of the TNF inhibitor group. All patient-reported outcome measures showed improvement over the study period, favoring baricitinib. More patients receiving baricitinib remained on the medication overall than patients on a TNF inhibitor: At 48 weeks, 70% of patients receiving a TNF inhibitor and 80% of patients receiving baricitinib had continued taking their assigned treatment.

These results are not surprising, Wang noted, as “JAK inhibitors hit many arms of immune signaling, whereas TNF blockers just hit TNF.” However, there is a trade-off between potent, effective drugs and toxicity, he added.

“I would not be as bullish on starting baricitinib in a patient off the bat, in the same way that nobody would want to keep patients on glucocorticoids [any longer than is] minimally necessary.”

While the study was not powered to compare safety between the two drugs, there were no adverse events during the study that had not been previously reported.

“Prescribers have to be aware that cardiovascular and malignant [serious adverse events] are more frequently reported” with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, the authors wrote. “Obviously, this has to be considered carefully in risk-benefit discussions with any individual patient.”

Dr. Wang noted that, in general, he and his colleagues would not start with a JAK inhibitor first except for special circumstances: For example, if a patient will not use an injectable medication, or for some reason, it’s impractical for the patient’s lifestyle to use medication that requires constant refrigeration.

“I think the take-home message here is these are, in general, lifelong diseases, and so a rheumatologist and their patients have to develop good relationships to monitor whether or not we’re hitting the sweet spot of keeping disease under control” while also avoiding overmedication and toxicity, he said.

One potential solution, which Dr. Wang has also done in his clinical practice, is to initiate a JAK inhibitor in patients who need it but then switch to a different modality after achieving disease control.

“You can imagine a scenario where you get them to a very low [Disease Activity Score] with baricitinib, for example, and then you switch them to a TNF inhibitor,” he said. “I can imagine that there would be ways that you could get the best of both worlds.”

PERFECTRA was financially supported by an unrestricted grant from Eli Lilly. The authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Wang serves on NGM Bio’s science advisory board, consults for TCG Labs-Soleil and Seranova Bio, and has received funding from AstraZeneca.

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

Baricitinib may be the superior choice to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for whom conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) have failed, according to a new study.

After 12 weeks, patients taking baricitinib achieved a 50% improvement in RA symptoms according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at twice the rate as in patients assigned to receive TNF inhibitors. In addition, 75% of the baricitinib group achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein under 2.6, compared with less than half of patients taking TNF inhibitors.
 

Putting Safety Into the Equation

However, safety concerns also need to be considered when prescribing medication, noted Andrew Wang, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. He was not involved with the study, called PERFECTRA.

“This category of drugs — JAK-STAT [inhibitors] — are much newer than TNF inhibitors, CTLAs, B-cell depleters, and the other tools we have,” he said, “with relatively less real-world experience and potential downsides in the future.”

Study Details

In the study, researchers enrolled 199 patients with active RA for which previous use of at least one csDMARD had failed and randomly assigned 97 patients to receive baricitinib and the remainder to receive a TNF inhibitor: 64% started on adalimumab, 33% started on etanercept, and the rest used golimumab or infliximab.

For all patients, the suggested treatment allocation was provided via randomization lists, but physicians and patients ultimately decided treatment via shared decision-making.

Patients were diagnosed less than 5 years ago, had received no previous treatment with biologics or targeted synthetic DMARDs, and had no contraindications for TNF inhibitors or baricitinib. Researchers recruited patients from September 2019 through February 2022 across 15 health centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. The study was funded by Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, although the study was investigator initiated.

Patients were on average aged 55 years, and about two thirds were women. The average disease duration was 2 years.

At 12 weeks, 42% of the baricitinib group achieved ACR50, compared with 20% of the TNF inhibitor group. All patient-reported outcome measures showed improvement over the study period, favoring baricitinib. More patients receiving baricitinib remained on the medication overall than patients on a TNF inhibitor: At 48 weeks, 70% of patients receiving a TNF inhibitor and 80% of patients receiving baricitinib had continued taking their assigned treatment.

These results are not surprising, Wang noted, as “JAK inhibitors hit many arms of immune signaling, whereas TNF blockers just hit TNF.” However, there is a trade-off between potent, effective drugs and toxicity, he added.

“I would not be as bullish on starting baricitinib in a patient off the bat, in the same way that nobody would want to keep patients on glucocorticoids [any longer than is] minimally necessary.”

While the study was not powered to compare safety between the two drugs, there were no adverse events during the study that had not been previously reported.

“Prescribers have to be aware that cardiovascular and malignant [serious adverse events] are more frequently reported” with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, the authors wrote. “Obviously, this has to be considered carefully in risk-benefit discussions with any individual patient.”

Dr. Wang noted that, in general, he and his colleagues would not start with a JAK inhibitor first except for special circumstances: For example, if a patient will not use an injectable medication, or for some reason, it’s impractical for the patient’s lifestyle to use medication that requires constant refrigeration.

“I think the take-home message here is these are, in general, lifelong diseases, and so a rheumatologist and their patients have to develop good relationships to monitor whether or not we’re hitting the sweet spot of keeping disease under control” while also avoiding overmedication and toxicity, he said.

One potential solution, which Dr. Wang has also done in his clinical practice, is to initiate a JAK inhibitor in patients who need it but then switch to a different modality after achieving disease control.

“You can imagine a scenario where you get them to a very low [Disease Activity Score] with baricitinib, for example, and then you switch them to a TNF inhibitor,” he said. “I can imagine that there would be ways that you could get the best of both worlds.”

PERFECTRA was financially supported by an unrestricted grant from Eli Lilly. The authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Wang serves on NGM Bio’s science advisory board, consults for TCG Labs-Soleil and Seranova Bio, and has received funding from AstraZeneca.

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

Baricitinib may be the superior choice to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for whom conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) have failed, according to a new study.

After 12 weeks, patients taking baricitinib achieved a 50% improvement in RA symptoms according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at twice the rate as in patients assigned to receive TNF inhibitors. In addition, 75% of the baricitinib group achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein under 2.6, compared with less than half of patients taking TNF inhibitors.
 

Putting Safety Into the Equation

However, safety concerns also need to be considered when prescribing medication, noted Andrew Wang, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. He was not involved with the study, called PERFECTRA.

“This category of drugs — JAK-STAT [inhibitors] — are much newer than TNF inhibitors, CTLAs, B-cell depleters, and the other tools we have,” he said, “with relatively less real-world experience and potential downsides in the future.”

Study Details

In the study, researchers enrolled 199 patients with active RA for which previous use of at least one csDMARD had failed and randomly assigned 97 patients to receive baricitinib and the remainder to receive a TNF inhibitor: 64% started on adalimumab, 33% started on etanercept, and the rest used golimumab or infliximab.

For all patients, the suggested treatment allocation was provided via randomization lists, but physicians and patients ultimately decided treatment via shared decision-making.

Patients were diagnosed less than 5 years ago, had received no previous treatment with biologics or targeted synthetic DMARDs, and had no contraindications for TNF inhibitors or baricitinib. Researchers recruited patients from September 2019 through February 2022 across 15 health centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. The study was funded by Eli Lilly, which manufactures baricitinib, although the study was investigator initiated.

Patients were on average aged 55 years, and about two thirds were women. The average disease duration was 2 years.

At 12 weeks, 42% of the baricitinib group achieved ACR50, compared with 20% of the TNF inhibitor group. All patient-reported outcome measures showed improvement over the study period, favoring baricitinib. More patients receiving baricitinib remained on the medication overall than patients on a TNF inhibitor: At 48 weeks, 70% of patients receiving a TNF inhibitor and 80% of patients receiving baricitinib had continued taking their assigned treatment.

These results are not surprising, Wang noted, as “JAK inhibitors hit many arms of immune signaling, whereas TNF blockers just hit TNF.” However, there is a trade-off between potent, effective drugs and toxicity, he added.

“I would not be as bullish on starting baricitinib in a patient off the bat, in the same way that nobody would want to keep patients on glucocorticoids [any longer than is] minimally necessary.”

While the study was not powered to compare safety between the two drugs, there were no adverse events during the study that had not been previously reported.

“Prescribers have to be aware that cardiovascular and malignant [serious adverse events] are more frequently reported” with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, the authors wrote. “Obviously, this has to be considered carefully in risk-benefit discussions with any individual patient.”

Dr. Wang noted that, in general, he and his colleagues would not start with a JAK inhibitor first except for special circumstances: For example, if a patient will not use an injectable medication, or for some reason, it’s impractical for the patient’s lifestyle to use medication that requires constant refrigeration.

“I think the take-home message here is these are, in general, lifelong diseases, and so a rheumatologist and their patients have to develop good relationships to monitor whether or not we’re hitting the sweet spot of keeping disease under control” while also avoiding overmedication and toxicity, he said.

One potential solution, which Dr. Wang has also done in his clinical practice, is to initiate a JAK inhibitor in patients who need it but then switch to a different modality after achieving disease control.

“You can imagine a scenario where you get them to a very low [Disease Activity Score] with baricitinib, for example, and then you switch them to a TNF inhibitor,” he said. “I can imagine that there would be ways that you could get the best of both worlds.”

PERFECTRA was financially supported by an unrestricted grant from Eli Lilly. The authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Janssen-Cilag. Dr. Wang serves on NGM Bio’s science advisory board, consults for TCG Labs-Soleil and Seranova Bio, and has received funding from AstraZeneca.

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

VIENNA — The highly selective oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor SHR0302 (ivarmacitinib) enables more patients with active rheumatoid arthritis to meet American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria than placebo, the results of a phase 3 trial showed.

After 24 weeks of daily treatment, the primary endpoint of an ACR20 response was met by 40.4% of those who had been given placebo, 70.4% who had received a 4-mg dose, and 75.1% given an 8-mg dose. At the same time point, ACR50 responses were a respective 15.4%, 46.0%, and 57.1%, and ACR70 responses were 6.9%, 22.2%, and 31.7%. All analyses comparing SHR0302 vs placebo were highly significant (P < .0001).
 

