Bruce Jancin

One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.

It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.

“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?

Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.

He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.

“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.

Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

This article was updated March 31, 2021.

One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.

It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.

“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?

Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.

He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.

“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.

Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

This article was updated March 31, 2021.

One of the top publications in gastroenterology in 2020 was a Dutch study demonstrating that a computer-aided system suitable for real-time use in clinical practice detected early neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus with impressively greater accuracy than did a group of general endoscopists, according to Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD.

It’s not just his personal opinion that this was one of the major studies of the past year, either. Analytic tools showed the Dutch report was one of the most frequently downloaded studies in 2020 by both clinical gastroenterologists and researchers, said Dr. Corley, director of delivery science and applied research at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, and a faculty gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

The deep-learning system developed, evaluated, and externally validated by the Dutch investigators is designed to reduce the rate of failed detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma in patients undergoing surveillance by general practice gastrointestinal endoscopists. The false-negative rate in looking for the sometimes subtle mucosal surface abnormalities indicative of early neoplasia is known to be higher among these general endoscopists than that among expert endoscopists, and yet it’s the general endoscopists who perform the majority of cancer surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

The Dutch group developed the computer-aided detection system by applying artificial intelligence methods to analyze nearly one half-million endoscopic images of confirmed early neoplasia. Once the system was ready to go, they compared its diagnostic accuracy in 80 patients to that of 53 general, nonexpert endoscopists. The deep-learning system had 93% sensitivity and 83% specificity for identification of early neoplasia, significantly better than the 72% sensitivity and 74% specificity for the general endoscopists. The overall accuracy of the computer-assisted detection system was 88%, compared to 73% for the general endoscopists. Moreover, the deep-learning system achieved greater accuracy than did any single one of the endoscopists.

“I think this will be a really helpful addition, the equivalent of a second endoscopist raising a yellow flag to take a closer look at a particular area. It’ll be complementary,” Dr. Corley said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

An audience member said he’s aware that other computer-assisted detection systems have also shown outstanding performance for the detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. He asked, why aren’t these being deployed yet in routine clinical practice?

Two reasons, Dr. Corley replied. One is that some of those systems aren’t capable of working during real-time endoscopy. Also, industry seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach. The field of applied artificial intelligence is moving incredibly rapidly, and none of the endoscopic equipment manufacturers wants to incorporate a computer-assisted detection system into their gear when rumor has it that an even better system is going to be announced 6 months later. The manufacturers want to make sure they’re operationalizing the right one.

He suspects the major players in the endoscopic imaging industry are waiting to find a computer-assisted detection system that’s been published and widely accepted as clearly a winner. Then they’ll introduce it into their equipment.

“I do think we’re probably going to be seeing these increasingly. Some computer-assisted detection systems for colon cancer are starting to be put into equipment,” he observed.

Dr. Corley reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

This article was updated March 31, 2021.

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?

Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

In order for the proactive management approach tested in this study to be successful, patients must apply the topical agent as maintenance therapy to cleared areas where they previously had psoriasis. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.

“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.

Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”

Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.

The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.

Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.

“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”

“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.

He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.

Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.

The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?

Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

In order for the proactive management approach tested in this study to be successful, patients must apply the topical agent as maintenance therapy to cleared areas where they previously had psoriasis. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.

“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.

Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”

Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.

The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.

Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.

“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”

“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.

He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.

Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.

The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?

Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

In order for the proactive management approach tested in this study to be successful, patients must apply the topical agent as maintenance therapy to cleared areas where they previously had psoriasis. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.

“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.

Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”

Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.

The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.

Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.

“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”

“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.

He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.

Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.

The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

One-third of patients with severe longstanding alopecia areata treated with baricitinib at 2 mg once daily for 36 weeks experienced dramatic hair regrowth in the phase 2/3 BRAVE-AA1 randomized trial, Brett King, MD, PhD, reported at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

The results with the 4-mg/day dose of the Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and -2 inhibitor were even more impressive. However, this higher dose, while approved in Europe and elsewhere for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, was rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because of safety concerns and is not available in the United States. The 2-mg dose of baricitinib is approved for RA in the United States.

There are currently no FDA-approved treatments for alopecia areata, noted Dr. King, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He reported on 110 adults with severe alopecia areata as defined by a baseline Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 87, meaning they averaged 87% scalp hair loss. They averaged a 16-year history of the autoimmune disease. The duration of the current episode was at least 4 years in more than one-third of participants. Clinicians rated more than three-quarters of patients as having no eyebrow or eyelash hair, or significant gaps and uneven distribution.

The primary outcome in this interim analysis was achievement of a SALT score of 20 or less at week 36, meaning hair loss had shrunk to 20% or less of the scalp. Fifty-two percent of patients on baricitinib 4 mg achieved this outcome, as did 33% of those randomized to baricitinib 2 mg and 4% of placebo-treated controls.

In addition, 60% of patients on the higher dose of the JAK inhibitor and 40% on the lower dose rated themselves as having either full eyebrows and eyelashes on both eyes at 36 weeks, or only minimal gaps with even distribution. None of the controls reported comparable improvement, Dr. King said at the conference, which was sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

There were no serious adverse events in this relatively small study. Six cases of herpes simplex and two of herpes zoster occurred in baricitinib-treated patients; there were none in controls.

Session moderator Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said that she was very impressed that baricitinib could achieve substantial hair regrowth in patients with a median duration of hair loss of about 16 years.

“It’s very interesting,” agreed comoderator Ashfaq A. Marghoob, MD, director of clinical dermatology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Hauppauge, N.Y. “Having this kind of hair regrowth goes against what we learned in our residency, that the longer you’ve gone with hair loss, the less likely it is to ever come back.”

Separately, Eli Lilly issued a press release announcing that both the 2- and 4-mg doses of baricitinib had met the primary endpoint in the phase 3 BRAVE-AA2 trial, showing significantly greater hair regrowth compared with placebo in the 546-patient study. However, the company provided no data, instead stating that the full results will be presented at an upcoming medical conference.

bjancin@mdedge.com

One-third of patients with severe longstanding alopecia areata treated with baricitinib at 2 mg once daily for 36 weeks experienced dramatic hair regrowth in the phase 2/3 BRAVE-AA1 randomized trial, Brett King, MD, PhD, reported at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

The results with the 4-mg/day dose of the Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and -2 inhibitor were even more impressive. However, this higher dose, while approved in Europe and elsewhere for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, was rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because of safety concerns and is not available in the United States. The 2-mg dose of baricitinib is approved for RA in the United States.

There are currently no FDA-approved treatments for alopecia areata, noted Dr. King, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He reported on 110 adults with severe alopecia areata as defined by a baseline Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 87, meaning they averaged 87% scalp hair loss. They averaged a 16-year history of the autoimmune disease. The duration of the current episode was at least 4 years in more than one-third of participants. Clinicians rated more than three-quarters of patients as having no eyebrow or eyelash hair, or significant gaps and uneven distribution.

The primary outcome in this interim analysis was achievement of a SALT score of 20 or less at week 36, meaning hair loss had shrunk to 20% or less of the scalp. Fifty-two percent of patients on baricitinib 4 mg achieved this outcome, as did 33% of those randomized to baricitinib 2 mg and 4% of placebo-treated controls.

In addition, 60% of patients on the higher dose of the JAK inhibitor and 40% on the lower dose rated themselves as having either full eyebrows and eyelashes on both eyes at 36 weeks, or only minimal gaps with even distribution. None of the controls reported comparable improvement, Dr. King said at the conference, which was sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

There were no serious adverse events in this relatively small study. Six cases of herpes simplex and two of herpes zoster occurred in baricitinib-treated patients; there were none in controls.

Session moderator Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said that she was very impressed that baricitinib could achieve substantial hair regrowth in patients with a median duration of hair loss of about 16 years.

“It’s very interesting,” agreed comoderator Ashfaq A. Marghoob, MD, director of clinical dermatology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Hauppauge, N.Y. “Having this kind of hair regrowth goes against what we learned in our residency, that the longer you’ve gone with hair loss, the less likely it is to ever come back.”

Separately, Eli Lilly issued a press release announcing that both the 2- and 4-mg doses of baricitinib had met the primary endpoint in the phase 3 BRAVE-AA2 trial, showing significantly greater hair regrowth compared with placebo in the 546-patient study. However, the company provided no data, instead stating that the full results will be presented at an upcoming medical conference.

bjancin@mdedge.com

One-third of patients with severe longstanding alopecia areata treated with baricitinib at 2 mg once daily for 36 weeks experienced dramatic hair regrowth in the phase 2/3 BRAVE-AA1 randomized trial, Brett King, MD, PhD, reported at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

The results with the 4-mg/day dose of the Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and -2 inhibitor were even more impressive. However, this higher dose, while approved in Europe and elsewhere for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, was rejected by the Food and Drug Administration because of safety concerns and is not available in the United States. The 2-mg dose of baricitinib is approved for RA in the United States.

There are currently no FDA-approved treatments for alopecia areata, noted Dr. King, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He reported on 110 adults with severe alopecia areata as defined by a baseline Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 87, meaning they averaged 87% scalp hair loss. They averaged a 16-year history of the autoimmune disease. The duration of the current episode was at least 4 years in more than one-third of participants. Clinicians rated more than three-quarters of patients as having no eyebrow or eyelash hair, or significant gaps and uneven distribution.

The primary outcome in this interim analysis was achievement of a SALT score of 20 or less at week 36, meaning hair loss had shrunk to 20% or less of the scalp. Fifty-two percent of patients on baricitinib 4 mg achieved this outcome, as did 33% of those randomized to baricitinib 2 mg and 4% of placebo-treated controls.

In addition, 60% of patients on the higher dose of the JAK inhibitor and 40% on the lower dose rated themselves as having either full eyebrows and eyelashes on both eyes at 36 weeks, or only minimal gaps with even distribution. None of the controls reported comparable improvement, Dr. King said at the conference, which was sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

There were no serious adverse events in this relatively small study. Six cases of herpes simplex and two of herpes zoster occurred in baricitinib-treated patients; there were none in controls.

Session moderator Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said that she was very impressed that baricitinib could achieve substantial hair regrowth in patients with a median duration of hair loss of about 16 years.

“It’s very interesting,” agreed comoderator Ashfaq A. Marghoob, MD, director of clinical dermatology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Hauppauge, N.Y. “Having this kind of hair regrowth goes against what we learned in our residency, that the longer you’ve gone with hair loss, the less likely it is to ever come back.”

Separately, Eli Lilly issued a press release announcing that both the 2- and 4-mg doses of baricitinib had met the primary endpoint in the phase 3 BRAVE-AA2 trial, showing significantly greater hair regrowth compared with placebo in the 546-patient study. However, the company provided no data, instead stating that the full results will be presented at an upcoming medical conference.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Ruxolitinib cream, an investigational selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor now under priority review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) down to age 12 years, demonstrated a dual mechanism of action in two pivotal phase 3 trials: antipruritic and anti-inflammatory, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021. He presented a pooled analysis of the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 trials, in which 1,249 patients with AD affecting 3%-20% of the body surface area were randomized 2:2:1 double-blind to ruxolitinib cream 0.75%, 1.5%, or vehicle twice daily for 8 weeks.

Striking evidence of the drug’s antipruritic effect comes from the finding that patient-reported itch scores separated significantly from the vehicle controls within just 12 hours after the first application. The margin of difference grew over time such that at 4 weeks, 48.5% of patients on ruxolitinib 1.5% experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in itch – defined by at least a 4-point improvement on the itch numeric rating scale – as did 30.1% of those on ruxolitinib 0.75% and 6.1% of controls. By week 8, these figures had further improved to 51.5%, 41.5%, and 15.8%, respectively, noted Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

Ruxolitinib’s anti-inflammatory mechanism of action was on display in the primary study endpoint, which was the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8. The rates were 52.6% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 44.7% at the lower dose, both significantly better than the 11.5% rate with vehicle.

For the secondary endpoint of at least a 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score at week 8, the rates were 62% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 53.8% at the 0.75% concentration, compared with 19.7% with vehicle.

The topical JAK inhibitor also showed superior efficacy in terms of improvement on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Score, with a clinically meaningful 6-point or greater improvement in 23.9% and 20.9% of patients in the high- and low-dose ruxolitinib groups, versus 14.2% in controls.

Plasma drug levels remained consistently low and near-flat throughout the study.

Session comoderator Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, was struck by what he termed the “incredibly low” rates of irritancy, burning, and stinging in the ruxolitinib-treated patients: 7 cases of application-site burning in 999 treated patients, compared with 11 cases in 250 vehicle-treated patients, and 4 cases of application-site pruritus in nearly 1,000 patients on ruxolitinib, versus 6 cases in one-fourth as many controls.