First Phase 3 Trial in China

“This is the first highly selective JAK inhibitor originally developed, and a phase 3 clinical trial conducted, [exclusively] in China,” Jinjing Liu, from the department of rheumatology at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in Beijing, China, said in an interview.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Ms. Liu presented the results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting, during the Abstract Plenary, which highlights the best-scored abstracts of the meeting.

“We are working our best to provide more choices for Chinese patients,” Ms. Liu said, which includes lowering the financial cost of treatments. A locally developed JAK inhibitor could potentially be a much cheaper option than other alternatives that are currently available, she said.

But it is more than that, Ms. Liu said. “The selectivity of SHR0302 for JAK 1 is nine times greater than for JAK 2, so it surpasses either tofacitinib or baricitinib.” The theory is that this higher selectivity for JAK 1 over JAK 2 could lead to fewer adverse events (AEs).

“Maybe it will result in lower JAK 2–associated hematologic side effects,” Ms. Liu said.

“We have noticed that, throughout the clinical trial, the most commonly reported AEs in the drug groups were upper extremity infection [21.7%-22.8% vs 13.8% for placebo] and hyperlipidemia [12.2%-15.3% vs 5.3%].” And for the control group, she said that anemia was the second highest reported AE, at 11.7% vs 6.3% and 7.4% for SHR0302 4 and 8 mg, respectively.
 

Standard Design

The trial design was typical for a phase 3 study: Multicenter, randomized, placebo controlled, and double blind for the first 24 weeks, followed by an extension period out to 52 weeks. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be aged 18-75 years and have active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to previous treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Of 1085 patients who were initially screened, 566 were randomly allocated to receive placebo (n = 188), SHR0302 4 mg (n = 189), or SHR0302 8 mg (n = 189). The average age of patients was 51 years, and 13.3% of patients were older than 65 years.
 

Additional Results

Alongside improvements in ACR responses, Ms Liu reported that a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with SHR0302 vs placebo achieved a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein less than 2.6 (29.6% with 4 mg and 39.2% with 8 mg vs 4.2% with placebo; both P < .0001) and at least 3.2 (57.1% and 46.0% vs 15.4%; both P < .0001) at 24 weeks.

There were also greater improvements seen in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, 36-item Short-Form (SF36) physical component summary, and SF36 mental component summary scores for active vs placebo treatment.

As for AEs, there were no surprises. During the main 24-week trial period, 81.5%, 90.5%, and 79.3% of patients treated with SHR0302 4 and 8 mg and placebo, respectively, experienced any AE.

Infection-related treatment-emergent adverse effects occurred slightly more often in the SHR0302-treated groups (40.2% for 4 mg and 40.7% for 8 mg) than in the placebo group (34.0%). There was a single case of serious infection that required treatment in the SHR0302 8 mg–treated group but no cases of systemic opportunistic infection.

There was one thromboembolic event and one major cardiovascular event in the 24-week period, both occurring in patients treated with SHR0302 8 mg. There were also single cases of each reported during the extension phase of the trial, but both were in the placebo arm.

Two cases of liver function abnormality — one each in the SHR0302 4- and 8-mg groups — were recorded during the main part of the trial and two cases — both in the SHR0302 4-mg group — during the extension phase.

As for malignancy, there was a single, newly diagnosed case in the SHR0302 4 mg group in the first part of the trial and two cases, both in the SHR0302 4-mg group, during the extension phase.

“We hope this [JAK inhibitor] will be for everybody. But, you know, if it’s for patients, globally, more clinical trials would be required,” Ms. Liu said in an interview. The future, she added, was to start accumulating some real-world data and perhaps do a trial comparing SHR0302 with another JAK inhibitor or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
 

Another JAK in the Box?

Following her presentation, Ms. Liu at EULAR 2024 was quizzed as to why there were so many screening failures. She responded that she did not have the full data to answer the question but noted that some patients in her center had been worried about being randomized to a placebo. This trial has also been conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, so that may have been a contributing factor with patients unable to get to their follow-up appointments.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, commented on the study, saying: “The JAK field is in evolution. We need to understand the broader toxicities. There is an unexplained mechanism driving potential cardiovascular and malignant risk in a small proportion of patients receiving the drugs.”

Dr. McInnes added, “It’s really unclear whether the solution is going to be greater selectivity and potency, or whether we need to think really about selecting the right patients for a JAK inhibitor.”

The study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Two of the 18 authors of the abstract were employees of the sponsoring company, but Ms. Liu reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. McInnes reported serving on speaker’s bureaus for AbbVie and UCB; receiving consulting fees received from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The highly selective oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor SHR0302 (ivarmacitinib) enables more patients with active rheumatoid arthritis to meet American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria than placebo, the results of a phase 3 trial showed.

After 24 weeks of daily treatment, the primary endpoint of an ACR20 response was met by 40.4% of those who had been given placebo, 70.4% who had received a 4-mg dose, and 75.1% given an 8-mg dose. At the same time point, ACR50 responses were a respective 15.4%, 46.0%, and 57.1%, and ACR70 responses were 6.9%, 22.2%, and 31.7%. All analyses comparing SHR0302 vs placebo were highly significant (P < .0001).
 

First Phase 3 Trial in China

“This is the first highly selective JAK inhibitor originally developed, and a phase 3 clinical trial conducted, [exclusively] in China,” Jinjing Liu, from the department of rheumatology at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in Beijing, China, said in an interview.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Ms. Liu presented the results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting, during the Abstract Plenary, which highlights the best-scored abstracts of the meeting.

“We are working our best to provide more choices for Chinese patients,” Ms. Liu said, which includes lowering the financial cost of treatments. A locally developed JAK inhibitor could potentially be a much cheaper option than other alternatives that are currently available, she said.

But it is more than that, Ms. Liu said. “The selectivity of SHR0302 for JAK 1 is nine times greater than for JAK 2, so it surpasses either tofacitinib or baricitinib.” The theory is that this higher selectivity for JAK 1 over JAK 2 could lead to fewer adverse events (AEs).

“Maybe it will result in lower JAK 2–associated hematologic side effects,” Ms. Liu said.

“We have noticed that, throughout the clinical trial, the most commonly reported AEs in the drug groups were upper extremity infection [21.7%-22.8% vs 13.8% for placebo] and hyperlipidemia [12.2%-15.3% vs 5.3%].” And for the control group, she said that anemia was the second highest reported AE, at 11.7% vs 6.3% and 7.4% for SHR0302 4 and 8 mg, respectively.
 

Standard Design

The trial design was typical for a phase 3 study: Multicenter, randomized, placebo controlled, and double blind for the first 24 weeks, followed by an extension period out to 52 weeks. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be aged 18-75 years and have active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to previous treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Of 1085 patients who were initially screened, 566 were randomly allocated to receive placebo (n = 188), SHR0302 4 mg (n = 189), or SHR0302 8 mg (n = 189). The average age of patients was 51 years, and 13.3% of patients were older than 65 years.
 

Additional Results

Alongside improvements in ACR responses, Ms Liu reported that a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with SHR0302 vs placebo achieved a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein less than 2.6 (29.6% with 4 mg and 39.2% with 8 mg vs 4.2% with placebo; both P < .0001) and at least 3.2 (57.1% and 46.0% vs 15.4%; both P < .0001) at 24 weeks.

There were also greater improvements seen in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, 36-item Short-Form (SF36) physical component summary, and SF36 mental component summary scores for active vs placebo treatment.

As for AEs, there were no surprises. During the main 24-week trial period, 81.5%, 90.5%, and 79.3% of patients treated with SHR0302 4 and 8 mg and placebo, respectively, experienced any AE.

Infection-related treatment-emergent adverse effects occurred slightly more often in the SHR0302-treated groups (40.2% for 4 mg and 40.7% for 8 mg) than in the placebo group (34.0%). There was a single case of serious infection that required treatment in the SHR0302 8 mg–treated group but no cases of systemic opportunistic infection.

There was one thromboembolic event and one major cardiovascular event in the 24-week period, both occurring in patients treated with SHR0302 8 mg. There were also single cases of each reported during the extension phase of the trial, but both were in the placebo arm.

Two cases of liver function abnormality — one each in the SHR0302 4- and 8-mg groups — were recorded during the main part of the trial and two cases — both in the SHR0302 4-mg group — during the extension phase.

As for malignancy, there was a single, newly diagnosed case in the SHR0302 4 mg group in the first part of the trial and two cases, both in the SHR0302 4-mg group, during the extension phase.

“We hope this [JAK inhibitor] will be for everybody. But, you know, if it’s for patients, globally, more clinical trials would be required,” Ms. Liu said in an interview. The future, she added, was to start accumulating some real-world data and perhaps do a trial comparing SHR0302 with another JAK inhibitor or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
 

Another JAK in the Box?

Following her presentation, Ms. Liu at EULAR 2024 was quizzed as to why there were so many screening failures. She responded that she did not have the full data to answer the question but noted that some patients in her center had been worried about being randomized to a placebo. This trial has also been conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, so that may have been a contributing factor with patients unable to get to their follow-up appointments.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, commented on the study, saying: “The JAK field is in evolution. We need to understand the broader toxicities. There is an unexplained mechanism driving potential cardiovascular and malignant risk in a small proportion of patients receiving the drugs.”

Dr. McInnes added, “It’s really unclear whether the solution is going to be greater selectivity and potency, or whether we need to think really about selecting the right patients for a JAK inhibitor.”

The study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Two of the 18 authors of the abstract were employees of the sponsoring company, but Ms. Liu reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. McInnes reported serving on speaker’s bureaus for AbbVie and UCB; receiving consulting fees received from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The highly selective oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor SHR0302 (ivarmacitinib) enables more patients with active rheumatoid arthritis to meet American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria than placebo, the results of a phase 3 trial showed.

After 24 weeks of daily treatment, the primary endpoint of an ACR20 response was met by 40.4% of those who had been given placebo, 70.4% who had received a 4-mg dose, and 75.1% given an 8-mg dose. At the same time point, ACR50 responses were a respective 15.4%, 46.0%, and 57.1%, and ACR70 responses were 6.9%, 22.2%, and 31.7%. All analyses comparing SHR0302 vs placebo were highly significant (P < .0001).
 

First Phase 3 Trial in China

“This is the first highly selective JAK inhibitor originally developed, and a phase 3 clinical trial conducted, [exclusively] in China,” Jinjing Liu, from the department of rheumatology at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in Beijing, China, said in an interview.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Ms. Liu presented the results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting, during the Abstract Plenary, which highlights the best-scored abstracts of the meeting.

“We are working our best to provide more choices for Chinese patients,” Ms. Liu said, which includes lowering the financial cost of treatments. A locally developed JAK inhibitor could potentially be a much cheaper option than other alternatives that are currently available, she said.

But it is more than that, Ms. Liu said. “The selectivity of SHR0302 for JAK 1 is nine times greater than for JAK 2, so it surpasses either tofacitinib or baricitinib.” The theory is that this higher selectivity for JAK 1 over JAK 2 could lead to fewer adverse events (AEs).

“Maybe it will result in lower JAK 2–associated hematologic side effects,” Ms. Liu said.

“We have noticed that, throughout the clinical trial, the most commonly reported AEs in the drug groups were upper extremity infection [21.7%-22.8% vs 13.8% for placebo] and hyperlipidemia [12.2%-15.3% vs 5.3%].” And for the control group, she said that anemia was the second highest reported AE, at 11.7% vs 6.3% and 7.4% for SHR0302 4 and 8 mg, respectively.
 

Standard Design

The trial design was typical for a phase 3 study: Multicenter, randomized, placebo controlled, and double blind for the first 24 weeks, followed by an extension period out to 52 weeks. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be aged 18-75 years and have active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to previous treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Of 1085 patients who were initially screened, 566 were randomly allocated to receive placebo (n = 188), SHR0302 4 mg (n = 189), or SHR0302 8 mg (n = 189). The average age of patients was 51 years, and 13.3% of patients were older than 65 years.
 

Additional Results

Alongside improvements in ACR responses, Ms Liu reported that a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with SHR0302 vs placebo achieved a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein less than 2.6 (29.6% with 4 mg and 39.2% with 8 mg vs 4.2% with placebo; both P < .0001) and at least 3.2 (57.1% and 46.0% vs 15.4%; both P < .0001) at 24 weeks.

There were also greater improvements seen in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, 36-item Short-Form (SF36) physical component summary, and SF36 mental component summary scores for active vs placebo treatment.

As for AEs, there were no surprises. During the main 24-week trial period, 81.5%, 90.5%, and 79.3% of patients treated with SHR0302 4 and 8 mg and placebo, respectively, experienced any AE.

Infection-related treatment-emergent adverse effects occurred slightly more often in the SHR0302-treated groups (40.2% for 4 mg and 40.7% for 8 mg) than in the placebo group (34.0%). There was a single case of serious infection that required treatment in the SHR0302 8 mg–treated group but no cases of systemic opportunistic infection.

There was one thromboembolic event and one major cardiovascular event in the 24-week period, both occurring in patients treated with SHR0302 8 mg. There were also single cases of each reported during the extension phase of the trial, but both were in the placebo arm.

Two cases of liver function abnormality — one each in the SHR0302 4- and 8-mg groups — were recorded during the main part of the trial and two cases — both in the SHR0302 4-mg group — during the extension phase.

As for malignancy, there was a single, newly diagnosed case in the SHR0302 4 mg group in the first part of the trial and two cases, both in the SHR0302 4-mg group, during the extension phase.

“We hope this [JAK inhibitor] will be for everybody. But, you know, if it’s for patients, globally, more clinical trials would be required,” Ms. Liu said in an interview. The future, she added, was to start accumulating some real-world data and perhaps do a trial comparing SHR0302 with another JAK inhibitor or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.
 

Another JAK in the Box?

Following her presentation, Ms. Liu at EULAR 2024 was quizzed as to why there were so many screening failures. She responded that she did not have the full data to answer the question but noted that some patients in her center had been worried about being randomized to a placebo. This trial has also been conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, so that may have been a contributing factor with patients unable to get to their follow-up appointments.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, commented on the study, saying: “The JAK field is in evolution. We need to understand the broader toxicities. There is an unexplained mechanism driving potential cardiovascular and malignant risk in a small proportion of patients receiving the drugs.”

Dr. McInnes added, “It’s really unclear whether the solution is going to be greater selectivity and potency, or whether we need to think really about selecting the right patients for a JAK inhibitor.”

The study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Two of the 18 authors of the abstract were employees of the sponsoring company, but Ms. Liu reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. McInnes reported serving on speaker’s bureaus for AbbVie and UCB; receiving consulting fees received from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — An intervention consisting of a plant-based diet, exercise, and sleep and stress advice improved pain, stiffness, and physical function in people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and metabolic syndrome, while in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disease activity improved significantly, and medication use was reduced.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, Carlijn Wagenaar, MD, a PhD candidate in Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, presented 2-year extension study results for OA and RA and an overview of the possible biological mechanisms underpinning the plant-based intervention in RA.

“At 2 years, RA patients on the PFJ [Plants for Joints] intervention resulted in a significant improvement in disease activity of RA, and these outcomes were maintained 2 years after program end,” Dr. Wagenaar reported.

“Some initial improvements in body composition and metabolic outcomes were also maintained at the end of the 2-year extension phase, and there was a net decrease in antirheumatic medication use,” she continued.

In the patients with OA, Dr. Wagenaar said the PFJ intervention improved pain, stiffness, and physical function in people with knee and/or hip OA and metabolic syndrome. “In the 2-year extension study, these effects were maintained, and we saw lasting body composition changes and a decrease in cholesterol-lowering medications. There was also high acceptability of the program; the study shows long-term maintenance of clinically relevant effects.”
 

Significant Improvement in OA Pain, Stiffness, Physical Function

In the OA randomized controlled trial, 64 people with hip and/or knee OA and metabolic syndrome were randomized to the PFJ intervention or usual care (waitlist control group). A total of 62 participants (including those in the control group previously) entered the long-term effectiveness study, and 44 had 2 years of follow-up data for analysis. Twenty participants dropped out, with most being unreachable or too busy.

“The PFJ program is a theoretical and practical program where people learn about and follow a whole food, plant-based diet, and receive advice on sleep and stress management and exercise,” said Dr. Wagenaar.

The program lasted 16 weeks with group sessions of 6-12 participants. The diet was a plant-based version of the Dutch dietary guidelines with a focus on unprocessed food. It was rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fruit, and vegetables, but without calorie restrictions and participants had one-to-one contact with a dietitian. The exercise advice followed the Dutch exercise guidelines, which advise 150 minutes of moderate to intense exercise per week, as well as twice-weekly muscle strength exercises, noted Dr. Wagenaar.

The 2-year follow-up study involved twice-yearly visits and six adherence-promoting webinars per year, as well as monthly newsletters. Researchers also monitored changes in medication intensity (classified as “increased,” “stable,” or “decreased/stopped”) between the start of the PFJ intervention and end of the 2-year extension study, and they were grouped into medications for pain, blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol.

Participants were encouraged to try to avoid making changes to medication during the intervention phase, but they could do so during the 2-year extension study, said Dr. Wagenaar. In fact, the researchers actively monitored and quantified medication changes between the start of the PFJ intervention and end of the 2-year follow-up period.

Patients in the 16-week trial had an average age of 64 years, 84% were women, and their mean body mass index (BMI) was 33 kg/m². A total of 73% had knee OA and 78% hip OA, and their mean WOMAC score was 38.2, indicative of moderate to severe OA.

In participants who completed the 2-year extension study, the primary outcome (WOMAC score for mean stiffness and physical function) showed a significant improvement of −9.1 (95% CI, −12.8 to −5.3; P < .0001) compared with the start of the PFJ intervention.

“Looking at individual components of the WOMAC score — pain, stiffness, and physical function — we found these also all significantly improved at the end of the 2-year extension phase,” reported Dr. Wagenaar.

She added that after 2 years, there were significant improvements in weight loss (from 94.9 to 92.1 kg), BMI (from 33.3 to 32 kg/m²), and waist circumference (from 110 to 106.7 cm).

By the end of the trial and at 1 year of the extension study, there were significant improvements in A1c, fasting blood glucose, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but at 2 years, these were no longer significant.

Regarding medications use, Dr. Wagenaar reported that, overall, there was no net change in use of pain, glucose-lowering, or hypertension medications, but 44% of patients using cholesterol-lowering medications were able to lower their dose or stop them.
 

Disease Activity Improvement and Medication Reduction in RA

Turning to the study of the intervention in patients with RA, 77 people (DAS28 ≥ 2.6 and ≤ 5.1, mild to moderate disease) were randomized to receive either the PFJ intervention in addition to usual care or only usual care (control group). Of these, 48 (62%) from both the intervention and control groups also completed the 2-year follow-up. The details of the PFJ intervention and the extension study for RA were the same as for the OA patient group.

Dr. Wagenaar commented on how they tried to individualize the exercise part of the program. “We noticed many of the RA patients asked too much of their body, while in contrast, those with OA were too hesitant,” she said. “We decided to focus on people’s own physical barriers, and we wanted to protect these. Sometimes, people needed to move more, and at other times, we had to tell people to slow down. Often, we advised people to move more by integrating exercise into their daily life.”

Similar to the OA study, patients were asked to try to avoid changing their medications in the 16-week study. “In the extension study, they were encouraged to reduce their medication in collaboration with their rheumatologist,” explained Wagenaar, who monitored any changes.

Differences were quantified according to medication groups comprising rheumatic medications, as well as pain, blood pressure, glucose-lowering, and cholesterol medications, and changes were categorized as increased, stable, or decreased/stopped.

Again, participants were mostly women (92%) with an average age of 55 years, BMI of 26 kg/m², and DAS28 of 3.85 at baseline. Dropout reasons were similar to those for OA, and over 85% of participants were on medications.

During the 16-week trial period, the DAS28 changed more in the intervention participants than in the controls, and after 2 years of follow-up, DAS28 was significantly lower than baseline with a mean difference of −0.9 (95% CI, −1.2 to −0.6; P < .0001).

“Comparing with the literature, the drop in DAS28 was similar to that seen with medication, so it’s a very significant reduction,” remarked Dr. Wagenaar.