“If that’s really true in clinical practice, it would be tremendous to have a nonsteroid that doesn’t have stinging and burning and may have that efficacy,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

“I think the fast action is an exciting aspect of this,” said comoderator Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.

He noted that in an earlier phase 2 study, ruxolitinib cream was at least as efficacious as 0.1% triamcinolone cream, providing dermatologists with a rough yardstick as to where the topical JAK inhibitor lies on the potency spectrum for AD treatment.

The FDA is expected to issue a decision on the application for approval of ruxolitinib cream in June. Dr. Eichenfield expects the drug to easily win approval. The big unanswered question is whether the regulatory agency will require boxed safety warnings, as it does for the oral JAK inhibitors approved for various indications, even though safety issues haven’t arisen with the topical agent in the clinical trials.

Dr. Papp reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Incyte Corp., which funded the ruxolitinib studies, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Ruxolitinib cream, an investigational selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor now under priority review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) down to age 12 years, demonstrated a dual mechanism of action in two pivotal phase 3 trials: antipruritic and anti-inflammatory, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021. He presented a pooled analysis of the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 trials, in which 1,249 patients with AD affecting 3%-20% of the body surface area were randomized 2:2:1 double-blind to ruxolitinib cream 0.75%, 1.5%, or vehicle twice daily for 8 weeks.

Striking evidence of the drug’s antipruritic effect comes from the finding that patient-reported itch scores separated significantly from the vehicle controls within just 12 hours after the first application. The margin of difference grew over time such that at 4 weeks, 48.5% of patients on ruxolitinib 1.5% experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in itch – defined by at least a 4-point improvement on the itch numeric rating scale – as did 30.1% of those on ruxolitinib 0.75% and 6.1% of controls. By week 8, these figures had further improved to 51.5%, 41.5%, and 15.8%, respectively, noted Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

Ruxolitinib’s anti-inflammatory mechanism of action was on display in the primary study endpoint, which was the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8. The rates were 52.6% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 44.7% at the lower dose, both significantly better than the 11.5% rate with vehicle.

For the secondary endpoint of at least a 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score at week 8, the rates were 62% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 53.8% at the 0.75% concentration, compared with 19.7% with vehicle.

The topical JAK inhibitor also showed superior efficacy in terms of improvement on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Score, with a clinically meaningful 6-point or greater improvement in 23.9% and 20.9% of patients in the high- and low-dose ruxolitinib groups, versus 14.2% in controls.

Plasma drug levels remained consistently low and near-flat throughout the study.

Session comoderator Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, was struck by what he termed the “incredibly low” rates of irritancy, burning, and stinging in the ruxolitinib-treated patients: 7 cases of application-site burning in 999 treated patients, compared with 11 cases in 250 vehicle-treated patients, and 4 cases of application-site pruritus in nearly 1,000 patients on ruxolitinib, versus 6 cases in one-fourth as many controls.

“If that’s really true in clinical practice, it would be tremendous to have a nonsteroid that doesn’t have stinging and burning and may have that efficacy,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

“I think the fast action is an exciting aspect of this,” said comoderator Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.

He noted that in an earlier phase 2 study, ruxolitinib cream was at least as efficacious as 0.1% triamcinolone cream, providing dermatologists with a rough yardstick as to where the topical JAK inhibitor lies on the potency spectrum for AD treatment.

The FDA is expected to issue a decision on the application for approval of ruxolitinib cream in June. Dr. Eichenfield expects the drug to easily win approval. The big unanswered question is whether the regulatory agency will require boxed safety warnings, as it does for the oral JAK inhibitors approved for various indications, even though safety issues haven’t arisen with the topical agent in the clinical trials.

Dr. Papp reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Incyte Corp., which funded the ruxolitinib studies, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Ruxolitinib cream, an investigational selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor now under priority review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) down to age 12 years, demonstrated a dual mechanism of action in two pivotal phase 3 trials: antipruritic and anti-inflammatory, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021. He presented a pooled analysis of the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 trials, in which 1,249 patients with AD affecting 3%-20% of the body surface area were randomized 2:2:1 double-blind to ruxolitinib cream 0.75%, 1.5%, or vehicle twice daily for 8 weeks.

Striking evidence of the drug’s antipruritic effect comes from the finding that patient-reported itch scores separated significantly from the vehicle controls within just 12 hours after the first application. The margin of difference grew over time such that at 4 weeks, 48.5% of patients on ruxolitinib 1.5% experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in itch – defined by at least a 4-point improvement on the itch numeric rating scale – as did 30.1% of those on ruxolitinib 0.75% and 6.1% of controls. By week 8, these figures had further improved to 51.5%, 41.5%, and 15.8%, respectively, noted Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

Ruxolitinib’s anti-inflammatory mechanism of action was on display in the primary study endpoint, which was the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8. The rates were 52.6% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 44.7% at the lower dose, both significantly better than the 11.5% rate with vehicle.

For the secondary endpoint of at least a 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score at week 8, the rates were 62% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 53.8% at the 0.75% concentration, compared with 19.7% with vehicle.

The topical JAK inhibitor also showed superior efficacy in terms of improvement on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Score, with a clinically meaningful 6-point or greater improvement in 23.9% and 20.9% of patients in the high- and low-dose ruxolitinib groups, versus 14.2% in controls.

Plasma drug levels remained consistently low and near-flat throughout the study.

Session comoderator Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, was struck by what he termed the “incredibly low” rates of irritancy, burning, and stinging in the ruxolitinib-treated patients: 7 cases of application-site burning in 999 treated patients, compared with 11 cases in 250 vehicle-treated patients, and 4 cases of application-site pruritus in nearly 1,000 patients on ruxolitinib, versus 6 cases in one-fourth as many controls.

“If that’s really true in clinical practice, it would be tremendous to have a nonsteroid that doesn’t have stinging and burning and may have that efficacy,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

“I think the fast action is an exciting aspect of this,” said comoderator Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.

He noted that in an earlier phase 2 study, ruxolitinib cream was at least as efficacious as 0.1% triamcinolone cream, providing dermatologists with a rough yardstick as to where the topical JAK inhibitor lies on the potency spectrum for AD treatment.

The FDA is expected to issue a decision on the application for approval of ruxolitinib cream in June. Dr. Eichenfield expects the drug to easily win approval. The big unanswered question is whether the regulatory agency will require boxed safety warnings, as it does for the oral JAK inhibitors approved for various indications, even though safety issues haven’t arisen with the topical agent in the clinical trials.

Dr. Papp reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Incyte Corp., which funded the ruxolitinib studies, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The cumulative burden of histologic inflammation is a strong predictor of colorectal neoplasia risk in ulcerative colitis, according to a recent case-control study.

David T. Rubin, MD, was the senior author of the study, which provided independent validation of a metric for cumulative burden of inflammation as a risk stratification tool in ulcerative colitis and presented these findings at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. The metric was developed at St. Mark’s Hospital, London, which he called “a leader in the field.”

“The implication of demonstrating this is that, if you control inflammation and keep it controlled over time, it would imply that you can reduce the overall risk for cancer and dysplasia,” explained Dr. Rubin, professor of medicine and chief of the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Chicago.

The original retrospective St. Mark’s study included 987 patients with extensive ulcerative colitis followed with colonoscopic surveillance for a median of 13 years. Each colonoscopy was scored for severity of microscopic inflammation on a 0-3 scale. The investigators calculated a patient’s cumulative inflammatory burden by adding each histologic inflammatory activity score and multiplying that figure by the surveillance interval in years.

In a multivariate analysis, the London investigators demonstrated that the risk of colorectal neoplasia jumped by 2.1-fold for each 10-unit increase in cumulative inflammatory burden, defined as the equivalent of either 10 years of continuous mild active histologic inflammation, 5 years of continuous moderate inflammation, or 3.3 years of continuous severe inflammation.

The University of Chicago retrospective external validation study included 26 ulcerative colitis patients with colorectal neoplasia and 36 others without cancer. The mean cumulative histologic inflammatory activity score in the group with colorectal neoplasia was 12.63, compared with 7.98 in controls. For each 1-unit increase in cumulative inflammatory burden the risk of developing colorectal neoplasia increased by 8%, consistent with the magnitude of the hazard previously reported at St. Mark’s.

“The way you could take this back to your practice is by thinking carefully about what is the degree of inflammation each time you’ve done a colonoscopy and considering whether the patient who is in deep remission and doing well might deserve a longer interval between their next exam and the one you just completed,” according to the gastroenterologist.

“The most interval I give a patient is 3 years – for somebody in deep remission with no inflammation on the last exam. And when they’ve had prior inflammation but are now doing well, I keep in mind what that prior inflammation was. We’re now working on using that cumulative histologic inflammation score to guide intervals, but we don’t have prospective data to validate this approach. So when you’re not sure, the conservative approach is surveillance colonoscopy every 1-2 years after you’ve had 10 years of disease. That’s probably overutilization of our resources, but we don’t have a better way to do it yet,” Dr. Rubin said.

The novel metric for calculating cumulative histologic inflammation burden as a means of predicting colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis dovetails with the current emphasis upon individualized risk assessment as recommended in the latest American College of Gastroenterology practice guidelines, for which Dr. Rubin was first author.

“Like we individualize our treatments, we should individualize our colorectal cancer screening and prevention strategies,” he emphasized.

Risk factors for colorectal cancer and dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis can be grouped as either potentially modifiable or immutable. Potentially modifiable risk factors include backwash ileitis, pseudopolyps, prior dysplasia, and mass or stricture, as well as the degree of histologic inflammation. Immutable risk factors include younger age at diagnosis, male gender, duration and extent of disease, family history of colorectal cancer, and primary sclerosing cholangitis, Dr. Rubin noted.

He reported receiving grant support from and/or serving as a consultant to more than two dozen medical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The cumulative burden of histologic inflammation is a strong predictor of colorectal neoplasia risk in ulcerative colitis, according to a recent case-control study.

David T. Rubin, MD, was the senior author of the study, which provided independent validation of a metric for cumulative burden of inflammation as a risk stratification tool in ulcerative colitis and presented these findings at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. The metric was developed at St. Mark’s Hospital, London, which he called “a leader in the field.”

“The implication of demonstrating this is that, if you control inflammation and keep it controlled over time, it would imply that you can reduce the overall risk for cancer and dysplasia,” explained Dr. Rubin, professor of medicine and chief of the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Chicago.

The original retrospective St. Mark’s study included 987 patients with extensive ulcerative colitis followed with colonoscopic surveillance for a median of 13 years. Each colonoscopy was scored for severity of microscopic inflammation on a 0-3 scale. The investigators calculated a patient’s cumulative inflammatory burden by adding each histologic inflammatory activity score and multiplying that figure by the surveillance interval in years.

In a multivariate analysis, the London investigators demonstrated that the risk of colorectal neoplasia jumped by 2.1-fold for each 10-unit increase in cumulative inflammatory burden, defined as the equivalent of either 10 years of continuous mild active histologic inflammation, 5 years of continuous moderate inflammation, or 3.3 years of continuous severe inflammation.

The University of Chicago retrospective external validation study included 26 ulcerative colitis patients with colorectal neoplasia and 36 others without cancer. The mean cumulative histologic inflammatory activity score in the group with colorectal neoplasia was 12.63, compared with 7.98 in controls. For each 1-unit increase in cumulative inflammatory burden the risk of developing colorectal neoplasia increased by 8%, consistent with the magnitude of the hazard previously reported at St. Mark’s.

“The way you could take this back to your practice is by thinking carefully about what is the degree of inflammation each time you’ve done a colonoscopy and considering whether the patient who is in deep remission and doing well might deserve a longer interval between their next exam and the one you just completed,” according to the gastroenterologist.

“The most interval I give a patient is 3 years – for somebody in deep remission with no inflammation on the last exam. And when they’ve had prior inflammation but are now doing well, I keep in mind what that prior inflammation was. We’re now working on using that cumulative histologic inflammation score to guide intervals, but we don’t have prospective data to validate this approach. So when you’re not sure, the conservative approach is surveillance colonoscopy every 1-2 years after you’ve had 10 years of disease. That’s probably overutilization of our resources, but we don’t have a better way to do it yet,” Dr. Rubin said.

The novel metric for calculating cumulative histologic inflammation burden as a means of predicting colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis dovetails with the current emphasis upon individualized risk assessment as recommended in the latest American College of Gastroenterology practice guidelines, for which Dr. Rubin was first author.

“Like we individualize our treatments, we should individualize our colorectal cancer screening and prevention strategies,” he emphasized.

Risk factors for colorectal cancer and dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis can be grouped as either potentially modifiable or immutable. Potentially modifiable risk factors include backwash ileitis, pseudopolyps, prior dysplasia, and mass or stricture, as well as the degree of histologic inflammation. Immutable risk factors include younger age at diagnosis, male gender, duration and extent of disease, family history of colorectal cancer, and primary sclerosing cholangitis, Dr. Rubin noted.