Mean tender joint count dropped from 3 to 0, and general health components of the DAS28 improved significantly over the intervention and over the 2-year follow-up, whereas there was no significant difference in the already low erythrocyte sedimentation rate and swollen joint count compared with baseline. C-reactive protein (CRP) changed from 3.2 to 1.3 mg/L over the 2-year follow-up. High-density lipoprotein increased from 1.6 to 1.8 mmol/L.

A total of 44% of people using antirheumatic medication decreased or stopped them after the 2-year extension.

Dr. Wagenaar went on to say that focus group findings suggested that “participants were very enthusiastic about the program despite it largely involving lifestyle change, and this is reflected in our low dropout rates after the trial and 1-year extension [20% for OA and RA].” There were more dropouts in year 2 of the extension.

In an interview, Dr. Wagenaar explained why she felt the program had been so well received. “People in the program felt like they had more control over their disease, and they felt listened to.”
 

Mechanisms Underpinning PFJ

Dr. Wagenaar and colleagues also sought to determine the possible mechanisms underlying the clinical effects of the plant-based diet on RA. “With RA, we have the mucosal origins hypothesis, which suggests RA is triggered at the mucosal site [of the gut] in genetically predisposed individuals, and this consequently transfers to the synovial [fluid in] joints,” she said.

“On top of this, we know that fiber protects our gut barrier and therefore reduces inflammation. The PFJ intervention is a very high-fiber program, so our hypothesis is that it might help [strengthen] the barrier,” she explained.

Dr. Wagenaar and colleagues collected fecal samples from patients and measured the albumin and calprotectin in them, which are both indicators of the gut barrier function. The researchers analyzed metabolomic data and found that fecal albumin — considered a gut barrier integrity marker — decreased significantly in the intervention group. In patients with RA, this improvement corresponded with an improvement in DAS28, the researchers reported in a poster at the meeting.

“Patients who had the greatest improvement in their gut barrier function also showed the greatest improvement in the DAS28 score, suggestive of a possible link between gut barrier improvement and clinical effects.”

They did not identify any change in calprotectin, an inflammation marker, but Dr. Wagenaar said this might change later. “We found that in those on the intervention, at 4 months, the CRP wasn’t reduced, but 1 year later it was.”

The metabolite lenticin, a lentil intake biomarker considered protective against inflammation and osteoclastic differentiation, also increased. Tryptophan was also reduced in people on the PFJ intervention.

Fernando Estevez-Lopez, PhD, a sports scientist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who specializes in physical activity and behavioral change in rheumatology patients, co-moderated the session and remarked that, “In this study, they did a brilliant job with encouraging participants to follow the program. The design and methods were really good — the sample size was good, and they followed people up. Also, these researchers come from Reade [a medical research center in Amsterdam University Medical Center] where they are well known for applying their research findings to the clinic,” he said.

“In terms of physical activity, we really mean increasing the time spent moving, for example, gentle activity such as walking, or changing behaviors in people with OA and RA. We don’t want them to have more pain the next day.”

Dr. Wagenaar reported receiving a grant from ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development). She and colleagues hold shares in Plants for Health, a limited liability company. Dr. Estevez-Lopez reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — An intervention consisting of a plant-based diet, exercise, and sleep and stress advice improved pain, stiffness, and physical function in people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and metabolic syndrome, while in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disease activity improved significantly, and medication use was reduced.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, Carlijn Wagenaar, MD, a PhD candidate in Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, presented 2-year extension study results for OA and RA and an overview of the possible biological mechanisms underpinning the plant-based intervention in RA.

“At 2 years, RA patients on the PFJ [Plants for Joints] intervention resulted in a significant improvement in disease activity of RA, and these outcomes were maintained 2 years after program end,” Dr. Wagenaar reported.

“Some initial improvements in body composition and metabolic outcomes were also maintained at the end of the 2-year extension phase, and there was a net decrease in antirheumatic medication use,” she continued.

In the patients with OA, Dr. Wagenaar said the PFJ intervention improved pain, stiffness, and physical function in people with knee and/or hip OA and metabolic syndrome. “In the 2-year extension study, these effects were maintained, and we saw lasting body composition changes and a decrease in cholesterol-lowering medications. There was also high acceptability of the program; the study shows long-term maintenance of clinically relevant effects.”
 

Significant Improvement in OA Pain, Stiffness, Physical Function

In the OA randomized controlled trial, 64 people with hip and/or knee OA and metabolic syndrome were randomized to the PFJ intervention or usual care (waitlist control group). A total of 62 participants (including those in the control group previously) entered the long-term effectiveness study, and 44 had 2 years of follow-up data for analysis. Twenty participants dropped out, with most being unreachable or too busy.

“The PFJ program is a theoretical and practical program where people learn about and follow a whole food, plant-based diet, and receive advice on sleep and stress management and exercise,” said Dr. Wagenaar.

The program lasted 16 weeks with group sessions of 6-12 participants. The diet was a plant-based version of the Dutch dietary guidelines with a focus on unprocessed food. It was rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fruit, and vegetables, but without calorie restrictions and participants had one-to-one contact with a dietitian. The exercise advice followed the Dutch exercise guidelines, which advise 150 minutes of moderate to intense exercise per week, as well as twice-weekly muscle strength exercises, noted Dr. Wagenaar.

The 2-year follow-up study involved twice-yearly visits and six adherence-promoting webinars per year, as well as monthly newsletters. Researchers also monitored changes in medication intensity (classified as “increased,” “stable,” or “decreased/stopped”) between the start of the PFJ intervention and end of the 2-year extension study, and they were grouped into medications for pain, blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol.

Participants were encouraged to try to avoid making changes to medication during the intervention phase, but they could do so during the 2-year extension study, said Dr. Wagenaar. In fact, the researchers actively monitored and quantified medication changes between the start of the PFJ intervention and end of the 2-year follow-up period.

Patients in the 16-week trial had an average age of 64 years, 84% were women, and their mean body mass index (BMI) was 33 kg/m². A total of 73% had knee OA and 78% hip OA, and their mean WOMAC score was 38.2, indicative of moderate to severe OA.

In participants who completed the 2-year extension study, the primary outcome (WOMAC score for mean stiffness and physical function) showed a significant improvement of −9.1 (95% CI, −12.8 to −5.3; P < .0001) compared with the start of the PFJ intervention.

“Looking at individual components of the WOMAC score — pain, stiffness, and physical function — we found these also all significantly improved at the end of the 2-year extension phase,” reported Dr. Wagenaar.

She added that after 2 years, there were significant improvements in weight loss (from 94.9 to 92.1 kg), BMI (from 33.3 to 32 kg/m²), and waist circumference (from 110 to 106.7 cm).

By the end of the trial and at 1 year of the extension study, there were significant improvements in A1c, fasting blood glucose, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but at 2 years, these were no longer significant.

Regarding medications use, Dr. Wagenaar reported that, overall, there was no net change in use of pain, glucose-lowering, or hypertension medications, but 44% of patients using cholesterol-lowering medications were able to lower their dose or stop them.
 

Disease Activity Improvement and Medication Reduction in RA

Turning to the study of the intervention in patients with RA, 77 people (DAS28 ≥ 2.6 and ≤ 5.1, mild to moderate disease) were randomized to receive either the PFJ intervention in addition to usual care or only usual care (control group). Of these, 48 (62%) from both the intervention and control groups also completed the 2-year follow-up. The details of the PFJ intervention and the extension study for RA were the same as for the OA patient group.

Dr. Wagenaar commented on how they tried to individualize the exercise part of the program. “We noticed many of the RA patients asked too much of their body, while in contrast, those with OA were too hesitant,” she said. “We decided to focus on people’s own physical barriers, and we wanted to protect these. Sometimes, people needed to move more, and at other times, we had to tell people to slow down. Often, we advised people to move more by integrating exercise into their daily life.”

Similar to the OA study, patients were asked to try to avoid changing their medications in the 16-week study. “In the extension study, they were encouraged to reduce their medication in collaboration with their rheumatologist,” explained Wagenaar, who monitored any changes.

Differences were quantified according to medication groups comprising rheumatic medications, as well as pain, blood pressure, glucose-lowering, and cholesterol medications, and changes were categorized as increased, stable, or decreased/stopped.

Again, participants were mostly women (92%) with an average age of 55 years, BMI of 26 kg/m², and DAS28 of 3.85 at baseline. Dropout reasons were similar to those for OA, and over 85% of participants were on medications.

During the 16-week trial period, the DAS28 changed more in the intervention participants than in the controls, and after 2 years of follow-up, DAS28 was significantly lower than baseline with a mean difference of −0.9 (95% CI, −1.2 to −0.6; P < .0001).

“Comparing with the literature, the drop in DAS28 was similar to that seen with medication, so it’s a very significant reduction,” remarked Dr. Wagenaar.

Mean tender joint count dropped from 3 to 0, and general health components of the DAS28 improved significantly over the intervention and over the 2-year follow-up, whereas there was no significant difference in the already low erythrocyte sedimentation rate and swollen joint count compared with baseline. C-reactive protein (CRP) changed from 3.2 to 1.3 mg/L over the 2-year follow-up. High-density lipoprotein increased from 1.6 to 1.8 mmol/L.

A total of 44% of people using antirheumatic medication decreased or stopped them after the 2-year extension.

Dr. Wagenaar went on to say that focus group findings suggested that “participants were very enthusiastic about the program despite it largely involving lifestyle change, and this is reflected in our low dropout rates after the trial and 1-year extension [20% for OA and RA].” There were more dropouts in year 2 of the extension.

In an interview, Dr. Wagenaar explained why she felt the program had been so well received. “People in the program felt like they had more control over their disease, and they felt listened to.”
 

Mechanisms Underpinning PFJ

Dr. Wagenaar and colleagues also sought to determine the possible mechanisms underlying the clinical effects of the plant-based diet on RA. “With RA, we have the mucosal origins hypothesis, which suggests RA is triggered at the mucosal site [of the gut] in genetically predisposed individuals, and this consequently transfers to the synovial [fluid in] joints,” she said.

“On top of this, we know that fiber protects our gut barrier and therefore reduces inflammation. The PFJ intervention is a very high-fiber program, so our hypothesis is that it might help [strengthen] the barrier,” she explained.