He reported receiving grant support from and/or serving as a consultant to more than two dozen medical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The cumulative burden of histologic inflammation is a strong predictor of colorectal neoplasia risk in ulcerative colitis, according to a recent case-control study.

David T. Rubin, MD, was the senior author of the study, which provided independent validation of a metric for cumulative burden of inflammation as a risk stratification tool in ulcerative colitis and presented these findings at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference. The metric was developed at St. Mark’s Hospital, London, which he called “a leader in the field.”

“The implication of demonstrating this is that, if you control inflammation and keep it controlled over time, it would imply that you can reduce the overall risk for cancer and dysplasia,” explained Dr. Rubin, professor of medicine and chief of the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Chicago.

The original retrospective St. Mark’s study included 987 patients with extensive ulcerative colitis followed with colonoscopic surveillance for a median of 13 years. Each colonoscopy was scored for severity of microscopic inflammation on a 0-3 scale. The investigators calculated a patient’s cumulative inflammatory burden by adding each histologic inflammatory activity score and multiplying that figure by the surveillance interval in years.

In a multivariate analysis, the London investigators demonstrated that the risk of colorectal neoplasia jumped by 2.1-fold for each 10-unit increase in cumulative inflammatory burden, defined as the equivalent of either 10 years of continuous mild active histologic inflammation, 5 years of continuous moderate inflammation, or 3.3 years of continuous severe inflammation.

The University of Chicago retrospective external validation study included 26 ulcerative colitis patients with colorectal neoplasia and 36 others without cancer. The mean cumulative histologic inflammatory activity score in the group with colorectal neoplasia was 12.63, compared with 7.98 in controls. For each 1-unit increase in cumulative inflammatory burden the risk of developing colorectal neoplasia increased by 8%, consistent with the magnitude of the hazard previously reported at St. Mark’s.

“The way you could take this back to your practice is by thinking carefully about what is the degree of inflammation each time you’ve done a colonoscopy and considering whether the patient who is in deep remission and doing well might deserve a longer interval between their next exam and the one you just completed,” according to the gastroenterologist.

“The most interval I give a patient is 3 years – for somebody in deep remission with no inflammation on the last exam. And when they’ve had prior inflammation but are now doing well, I keep in mind what that prior inflammation was. We’re now working on using that cumulative histologic inflammation score to guide intervals, but we don’t have prospective data to validate this approach. So when you’re not sure, the conservative approach is surveillance colonoscopy every 1-2 years after you’ve had 10 years of disease. That’s probably overutilization of our resources, but we don’t have a better way to do it yet,” Dr. Rubin said.

The novel metric for calculating cumulative histologic inflammation burden as a means of predicting colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis dovetails with the current emphasis upon individualized risk assessment as recommended in the latest American College of Gastroenterology practice guidelines, for which Dr. Rubin was first author.

“Like we individualize our treatments, we should individualize our colorectal cancer screening and prevention strategies,” he emphasized.

Risk factors for colorectal cancer and dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis can be grouped as either potentially modifiable or immutable. Potentially modifiable risk factors include backwash ileitis, pseudopolyps, prior dysplasia, and mass or stricture, as well as the degree of histologic inflammation. Immutable risk factors include younger age at diagnosis, male gender, duration and extent of disease, family history of colorectal cancer, and primary sclerosing cholangitis, Dr. Rubin noted.

He reported receiving grant support from and/or serving as a consultant to more than two dozen medical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Telemedicine has had a profound effect upon the practice of rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to do so afterward, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

FatCamera/E+

“Telemedicine will change the way we do business. It already has,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“All of a sudden in March of last year we all turned on a dime and went 100% remote, and we made it work. And it has worked well. It’s not the same as seeing people in person, but I’m pretty sure that going forward probably somewhere in the range of 30% of our visits are going to be telemedicine. It’s an incredible way to deal with people who are stable and are driving in from an hour-and-a-half away to get their prescription refilled,” he said.

Conditions well suited for video patient visits are those where the physical exam isn’t informative or necessary, such as polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis with axial disease only, childhood periodic fever syndromes, and even many cases of rheumatoid arthritis, in Dr. Ruderman’s view.

“People who are stable – maybe not in remission, but we’ve decided they’re at that their target – a lot of those visits can be done remotely. It’s way more efficient. Everybody loves it: We like it, the patients like it. But we have to get to where we can do it better. The technology is clumsy right now,” he said.

“We do need better and smarter platforms,” agreed Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a telerheumatology pioneer who has been involved in digital/video communication with his patients for nearly 6 years. “But the biggest issue is connectivity. Not all of our patients can get on the Internet.”

The telerheumatology paradigm he has used during the pandemic and will continue to use afterward is to see every new patient in the office, then do the follow-up visits virtually.

“They don’t need to come back into the office in 4 weeks. I’ve done my physical exam, ordered the x-rays and lab work. At the virtual 4-week follow-up we go over everything and I tell them if they need to come in for training in giving their injections,” explained Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

“The telemedicine visit doesn’t take the place of an in-person visit, but it allows you to stratify, to say who needs to be seen sooner rather than later,” he added.

While he anticipates that physician-patient virtual visits will continue to be an important part of clinical practice post pandemic, he predicted the major growth areas for telerheumatology once COVID-19 is squashed will be in clinician-to-clinician interactions and remote patient monitoring using smart devices.

Dr. Wells hasn’t gone into the hospital once since the pandemic began. Initially, that was because he didn’t want to deal with the personal protective equipment shortage or expose himself to the virus. Now, it’s because it’s just a more efficient use of his time to conduct virtual – and billable – 15-minute e-consults with clinicians in the hospital.

“I’ve had a lot of appropriate consults with the hospitalists,” he said. He can walk a hospitalist through a real-time physical exam at a gout patient’s bedside and order the right laboratory tests.

“I don’t need to go into the hospital. The interventional radiologist can tap an ankle or toe as well as I can,” the rheumatologist said.

Dermatologist George Martin, MD, rose from the audience to say that while he recognizes that pandemic telemedicine has been a good fit for rheumatologists, it’s been a very different story in dermatology.