Dr. Wagenaar and colleagues collected fecal samples from patients and measured the albumin and calprotectin in them, which are both indicators of the gut barrier function. The researchers analyzed metabolomic data and found that fecal albumin — considered a gut barrier integrity marker — decreased significantly in the intervention group. In patients with RA, this improvement corresponded with an improvement in DAS28, the researchers reported in a poster at the meeting.

“Patients who had the greatest improvement in their gut barrier function also showed the greatest improvement in the DAS28 score, suggestive of a possible link between gut barrier improvement and clinical effects.”

They did not identify any change in calprotectin, an inflammation marker, but Dr. Wagenaar said this might change later. “We found that in those on the intervention, at 4 months, the CRP wasn’t reduced, but 1 year later it was.”

The metabolite lenticin, a lentil intake biomarker considered protective against inflammation and osteoclastic differentiation, also increased. Tryptophan was also reduced in people on the PFJ intervention.

Fernando Estevez-Lopez, PhD, a sports scientist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who specializes in physical activity and behavioral change in rheumatology patients, co-moderated the session and remarked that, “In this study, they did a brilliant job with encouraging participants to follow the program. The design and methods were really good — the sample size was good, and they followed people up. Also, these researchers come from Reade [a medical research center in Amsterdam University Medical Center] where they are well known for applying their research findings to the clinic,” he said.

“In terms of physical activity, we really mean increasing the time spent moving, for example, gentle activity such as walking, or changing behaviors in people with OA and RA. We don’t want them to have more pain the next day.”

Dr. Wagenaar reported receiving a grant from ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development). She and colleagues hold shares in Plants for Health, a limited liability company. Dr. Estevez-Lopez reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — An intervention consisting of a plant-based diet, exercise, and sleep and stress advice improved pain, stiffness, and physical function in people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and metabolic syndrome, while in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disease activity improved significantly, and medication use was reduced.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, Carlijn Wagenaar, MD, a PhD candidate in Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, presented 2-year extension study results for OA and RA and an overview of the possible biological mechanisms underpinning the plant-based intervention in RA.

“At 2 years, RA patients on the PFJ [Plants for Joints] intervention resulted in a significant improvement in disease activity of RA, and these outcomes were maintained 2 years after program end,” Dr. Wagenaar reported.

“Some initial improvements in body composition and metabolic outcomes were also maintained at the end of the 2-year extension phase, and there was a net decrease in antirheumatic medication use,” she continued.

In the patients with OA, Dr. Wagenaar said the PFJ intervention improved pain, stiffness, and physical function in people with knee and/or hip OA and metabolic syndrome. “In the 2-year extension study, these effects were maintained, and we saw lasting body composition changes and a decrease in cholesterol-lowering medications. There was also high acceptability of the program; the study shows long-term maintenance of clinically relevant effects.”
 

Significant Improvement in OA Pain, Stiffness, Physical Function

In the OA randomized controlled trial, 64 people with hip and/or knee OA and metabolic syndrome were randomized to the PFJ intervention or usual care (waitlist control group). A total of 62 participants (including those in the control group previously) entered the long-term effectiveness study, and 44 had 2 years of follow-up data for analysis. Twenty participants dropped out, with most being unreachable or too busy.

“The PFJ program is a theoretical and practical program where people learn about and follow a whole food, plant-based diet, and receive advice on sleep and stress management and exercise,” said Dr. Wagenaar.

The program lasted 16 weeks with group sessions of 6-12 participants. The diet was a plant-based version of the Dutch dietary guidelines with a focus on unprocessed food. It was rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fruit, and vegetables, but without calorie restrictions and participants had one-to-one contact with a dietitian. The exercise advice followed the Dutch exercise guidelines, which advise 150 minutes of moderate to intense exercise per week, as well as twice-weekly muscle strength exercises, noted Dr. Wagenaar.

The 2-year follow-up study involved twice-yearly visits and six adherence-promoting webinars per year, as well as monthly newsletters. Researchers also monitored changes in medication intensity (classified as “increased,” “stable,” or “decreased/stopped”) between the start of the PFJ intervention and end of the 2-year extension study, and they were grouped into medications for pain, blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol.

Participants were encouraged to try to avoid making changes to medication during the intervention phase, but they could do so during the 2-year extension study, said Dr. Wagenaar. In fact, the researchers actively monitored and quantified medication changes between the start of the PFJ intervention and end of the 2-year follow-up period.

Patients in the 16-week trial had an average age of 64 years, 84% were women, and their mean body mass index (BMI) was 33 kg/m². A total of 73% had knee OA and 78% hip OA, and their mean WOMAC score was 38.2, indicative of moderate to severe OA.

In participants who completed the 2-year extension study, the primary outcome (WOMAC score for mean stiffness and physical function) showed a significant improvement of −9.1 (95% CI, −12.8 to −5.3; P < .0001) compared with the start of the PFJ intervention.

“Looking at individual components of the WOMAC score — pain, stiffness, and physical function — we found these also all significantly improved at the end of the 2-year extension phase,” reported Dr. Wagenaar.

She added that after 2 years, there were significant improvements in weight loss (from 94.9 to 92.1 kg), BMI (from 33.3 to 32 kg/m²), and waist circumference (from 110 to 106.7 cm).

By the end of the trial and at 1 year of the extension study, there were significant improvements in A1c, fasting blood glucose, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but at 2 years, these were no longer significant.

Regarding medications use, Dr. Wagenaar reported that, overall, there was no net change in use of pain, glucose-lowering, or hypertension medications, but 44% of patients using cholesterol-lowering medications were able to lower their dose or stop them.
 

Disease Activity Improvement and Medication Reduction in RA

Turning to the study of the intervention in patients with RA, 77 people (DAS28 ≥ 2.6 and ≤ 5.1, mild to moderate disease) were randomized to receive either the PFJ intervention in addition to usual care or only usual care (control group). Of these, 48 (62%) from both the intervention and control groups also completed the 2-year follow-up. The details of the PFJ intervention and the extension study for RA were the same as for the OA patient group.

Dr. Wagenaar commented on how they tried to individualize the exercise part of the program. “We noticed many of the RA patients asked too much of their body, while in contrast, those with OA were too hesitant,” she said. “We decided to focus on people’s own physical barriers, and we wanted to protect these. Sometimes, people needed to move more, and at other times, we had to tell people to slow down. Often, we advised people to move more by integrating exercise into their daily life.”

Similar to the OA study, patients were asked to try to avoid changing their medications in the 16-week study. “In the extension study, they were encouraged to reduce their medication in collaboration with their rheumatologist,” explained Wagenaar, who monitored any changes.

Differences were quantified according to medication groups comprising rheumatic medications, as well as pain, blood pressure, glucose-lowering, and cholesterol medications, and changes were categorized as increased, stable, or decreased/stopped.

Again, participants were mostly women (92%) with an average age of 55 years, BMI of 26 kg/m², and DAS28 of 3.85 at baseline. Dropout reasons were similar to those for OA, and over 85% of participants were on medications.

During the 16-week trial period, the DAS28 changed more in the intervention participants than in the controls, and after 2 years of follow-up, DAS28 was significantly lower than baseline with a mean difference of −0.9 (95% CI, −1.2 to −0.6; P < .0001).

“Comparing with the literature, the drop in DAS28 was similar to that seen with medication, so it’s a very significant reduction,” remarked Dr. Wagenaar.

Mean tender joint count dropped from 3 to 0, and general health components of the DAS28 improved significantly over the intervention and over the 2-year follow-up, whereas there was no significant difference in the already low erythrocyte sedimentation rate and swollen joint count compared with baseline. C-reactive protein (CRP) changed from 3.2 to 1.3 mg/L over the 2-year follow-up. High-density lipoprotein increased from 1.6 to 1.8 mmol/L.

A total of 44% of people using antirheumatic medication decreased or stopped them after the 2-year extension.

Dr. Wagenaar went on to say that focus group findings suggested that “participants were very enthusiastic about the program despite it largely involving lifestyle change, and this is reflected in our low dropout rates after the trial and 1-year extension [20% for OA and RA].” There were more dropouts in year 2 of the extension.

In an interview, Dr. Wagenaar explained why she felt the program had been so well received. “People in the program felt like they had more control over their disease, and they felt listened to.”
 

Mechanisms Underpinning PFJ

Dr. Wagenaar and colleagues also sought to determine the possible mechanisms underlying the clinical effects of the plant-based diet on RA. “With RA, we have the mucosal origins hypothesis, which suggests RA is triggered at the mucosal site [of the gut] in genetically predisposed individuals, and this consequently transfers to the synovial [fluid in] joints,” she said.

“On top of this, we know that fiber protects our gut barrier and therefore reduces inflammation. The PFJ intervention is a very high-fiber program, so our hypothesis is that it might help [strengthen] the barrier,” she explained.

Dr. Wagenaar and colleagues collected fecal samples from patients and measured the albumin and calprotectin in them, which are both indicators of the gut barrier function. The researchers analyzed metabolomic data and found that fecal albumin — considered a gut barrier integrity marker — decreased significantly in the intervention group. In patients with RA, this improvement corresponded with an improvement in DAS28, the researchers reported in a poster at the meeting.

“Patients who had the greatest improvement in their gut barrier function also showed the greatest improvement in the DAS28 score, suggestive of a possible link between gut barrier improvement and clinical effects.”

They did not identify any change in calprotectin, an inflammation marker, but Dr. Wagenaar said this might change later. “We found that in those on the intervention, at 4 months, the CRP wasn’t reduced, but 1 year later it was.”

The metabolite lenticin, a lentil intake biomarker considered protective against inflammation and osteoclastic differentiation, also increased. Tryptophan was also reduced in people on the PFJ intervention.

Fernando Estevez-Lopez, PhD, a sports scientist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who specializes in physical activity and behavioral change in rheumatology patients, co-moderated the session and remarked that, “In this study, they did a brilliant job with encouraging participants to follow the program. The design and methods were really good — the sample size was good, and they followed people up. Also, these researchers come from Reade [a medical research center in Amsterdam University Medical Center] where they are well known for applying their research findings to the clinic,” he said.

“In terms of physical activity, we really mean increasing the time spent moving, for example, gentle activity such as walking, or changing behaviors in people with OA and RA. We don’t want them to have more pain the next day.”