“I realize telemedicine works really well when you don’t have to lay your hands on a patient, or when you’re just doing a stable follow-up and talking about test results. But we in dermatology have found as a group that telemedicine is pretty worthless. When patients are trying to send you a video stream of what their melanoma looks like, or maybe it’s a benign seborrheic keratosis, you’re going to hang their life on that? Dermatology is a very hands-on, visual thing, and unless the camera work becomes better telemedicine is worthless, with the exception of a laboratory follow-up or a stable visit where a physical exam is not required,” declared Dr. Martin, who is in private practice in Maui.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a consultant to MiCare Path, a remote health and monitoring company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Telemedicine has had a profound effect upon the practice of rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to do so afterward, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

FatCamera/E+

“Telemedicine will change the way we do business. It already has,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“All of a sudden in March of last year we all turned on a dime and went 100% remote, and we made it work. And it has worked well. It’s not the same as seeing people in person, but I’m pretty sure that going forward probably somewhere in the range of 30% of our visits are going to be telemedicine. It’s an incredible way to deal with people who are stable and are driving in from an hour-and-a-half away to get their prescription refilled,” he said.

Conditions well suited for video patient visits are those where the physical exam isn’t informative or necessary, such as polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis with axial disease only, childhood periodic fever syndromes, and even many cases of rheumatoid arthritis, in Dr. Ruderman’s view.

“People who are stable – maybe not in remission, but we’ve decided they’re at that their target – a lot of those visits can be done remotely. It’s way more efficient. Everybody loves it: We like it, the patients like it. But we have to get to where we can do it better. The technology is clumsy right now,” he said.

“We do need better and smarter platforms,” agreed Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a telerheumatology pioneer who has been involved in digital/video communication with his patients for nearly 6 years. “But the biggest issue is connectivity. Not all of our patients can get on the Internet.”

The telerheumatology paradigm he has used during the pandemic and will continue to use afterward is to see every new patient in the office, then do the follow-up visits virtually.

“They don’t need to come back into the office in 4 weeks. I’ve done my physical exam, ordered the x-rays and lab work. At the virtual 4-week follow-up we go over everything and I tell them if they need to come in for training in giving their injections,” explained Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

“The telemedicine visit doesn’t take the place of an in-person visit, but it allows you to stratify, to say who needs to be seen sooner rather than later,” he added.

While he anticipates that physician-patient virtual visits will continue to be an important part of clinical practice post pandemic, he predicted the major growth areas for telerheumatology once COVID-19 is squashed will be in clinician-to-clinician interactions and remote patient monitoring using smart devices.

Dr. Wells hasn’t gone into the hospital once since the pandemic began. Initially, that was because he didn’t want to deal with the personal protective equipment shortage or expose himself to the virus. Now, it’s because it’s just a more efficient use of his time to conduct virtual – and billable – 15-minute e-consults with clinicians in the hospital.

“I’ve had a lot of appropriate consults with the hospitalists,” he said. He can walk a hospitalist through a real-time physical exam at a gout patient’s bedside and order the right laboratory tests.

“I don’t need to go into the hospital. The interventional radiologist can tap an ankle or toe as well as I can,” the rheumatologist said.

Dermatologist George Martin, MD, rose from the audience to say that while he recognizes that pandemic telemedicine has been a good fit for rheumatologists, it’s been a very different story in dermatology.

“I realize telemedicine works really well when you don’t have to lay your hands on a patient, or when you’re just doing a stable follow-up and talking about test results. But we in dermatology have found as a group that telemedicine is pretty worthless. When patients are trying to send you a video stream of what their melanoma looks like, or maybe it’s a benign seborrheic keratosis, you’re going to hang their life on that? Dermatology is a very hands-on, visual thing, and unless the camera work becomes better telemedicine is worthless, with the exception of a laboratory follow-up or a stable visit where a physical exam is not required,” declared Dr. Martin, who is in private practice in Maui.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a consultant to MiCare Path, a remote health and monitoring company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Telemedicine has had a profound effect upon the practice of rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to do so afterward, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

FatCamera/E+

“Telemedicine will change the way we do business. It already has,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“All of a sudden in March of last year we all turned on a dime and went 100% remote, and we made it work. And it has worked well. It’s not the same as seeing people in person, but I’m pretty sure that going forward probably somewhere in the range of 30% of our visits are going to be telemedicine. It’s an incredible way to deal with people who are stable and are driving in from an hour-and-a-half away to get their prescription refilled,” he said.

Conditions well suited for video patient visits are those where the physical exam isn’t informative or necessary, such as polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis with axial disease only, childhood periodic fever syndromes, and even many cases of rheumatoid arthritis, in Dr. Ruderman’s view.

“People who are stable – maybe not in remission, but we’ve decided they’re at that their target – a lot of those visits can be done remotely. It’s way more efficient. Everybody loves it: We like it, the patients like it. But we have to get to where we can do it better. The technology is clumsy right now,” he said.

“We do need better and smarter platforms,” agreed Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a telerheumatology pioneer who has been involved in digital/video communication with his patients for nearly 6 years. “But the biggest issue is connectivity. Not all of our patients can get on the Internet.”

The telerheumatology paradigm he has used during the pandemic and will continue to use afterward is to see every new patient in the office, then do the follow-up visits virtually.

“They don’t need to come back into the office in 4 weeks. I’ve done my physical exam, ordered the x-rays and lab work. At the virtual 4-week follow-up we go over everything and I tell them if they need to come in for training in giving their injections,” explained Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

“The telemedicine visit doesn’t take the place of an in-person visit, but it allows you to stratify, to say who needs to be seen sooner rather than later,” he added.

While he anticipates that physician-patient virtual visits will continue to be an important part of clinical practice post pandemic, he predicted the major growth areas for telerheumatology once COVID-19 is squashed will be in clinician-to-clinician interactions and remote patient monitoring using smart devices.

Dr. Wells hasn’t gone into the hospital once since the pandemic began. Initially, that was because he didn’t want to deal with the personal protective equipment shortage or expose himself to the virus. Now, it’s because it’s just a more efficient use of his time to conduct virtual – and billable – 15-minute e-consults with clinicians in the hospital.

“I’ve had a lot of appropriate consults with the hospitalists,” he said. He can walk a hospitalist through a real-time physical exam at a gout patient’s bedside and order the right laboratory tests.

“I don’t need to go into the hospital. The interventional radiologist can tap an ankle or toe as well as I can,” the rheumatologist said.

Dermatologist George Martin, MD, rose from the audience to say that while he recognizes that pandemic telemedicine has been a good fit for rheumatologists, it’s been a very different story in dermatology.

“I realize telemedicine works really well when you don’t have to lay your hands on a patient, or when you’re just doing a stable follow-up and talking about test results. But we in dermatology have found as a group that telemedicine is pretty worthless. When patients are trying to send you a video stream of what their melanoma looks like, or maybe it’s a benign seborrheic keratosis, you’re going to hang their life on that? Dermatology is a very hands-on, visual thing, and unless the camera work becomes better telemedicine is worthless, with the exception of a laboratory follow-up or a stable visit where a physical exam is not required,” declared Dr. Martin, who is in private practice in Maui.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a consultant to MiCare Path, a remote health and monitoring company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD

The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.

The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.

The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.

Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.

“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.

The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD

Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?

Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.

Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.

The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD

The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.

The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.

The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.

Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.

“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.

The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD

Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?

Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.

Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.

The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD

The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.

The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.

The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.

Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.

“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.

The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD

Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?

Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.

Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.

The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Most checkpoint inhibitor–induced rheumatic complications in cancer patients can be treated successfully with corticosteroids, albeit often at considerably higher doses than rheumatologists typically use in managing rheumatoid arthritis, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, observed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“In RA, we’re all used to the idea that 5 or 10 mg of corticosteroids per day can make a tremendous difference. That’s not always the case here. Patients who develop rheumatic immunotherapy-related adverse events often require 20-30 mg/day to get symptoms under control,” according to Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

This may be in part because oncologists typically don’t refer affected patients to rheumatologists early on. Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other oncology groups suggest referral only once a patient develops grade 3 immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events, meaning the symptoms significantly impair daily activities, he explained.

Checkpoint inhibitors, which induce T-cell activation to fight the patient’s malignancy, can produce a plethora of off-target effects. These adverse events may involve the skin, heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, blood, GI tract, and endocrine organs. The drugs also can cause rheumatic or neurologic complications. The most common of these adverse events are colitis and rash. Next most common are arthritis and arthralgia. Rheumatic side effects are most common as a consequence of immunotherapy using a CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitor, but can also occur in association with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and PD-ligand 1 inhibitors. Arthritis and other rheumatic adverse events are more common in patients undergoing combination therapy.

Some form of frank inflammatory arthritis occurs in 5%-10% of cancer patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy. This can manifest as an RA-like polyarthritis, spondyloarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, necrotizing myositis, or vasculitis. Arthralgia occurs in up to 40% of treated patients.

This immunotherapy-related arthritis is typically more inflammatory than RA. It also has a much more abrupt onset. It is usually seronegative and has no gender predisposition, and the limited available evidence to date suggests there is no increased risk of this complication in checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients with a history of prior rheumatic disease, according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Delayed onset and resolution of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events

“Onset and resolution of rheumatologic adverse events with immunotherapy may be delayed. This is an important point: While skin rash and colitis often show up pretty early in the course of immunotherapy, some of the arthritic events can happen later. They can actually continue after the immunotherapy is stopped,” the rheumatologist said.

Indeed, a retrospective nationwide Canadian study of 117 patients at nine academic centers who developed 136 rheumatic immune-related adverse events in conjunction with cancer immunotherapy found that the mean time to the first such event was 6.8 months into checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The most common rheumatic complication was symmetric polyarthritis, affecting 45 patients. Other rheumatologic immune-related complications included polymyalgia rheumatica in 17 patients, noninflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms in 18, and myositis in 9.

Seventy-six patients were treated with prednisone for a mean of 8.4 months at a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Forty-two moved up the treatment ladder to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) to manage their symptoms. Only two patients required escalation to biologic therapy. A reassuring finding in this relatively small study was that treatment of the patients’ rheumatic complications didn’t appear to worsen the tumor response to immunotherapy: Twenty-three patients experienced tumor progression prior to treatment of their rheumatic disorder, and 14 did so following treatment.
 

Flares of preexisting rheumatic diseases

These tend to occur much earlier in the course of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer than de novo immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events. In a retrospective Australian study of 12 cancer patients with preexisting rheumatic disease before going on a PD-1 inhibitor and 24 others with no such history, all of whom developed rheumatic adverse events while on the checkpoint inhibitor, the mean time to a flare of preexisting rheumatic disease was 6.2 weeks, compared to 21.5 weeks in patients who experienced a de novo rheumatic adverse event.

Dr. Ruderman supports recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy, even though the underlying level of evidence is fairly weak. The recommendations call for the use of csDMARDs when corticosteroids don’t adequately control symptoms. And when the response to csDMARDs is insufficient, the next step is a biologic, preferably a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or interleukin-6 inhibitor.

“At our institution, the oncologists are a little bit nervous about using biologics in cancer patients, but I think more and more they’re going to have to accept it. And so far there isn’t a ton of evidence that suggests the addition of biologics interferes with the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” the rheumatologist said.

He underscored the critical importance of one of the overarching principles of the EULAR guidelines: the need for interdisciplinary coordination between rheumatologists and oncologists regarding the problem of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events.

“Oncologists aren’t good at managing inflammatory arthritis. I think they really need us,” he said.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving a research grant from nine pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Most checkpoint inhibitor–induced rheumatic complications in cancer patients can be treated successfully with corticosteroids, albeit often at considerably higher doses than rheumatologists typically use in managing rheumatoid arthritis, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, observed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“In RA, we’re all used to the idea that 5 or 10 mg of corticosteroids per day can make a tremendous difference. That’s not always the case here. Patients who develop rheumatic immunotherapy-related adverse events often require 20-30 mg/day to get symptoms under control,” according to Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

This may be in part because oncologists typically don’t refer affected patients to rheumatologists early on. Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other oncology groups suggest referral only once a patient develops grade 3 immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events, meaning the symptoms significantly impair daily activities, he explained.

Checkpoint inhibitors, which induce T-cell activation to fight the patient’s malignancy, can produce a plethora of off-target effects. These adverse events may involve the skin, heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, blood, GI tract, and endocrine organs. The drugs also can cause rheumatic or neurologic complications. The most common of these adverse events are colitis and rash. Next most common are arthritis and arthralgia. Rheumatic side effects are most common as a consequence of immunotherapy using a CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitor, but can also occur in association with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and PD-ligand 1 inhibitors. Arthritis and other rheumatic adverse events are more common in patients undergoing combination therapy.

Some form of frank inflammatory arthritis occurs in 5%-10% of cancer patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy. This can manifest as an RA-like polyarthritis, spondyloarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, necrotizing myositis, or vasculitis. Arthralgia occurs in up to 40% of treated patients.