Dr. Wagenaar reported receiving a grant from ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development). She and colleagues hold shares in Plants for Health, a limited liability company. Dr. Estevez-Lopez reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Pneumococcal vaccination administered 1 month prior to starting methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) allows a significantly higher immunological response at 1 month and does not affect disease control at 1 year, compared with starting MTX simultaneously with the vaccination, according to data from a randomized trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Our patients are more susceptible to infection due to immunosuppressive therapy, and it’s recommended they receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection,” the lead author Jacques Morel, MD, PhD, said in his presentation of results from the VACIMRA study.

Timing the vaccination against pneumococcal disease when initiating MTX in clinical practice has been a point of uncertainty, noted Dr. Morel, a rheumatologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Montpellier, France.

“How can we deal with this in clinical practice where one recommendation is to vaccine before initiation of methotrexate, but it is also recommended to start methotrexate as soon as the diagnosis of RA is made?” he asked.
 

Comparing Humoral Response of MTX Started Immediately or 1 Month Post-Vaccination

The prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aimed to compare the rate of humoral immunological response against pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in patients with RA who had a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2, never taken MTX, and never been vaccinated against pneumococcus. Patients were vaccinated either 1 month before MTX initiation (n = 126) or simultaneously with MTX (n = 123). Oral glucocorticoids were allowed but only at < 10 mg/d. Following PCV13 vaccination, all patients also received the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) 2 months later.

Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies against the 13 serotypes contained within PCV13 were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and opsonophagocytic killing assay (OPA) at baseline and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Positive antibody response was defined as a twofold or more increase in the IgG concentration using ELISA. The main outcome was the responder rates at 1 month after PCV13, defined by at least three positive antibody responses out of five of the target PVC13 serotypes (1, 3, 5, 7F, and 19A) using ELISA or OPA. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the percentage of patients responding to each of the 13 vaccine serotypes at 1 month and after the boost with PPV23 and at 3, 6, and 12 months after vaccination with PCV13. The researchers also measured disease activity, infections, and side effects throughout the study.

Dr. Morel highlighted that all the patients had very early RA of less than 6 months, and that their characteristics at baseline were similar in both groups with 70% women, mean age 55.6 years, RA duration 2 months, 69% positive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies, 21% with erosive disease, and a DAS28 based on C-reactive protein of 4.6.

Response rates in those receiving MTX 1 month after vaccination were significantly higher at 88% with ELISA than those at 75% for immediate vaccination (P < .01) and 96% vs 88% with OPA (P = .02). These responder proportions persisted at the 12-month follow-up measurements, remaining higher in the delayed MTX group for both assays and across the 13 serotypes.

Showing a graph of the antibody responses, Dr. Morel explained that “at 12 months, the curves start to converge, but the difference in antibody titers were still significant for eight of the 13 serotypes.”
 

Disease Activity Not Adversely Affected by Starting MTX 1 Month Later

Regarding medication doses at 12 months, the cumulative glucocorticoid doses were similar between groups during the follow-up. As expected, the 1-year cumulative dose of MTX was higher in those given the drug immediately after vaccination vs delayed (826 vs 734 mg), but the weekly mean doses of MTX were similar at 3, 6, and 12 months between the two groups, and likewise, the use of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) at 1 year was comparable. The cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 12 months was similar at 1716 mg with delayed MTX and 1613 mg with immediate MTX.

Not unexpectedly, at 1 month, DAS28 scores were higher with delayed vs immediate MTX at 3.95 vs 3.38 for DAS28-ESR and 3.54 vs 3.01 for DAS28-CRP (P < .01), but after the first month, DAS28 scores were similar between the two groups.

No significant differences were found between the groups for adverse event rates within 7 days of receiving PCV13, with local and systemic reactions occurring at 60%-61% and 50%-58%, respectively; fever at 0%-4%; and severe infections at 12%.

Finally, no difference was found in terms of serious adverse events between groups, with one pneumococcal infection with delayed MTX during follow-up, and there were no unexpected side effects observed with the PCV13 and PPV23 vaccinations.
 

Rheumatologists’ Reactions

Ernest Choy, MD, head of rheumatology and translational research at the Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales, asked if any individual showed no humoral response at all rather than a reduced response. “I ask because if there is no humoral response, then they are at very high risk, and there will be clinical relevance to that.”

Dr. Morel replied that “one serotype showed no response, at least according to the assays used, but we don’t know why. We analyzed at the population [level], not at the individual level, so it is difficult to answer the question.”

Another delegate asked what the participants thought about delaying MTX by 1 month. “When we tell the patient we need to vaccinate before we can use methotrexate [because] otherwise, we will reduce the response to the vaccination, then patient accepts it,” said Dr. Morel, adding that, “we allowed a minimal dose of steroids, and we saw from the results that the DAS28 at 1 month had changed.”

Co-moderator Katerina Chatzidionysiou, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and head of the Clinical Trial Department Rheumatology Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, said that “As a physician, I’d feel uncomfortable delaying MTX if they had very active disease even for a short period of time.”

Dr. Morel replied that, “Today, we have so many drugs that can control the disease, for example, the targeted DMARDs. Progression does not show much variation, and we know x-ray progression with today’s drugs is a lot less than previously.”

Dr. Morel reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier. Dr. Choy had no relevant financial relationships of relevance to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Pneumococcal vaccination administered 1 month prior to starting methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) allows a significantly higher immunological response at 1 month and does not affect disease control at 1 year, compared with starting MTX simultaneously with the vaccination, according to data from a randomized trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Our patients are more susceptible to infection due to immunosuppressive therapy, and it’s recommended they receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection,” the lead author Jacques Morel, MD, PhD, said in his presentation of results from the VACIMRA study.

Timing the vaccination against pneumococcal disease when initiating MTX in clinical practice has been a point of uncertainty, noted Dr. Morel, a rheumatologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Montpellier, France.

“How can we deal with this in clinical practice where one recommendation is to vaccine before initiation of methotrexate, but it is also recommended to start methotrexate as soon as the diagnosis of RA is made?” he asked.
 

Comparing Humoral Response of MTX Started Immediately or 1 Month Post-Vaccination

The prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aimed to compare the rate of humoral immunological response against pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in patients with RA who had a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2, never taken MTX, and never been vaccinated against pneumococcus. Patients were vaccinated either 1 month before MTX initiation (n = 126) or simultaneously with MTX (n = 123). Oral glucocorticoids were allowed but only at < 10 mg/d. Following PCV13 vaccination, all patients also received the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) 2 months later.

Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies against the 13 serotypes contained within PCV13 were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and opsonophagocytic killing assay (OPA) at baseline and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Positive antibody response was defined as a twofold or more increase in the IgG concentration using ELISA. The main outcome was the responder rates at 1 month after PCV13, defined by at least three positive antibody responses out of five of the target PVC13 serotypes (1, 3, 5, 7F, and 19A) using ELISA or OPA. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the percentage of patients responding to each of the 13 vaccine serotypes at 1 month and after the boost with PPV23 and at 3, 6, and 12 months after vaccination with PCV13. The researchers also measured disease activity, infections, and side effects throughout the study.

Dr. Morel highlighted that all the patients had very early RA of less than 6 months, and that their characteristics at baseline were similar in both groups with 70% women, mean age 55.6 years, RA duration 2 months, 69% positive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies, 21% with erosive disease, and a DAS28 based on C-reactive protein of 4.6.

Response rates in those receiving MTX 1 month after vaccination were significantly higher at 88% with ELISA than those at 75% for immediate vaccination (P < .01) and 96% vs 88% with OPA (P = .02). These responder proportions persisted at the 12-month follow-up measurements, remaining higher in the delayed MTX group for both assays and across the 13 serotypes.

Showing a graph of the antibody responses, Dr. Morel explained that “at 12 months, the curves start to converge, but the difference in antibody titers were still significant for eight of the 13 serotypes.”
 

Disease Activity Not Adversely Affected by Starting MTX 1 Month Later

Regarding medication doses at 12 months, the cumulative glucocorticoid doses were similar between groups during the follow-up. As expected, the 1-year cumulative dose of MTX was higher in those given the drug immediately after vaccination vs delayed (826 vs 734 mg), but the weekly mean doses of MTX were similar at 3, 6, and 12 months between the two groups, and likewise, the use of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) at 1 year was comparable. The cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 12 months was similar at 1716 mg with delayed MTX and 1613 mg with immediate MTX.

Not unexpectedly, at 1 month, DAS28 scores were higher with delayed vs immediate MTX at 3.95 vs 3.38 for DAS28-ESR and 3.54 vs 3.01 for DAS28-CRP (P < .01), but after the first month, DAS28 scores were similar between the two groups.

No significant differences were found between the groups for adverse event rates within 7 days of receiving PCV13, with local and systemic reactions occurring at 60%-61% and 50%-58%, respectively; fever at 0%-4%; and severe infections at 12%.

Finally, no difference was found in terms of serious adverse events between groups, with one pneumococcal infection with delayed MTX during follow-up, and there were no unexpected side effects observed with the PCV13 and PPV23 vaccinations.
 

Rheumatologists’ Reactions

Ernest Choy, MD, head of rheumatology and translational research at the Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales, asked if any individual showed no humoral response at all rather than a reduced response. “I ask because if there is no humoral response, then they are at very high risk, and there will be clinical relevance to that.”

Dr. Morel replied that “one serotype showed no response, at least according to the assays used, but we don’t know why. We analyzed at the population [level], not at the individual level, so it is difficult to answer the question.”

Another delegate asked what the participants thought about delaying MTX by 1 month. “When we tell the patient we need to vaccinate before we can use methotrexate [because] otherwise, we will reduce the response to the vaccination, then patient accepts it,” said Dr. Morel, adding that, “we allowed a minimal dose of steroids, and we saw from the results that the DAS28 at 1 month had changed.”

Co-moderator Katerina Chatzidionysiou, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and head of the Clinical Trial Department Rheumatology Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, said that “As a physician, I’d feel uncomfortable delaying MTX if they had very active disease even for a short period of time.”

Dr. Morel replied that, “Today, we have so many drugs that can control the disease, for example, the targeted DMARDs. Progression does not show much variation, and we know x-ray progression with today’s drugs is a lot less than previously.”

Dr. Morel reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier. Dr. Choy had no relevant financial relationships of relevance to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Pneumococcal vaccination administered 1 month prior to starting methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) allows a significantly higher immunological response at 1 month and does not affect disease control at 1 year, compared with starting MTX simultaneously with the vaccination, according to data from a randomized trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Our patients are more susceptible to infection due to immunosuppressive therapy, and it’s recommended they receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection,” the lead author Jacques Morel, MD, PhD, said in his presentation of results from the VACIMRA study.

Timing the vaccination against pneumococcal disease when initiating MTX in clinical practice has been a point of uncertainty, noted Dr. Morel, a rheumatologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Montpellier, France.

“How can we deal with this in clinical practice where one recommendation is to vaccine before initiation of methotrexate, but it is also recommended to start methotrexate as soon as the diagnosis of RA is made?” he asked.
 

Comparing Humoral Response of MTX Started Immediately or 1 Month Post-Vaccination

The prospective, randomized, multicenter trial aimed to compare the rate of humoral immunological response against pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in patients with RA who had a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2, never taken MTX, and never been vaccinated against pneumococcus. Patients were vaccinated either 1 month before MTX initiation (n = 126) or simultaneously with MTX (n = 123). Oral glucocorticoids were allowed but only at < 10 mg/d. Following PCV13 vaccination, all patients also received the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) 2 months later.

Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies against the 13 serotypes contained within PCV13 were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and opsonophagocytic killing assay (OPA) at baseline and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

Positive antibody response was defined as a twofold or more increase in the IgG concentration using ELISA. The main outcome was the responder rates at 1 month after PCV13, defined by at least three positive antibody responses out of five of the target PVC13 serotypes (1, 3, 5, 7F, and 19A) using ELISA or OPA. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the percentage of patients responding to each of the 13 vaccine serotypes at 1 month and after the boost with PPV23 and at 3, 6, and 12 months after vaccination with PCV13. The researchers also measured disease activity, infections, and side effects throughout the study.

Dr. Morel highlighted that all the patients had very early RA of less than 6 months, and that their characteristics at baseline were similar in both groups with 70% women, mean age 55.6 years, RA duration 2 months, 69% positive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies, 21% with erosive disease, and a DAS28 based on C-reactive protein of 4.6.

Response rates in those receiving MTX 1 month after vaccination were significantly higher at 88% with ELISA than those at 75% for immediate vaccination (P < .01) and 96% vs 88% with OPA (P = .02). These responder proportions persisted at the 12-month follow-up measurements, remaining higher in the delayed MTX group for both assays and across the 13 serotypes.

Showing a graph of the antibody responses, Dr. Morel explained that “at 12 months, the curves start to converge, but the difference in antibody titers were still significant for eight of the 13 serotypes.”
 

Disease Activity Not Adversely Affected by Starting MTX 1 Month Later

Regarding medication doses at 12 months, the cumulative glucocorticoid doses were similar between groups during the follow-up. As expected, the 1-year cumulative dose of MTX was higher in those given the drug immediately after vaccination vs delayed (826 vs 734 mg), but the weekly mean doses of MTX were similar at 3, 6, and 12 months between the two groups, and likewise, the use of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) at 1 year was comparable. The cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 12 months was similar at 1716 mg with delayed MTX and 1613 mg with immediate MTX.

Not unexpectedly, at 1 month, DAS28 scores were higher with delayed vs immediate MTX at 3.95 vs 3.38 for DAS28-ESR and 3.54 vs 3.01 for DAS28-CRP (P < .01), but after the first month, DAS28 scores were similar between the two groups.

No significant differences were found between the groups for adverse event rates within 7 days of receiving PCV13, with local and systemic reactions occurring at 60%-61% and 50%-58%, respectively; fever at 0%-4%; and severe infections at 12%.

Finally, no difference was found in terms of serious adverse events between groups, with one pneumococcal infection with delayed MTX during follow-up, and there were no unexpected side effects observed with the PCV13 and PPV23 vaccinations.
 

Rheumatologists’ Reactions

Ernest Choy, MD, head of rheumatology and translational research at the Institute of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales, asked if any individual showed no humoral response at all rather than a reduced response. “I ask because if there is no humoral response, then they are at very high risk, and there will be clinical relevance to that.”

Dr. Morel replied that “one serotype showed no response, at least according to the assays used, but we don’t know why. We analyzed at the population [level], not at the individual level, so it is difficult to answer the question.”

Another delegate asked what the participants thought about delaying MTX by 1 month. “When we tell the patient we need to vaccinate before we can use methotrexate [because] otherwise, we will reduce the response to the vaccination, then patient accepts it,” said Dr. Morel, adding that, “we allowed a minimal dose of steroids, and we saw from the results that the DAS28 at 1 month had changed.”

Co-moderator Katerina Chatzidionysiou, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and head of the Clinical Trial Department Rheumatology Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, said that “As a physician, I’d feel uncomfortable delaying MTX if they had very active disease even for a short period of time.”

Dr. Morel replied that, “Today, we have so many drugs that can control the disease, for example, the targeted DMARDs. Progression does not show much variation, and we know x-ray progression with today’s drugs is a lot less than previously.”

Dr. Morel reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier. Dr. Choy had no relevant financial relationships of relevance to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are associated with a substantially greater risk for herpes zoster, but the risk for other types of infections is about the same and often numerically lower relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to new data from the JAK-pot study.

“In the real world, we found no significantly greater risk of serious or nonserious infections, with the exception of herpes zoster,” said Romain Aymon, a statistician in the Department of Rheumatology at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

This finding is the latest analysis generated by JAK-pot, a collaboration of 20 national registries to answer real-world questions about the efficacy and safety of JAKi in rheumatic diseases. These data have already been used to address such issues as relative rates of discontinuation for JAKi vs bDMARDs and to compare outcomes of RA patients who are switched to a bDMARD vs those who are cycled to another JAKi.

The main conclusion — that JAKi, relative to bDMARDs for RA, is associated with an increased risk for herpes zoster but not other types of infections — is not a surprise, according to Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, a clinician and researcher in the Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University in the Netherlands.

“There are a number of risks with JAK inhibitors that have generated concern, but I think most clinicians are aware that they should be warning patients about herpes zoster,” said Dr. van Gaalen, who was not involved in the study. He believes the risk is sufficient to warrant a discussion with patients about taking the herpes zoster vaccine prior to treatment.

Relative Risk for Infection on JAKi Is Unclear

Although the greater risk for herpes zoster with JAKi vs bDMARDs is well established, the relative risk for other types of infections has been unclear, according to Mr. Aymon. One reason is that some, but not all, of the initial pivotal trials and safety studies associated JAKi with an increased risk for opportunistic infections, Mr. Aymon said.

The JAK-pot data, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, provide real-world data that shed light on this controversy, Mr. Aymon said.

Of the 20 national registries now providing data to JAK-pot, only 14 were included in this analysis. The study required data on infection rates from the time that JAKi became commercially available, which narrowed the data pool.

For this analysis, JAKi, which included tofacitinib (Xeljanz), baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and filgotinib (Jyseleca), were compared separately and together with two groups of bDMARDs. One consisted of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, or golimumab. The other was composed of bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA). This group included abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.
 

More Than 50,000 Exposures Included in Analysis

From the pooled registry, data were gathered from 13,374 courses of JAKi, 25,049 courses of TNFi, and 16,482 courses of OMA. There were some differences between these groups, including a significantly lower median age for those in the JAKi pool (57.1 years vs 58.3 and 60.5 years for TNFi and OMA, respectively) and median disease duration (8.3 years vs 11.0 and 11.9 years, respectively).

A greater proportion of patients on TNFi were naive to therapy (44.6%), compared with either JAKi (20.2%) or OMA (16.1%). More patients in the TNFi pool (60.0%) were also on concomitant therapy than those in the JAKi pool (49.5%) or the OMA pool (51.9%).

Other characteristics such as disease activity, body mass index, and percentage of smokers were comparable.

When TNFi was used as the reference, there were no significant differences in the rate of all infections, the rate of all infections excluding herpes zoster, and all serious infections. In all three groups, the incidence rates were numerically but not significantly lower in patients on JAKi vs OMA. With the exception of serious infections, for which the adjusted incidence of JAKi was 0.99 relative to TNFi, both JAKi and OMA had numerically higher incidence rate ratios than TNFi.
 

Herpes Zoster Risk on JAKi Is > Twofold Higher

Because the CIs overlapped in all cases, none of the differences were significant. The exception was herpes zoster. The 1.07 incidence rate ratio for OMA was not significantly different than the TNFi reference, but the 2.27 rate ratio for JAKi far exceeded either of the other two comparators (95% CI, 1.17-3.02).

In a separate analysis of patients at least 55 years of age with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the numerical differences between groups were narrower and thus did not reach statistical significance, even for herpes zoster. Although the herpes zoster rate ratio was 1.62 for JAKi vs 1.23 for OMA (TNFi as the reference was 1.0), the CI for JAKi (0.86-3.03) overlapped both.

Based on a Poisson regression analysis, this study took into account a wide variety of variables, including age, disease activity, comorbidities, and tobacco use, Mr. Aymon said. He noted that the analyses were performed on data from each registry as well as with the pooled data, and the data were reasonably consistent.

Initially, the investigators had planned to evaluate differences between therapy groups, if any, for COVID-19 infection, but differences in the availability and use of vaccinations among the countries where the registries were maintained made this analysis too complicated to conduct.

Mr. Aymon reported no potential conflicts of interest, but some coauthors reported financial relationships with manufacturers of both bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. van Gaalen reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are associated with a substantially greater risk for herpes zoster, but the risk for other types of infections is about the same and often numerically lower relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to new data from the JAK-pot study.

“In the real world, we found no significantly greater risk of serious or nonserious infections, with the exception of herpes zoster,” said Romain Aymon, a statistician in the Department of Rheumatology at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

This finding is the latest analysis generated by JAK-pot, a collaboration of 20 national registries to answer real-world questions about the efficacy and safety of JAKi in rheumatic diseases. These data have already been used to address such issues as relative rates of discontinuation for JAKi vs bDMARDs and to compare outcomes of RA patients who are switched to a bDMARD vs those who are cycled to another JAKi.

The main conclusion — that JAKi, relative to bDMARDs for RA, is associated with an increased risk for herpes zoster but not other types of infections — is not a surprise, according to Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, a clinician and researcher in the Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University in the Netherlands.

“There are a number of risks with JAK inhibitors that have generated concern, but I think most clinicians are aware that they should be warning patients about herpes zoster,” said Dr. van Gaalen, who was not involved in the study. He believes the risk is sufficient to warrant a discussion with patients about taking the herpes zoster vaccine prior to treatment.

Relative Risk for Infection on JAKi Is Unclear

Although the greater risk for herpes zoster with JAKi vs bDMARDs is well established, the relative risk for other types of infections has been unclear, according to Mr. Aymon. One reason is that some, but not all, of the initial pivotal trials and safety studies associated JAKi with an increased risk for opportunistic infections, Mr. Aymon said.

The JAK-pot data, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, provide real-world data that shed light on this controversy, Mr. Aymon said.

Of the 20 national registries now providing data to JAK-pot, only 14 were included in this analysis. The study required data on infection rates from the time that JAKi became commercially available, which narrowed the data pool.

For this analysis, JAKi, which included tofacitinib (Xeljanz), baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and filgotinib (Jyseleca), were compared separately and together with two groups of bDMARDs. One consisted of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, or golimumab. The other was composed of bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA). This group included abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.
 

More Than 50,000 Exposures Included in Analysis

From the pooled registry, data were gathered from 13,374 courses of JAKi, 25,049 courses of TNFi, and 16,482 courses of OMA. There were some differences between these groups, including a significantly lower median age for those in the JAKi pool (57.1 years vs 58.3 and 60.5 years for TNFi and OMA, respectively) and median disease duration (8.3 years vs 11.0 and 11.9 years, respectively).

A greater proportion of patients on TNFi were naive to therapy (44.6%), compared with either JAKi (20.2%) or OMA (16.1%). More patients in the TNFi pool (60.0%) were also on concomitant therapy than those in the JAKi pool (49.5%) or the OMA pool (51.9%).

Other characteristics such as disease activity, body mass index, and percentage of smokers were comparable.

When TNFi was used as the reference, there were no significant differences in the rate of all infections, the rate of all infections excluding herpes zoster, and all serious infections. In all three groups, the incidence rates were numerically but not significantly lower in patients on JAKi vs OMA. With the exception of serious infections, for which the adjusted incidence of JAKi was 0.99 relative to TNFi, both JAKi and OMA had numerically higher incidence rate ratios than TNFi.
 

Herpes Zoster Risk on JAKi Is > Twofold Higher

Because the CIs overlapped in all cases, none of the differences were significant. The exception was herpes zoster. The 1.07 incidence rate ratio for OMA was not significantly different than the TNFi reference, but the 2.27 rate ratio for JAKi far exceeded either of the other two comparators (95% CI, 1.17-3.02).

In a separate analysis of patients at least 55 years of age with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the numerical differences between groups were narrower and thus did not reach statistical significance, even for herpes zoster. Although the herpes zoster rate ratio was 1.62 for JAKi vs 1.23 for OMA (TNFi as the reference was 1.0), the CI for JAKi (0.86-3.03) overlapped both.

Based on a Poisson regression analysis, this study took into account a wide variety of variables, including age, disease activity, comorbidities, and tobacco use, Mr. Aymon said. He noted that the analyses were performed on data from each registry as well as with the pooled data, and the data were reasonably consistent.

Initially, the investigators had planned to evaluate differences between therapy groups, if any, for COVID-19 infection, but differences in the availability and use of vaccinations among the countries where the registries were maintained made this analysis too complicated to conduct.

Mr. Aymon reported no potential conflicts of interest, but some coauthors reported financial relationships with manufacturers of both bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. van Gaalen reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are associated with a substantially greater risk for herpes zoster, but the risk for other types of infections is about the same and often numerically lower relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to new data from the JAK-pot study.

“In the real world, we found no significantly greater risk of serious or nonserious infections, with the exception of herpes zoster,” said Romain Aymon, a statistician in the Department of Rheumatology at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

This finding is the latest analysis generated by JAK-pot, a collaboration of 20 national registries to answer real-world questions about the efficacy and safety of JAKi in rheumatic diseases. These data have already been used to address such issues as relative rates of discontinuation for JAKi vs bDMARDs and to compare outcomes of RA patients who are switched to a bDMARD vs those who are cycled to another JAKi.

The main conclusion — that JAKi, relative to bDMARDs for RA, is associated with an increased risk for herpes zoster but not other types of infections — is not a surprise, according to Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, a clinician and researcher in the Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University in the Netherlands.

“There are a number of risks with JAK inhibitors that have generated concern, but I think most clinicians are aware that they should be warning patients about herpes zoster,” said Dr. van Gaalen, who was not involved in the study. He believes the risk is sufficient to warrant a discussion with patients about taking the herpes zoster vaccine prior to treatment.

Relative Risk for Infection on JAKi Is Unclear

Although the greater risk for herpes zoster with JAKi vs bDMARDs is well established, the relative risk for other types of infections has been unclear, according to Mr. Aymon. One reason is that some, but not all, of the initial pivotal trials and safety studies associated JAKi with an increased risk for opportunistic infections, Mr. Aymon said.

The JAK-pot data, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, provide real-world data that shed light on this controversy, Mr. Aymon said.

Of the 20 national registries now providing data to JAK-pot, only 14 were included in this analysis. The study required data on infection rates from the time that JAKi became commercially available, which narrowed the data pool.

For this analysis, JAKi, which included tofacitinib (Xeljanz), baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and filgotinib (Jyseleca), were compared separately and together with two groups of bDMARDs. One consisted of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, or golimumab. The other was composed of bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA). This group included abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.
 

More Than 50,000 Exposures Included in Analysis

From the pooled registry, data were gathered from 13,374 courses of JAKi, 25,049 courses of TNFi, and 16,482 courses of OMA. There were some differences between these groups, including a significantly lower median age for those in the JAKi pool (57.1 years vs 58.3 and 60.5 years for TNFi and OMA, respectively) and median disease duration (8.3 years vs 11.0 and 11.9 years, respectively).

A greater proportion of patients on TNFi were naive to therapy (44.6%), compared with either JAKi (20.2%) or OMA (16.1%). More patients in the TNFi pool (60.0%) were also on concomitant therapy than those in the JAKi pool (49.5%) or the OMA pool (51.9%).

Other characteristics such as disease activity, body mass index, and percentage of smokers were comparable.

When TNFi was used as the reference, there were no significant differences in the rate of all infections, the rate of all infections excluding herpes zoster, and all serious infections. In all three groups, the incidence rates were numerically but not significantly lower in patients on JAKi vs OMA. With the exception of serious infections, for which the adjusted incidence of JAKi was 0.99 relative to TNFi, both JAKi and OMA had numerically higher incidence rate ratios than TNFi.
 

Herpes Zoster Risk on JAKi Is > Twofold Higher

Because the CIs overlapped in all cases, none of the differences were significant. The exception was herpes zoster. The 1.07 incidence rate ratio for OMA was not significantly different than the TNFi reference, but the 2.27 rate ratio for JAKi far exceeded either of the other two comparators (95% CI, 1.17-3.02).

In a separate analysis of patients at least 55 years of age with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the numerical differences between groups were narrower and thus did not reach statistical significance, even for herpes zoster. Although the herpes zoster rate ratio was 1.62 for JAKi vs 1.23 for OMA (TNFi as the reference was 1.0), the CI for JAKi (0.86-3.03) overlapped both.

Based on a Poisson regression analysis, this study took into account a wide variety of variables, including age, disease activity, comorbidities, and tobacco use, Mr. Aymon said. He noted that the analyses were performed on data from each registry as well as with the pooled data, and the data were reasonably consistent.

Initially, the investigators had planned to evaluate differences between therapy groups, if any, for COVID-19 infection, but differences in the availability and use of vaccinations among the countries where the registries were maintained made this analysis too complicated to conduct.

Mr. Aymon reported no potential conflicts of interest, but some coauthors reported financial relationships with manufacturers of both bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. van Gaalen reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Having more tender than swollen joints is linked to worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly in pain interference, social participation, and fatigue, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In early RA, understanding the impact of tender-swollen joint differences (TSJDs) on PROs across multiple domains of health-related quality of life is important to customize personalized therapeutic strategies.
• This study evaluated the impact of TSJDs on PROs over 1 year in 547 patients (mean age, 56 years; 70% women; mean symptom duration, 5.3 months) with early RA across 18 centers in Canada between January 2016 and August 2022.
• TSJDs were assessed for 28 joints (six large and 22 small) at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits using the PRO Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29), covering seven domains of health. Higher PROMIS T-scores indicated better health outcomes.

TAKEAWAY: 

• A one-point increase of TSJD was significantly associated with worse PROMIS T-scores in physical function (adjusted regression coefficient [β], −0.27; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.15) and social participation (β, −0.34; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.19).
• A one-point increase in TSJD was also linked to worsened PROMIS symptoms in pain interference (β, 0.49), fatigue (β, 0.34), sleep problems (β, 0.29), anxiety (β, 0.23), and depression (β, 0.20).
• Large-joint TSJD was particularly associated with worse PROs than small-joint TSJD.
• The sensitivity analysis validated the reliability of the primary findings regarding the association between joint counts and PROs evaluated by PROMIS-29, even when accounting for C-reactive protein levels in various scenarios or assumptions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with more tender than swollen joints may experience worsening of all seven domains of health, especially pain interference, social participation, and fatigue. Rheumatologists should be alerted to their patients with early RA having more tender than swollen joints, particularly in large joints,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charis F. Meng, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. It was published online on May 1, 2024, in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational with missing data, which could have impacted the reliability of the results. Most participants were women and White individuals, which could restrict the generalizability of results. The absence of ultrasound for synovitis limited the clinical assessment of patients with RA for information beyond physical examination alone. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was supported and funded by the Inflammatory Arthritis Center and Division of Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. One author reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.