This immunotherapy-related arthritis is typically more inflammatory than RA. It also has a much more abrupt onset. It is usually seronegative and has no gender predisposition, and the limited available evidence to date suggests there is no increased risk of this complication in checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients with a history of prior rheumatic disease, according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Delayed onset and resolution of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events

“Onset and resolution of rheumatologic adverse events with immunotherapy may be delayed. This is an important point: While skin rash and colitis often show up pretty early in the course of immunotherapy, some of the arthritic events can happen later. They can actually continue after the immunotherapy is stopped,” the rheumatologist said.

Indeed, a retrospective nationwide Canadian study of 117 patients at nine academic centers who developed 136 rheumatic immune-related adverse events in conjunction with cancer immunotherapy found that the mean time to the first such event was 6.8 months into checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The most common rheumatic complication was symmetric polyarthritis, affecting 45 patients. Other rheumatologic immune-related complications included polymyalgia rheumatica in 17 patients, noninflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms in 18, and myositis in 9.

Seventy-six patients were treated with prednisone for a mean of 8.4 months at a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Forty-two moved up the treatment ladder to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) to manage their symptoms. Only two patients required escalation to biologic therapy. A reassuring finding in this relatively small study was that treatment of the patients’ rheumatic complications didn’t appear to worsen the tumor response to immunotherapy: Twenty-three patients experienced tumor progression prior to treatment of their rheumatic disorder, and 14 did so following treatment.
 

Flares of preexisting rheumatic diseases

These tend to occur much earlier in the course of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer than de novo immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events. In a retrospective Australian study of 12 cancer patients with preexisting rheumatic disease before going on a PD-1 inhibitor and 24 others with no such history, all of whom developed rheumatic adverse events while on the checkpoint inhibitor, the mean time to a flare of preexisting rheumatic disease was 6.2 weeks, compared to 21.5 weeks in patients who experienced a de novo rheumatic adverse event.

Dr. Ruderman supports recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy, even though the underlying level of evidence is fairly weak. The recommendations call for the use of csDMARDs when corticosteroids don’t adequately control symptoms. And when the response to csDMARDs is insufficient, the next step is a biologic, preferably a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or interleukin-6 inhibitor.

“At our institution, the oncologists are a little bit nervous about using biologics in cancer patients, but I think more and more they’re going to have to accept it. And so far there isn’t a ton of evidence that suggests the addition of biologics interferes with the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” the rheumatologist said.

He underscored the critical importance of one of the overarching principles of the EULAR guidelines: the need for interdisciplinary coordination between rheumatologists and oncologists regarding the problem of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events.

“Oncologists aren’t good at managing inflammatory arthritis. I think they really need us,” he said.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving a research grant from nine pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Most checkpoint inhibitor–induced rheumatic complications in cancer patients can be treated successfully with corticosteroids, albeit often at considerably higher doses than rheumatologists typically use in managing rheumatoid arthritis, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, observed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“In RA, we’re all used to the idea that 5 or 10 mg of corticosteroids per day can make a tremendous difference. That’s not always the case here. Patients who develop rheumatic immunotherapy-related adverse events often require 20-30 mg/day to get symptoms under control,” according to Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

This may be in part because oncologists typically don’t refer affected patients to rheumatologists early on. Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other oncology groups suggest referral only once a patient develops grade 3 immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events, meaning the symptoms significantly impair daily activities, he explained.

Checkpoint inhibitors, which induce T-cell activation to fight the patient’s malignancy, can produce a plethora of off-target effects. These adverse events may involve the skin, heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, blood, GI tract, and endocrine organs. The drugs also can cause rheumatic or neurologic complications. The most common of these adverse events are colitis and rash. Next most common are arthritis and arthralgia. Rheumatic side effects are most common as a consequence of immunotherapy using a CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitor, but can also occur in association with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and PD-ligand 1 inhibitors. Arthritis and other rheumatic adverse events are more common in patients undergoing combination therapy.

Some form of frank inflammatory arthritis occurs in 5%-10% of cancer patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy. This can manifest as an RA-like polyarthritis, spondyloarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, necrotizing myositis, or vasculitis. Arthralgia occurs in up to 40% of treated patients.

This immunotherapy-related arthritis is typically more inflammatory than RA. It also has a much more abrupt onset. It is usually seronegative and has no gender predisposition, and the limited available evidence to date suggests there is no increased risk of this complication in checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients with a history of prior rheumatic disease, according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Delayed onset and resolution of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events

“Onset and resolution of rheumatologic adverse events with immunotherapy may be delayed. This is an important point: While skin rash and colitis often show up pretty early in the course of immunotherapy, some of the arthritic events can happen later. They can actually continue after the immunotherapy is stopped,” the rheumatologist said.

Indeed, a retrospective nationwide Canadian study of 117 patients at nine academic centers who developed 136 rheumatic immune-related adverse events in conjunction with cancer immunotherapy found that the mean time to the first such event was 6.8 months into checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The most common rheumatic complication was symmetric polyarthritis, affecting 45 patients. Other rheumatologic immune-related complications included polymyalgia rheumatica in 17 patients, noninflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms in 18, and myositis in 9.

Seventy-six patients were treated with prednisone for a mean of 8.4 months at a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Forty-two moved up the treatment ladder to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) to manage their symptoms. Only two patients required escalation to biologic therapy. A reassuring finding in this relatively small study was that treatment of the patients’ rheumatic complications didn’t appear to worsen the tumor response to immunotherapy: Twenty-three patients experienced tumor progression prior to treatment of their rheumatic disorder, and 14 did so following treatment.
 

Flares of preexisting rheumatic diseases

These tend to occur much earlier in the course of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer than de novo immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events. In a retrospective Australian study of 12 cancer patients with preexisting rheumatic disease before going on a PD-1 inhibitor and 24 others with no such history, all of whom developed rheumatic adverse events while on the checkpoint inhibitor, the mean time to a flare of preexisting rheumatic disease was 6.2 weeks, compared to 21.5 weeks in patients who experienced a de novo rheumatic adverse event.

Dr. Ruderman supports recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy, even though the underlying level of evidence is fairly weak. The recommendations call for the use of csDMARDs when corticosteroids don’t adequately control symptoms. And when the response to csDMARDs is insufficient, the next step is a biologic, preferably a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or interleukin-6 inhibitor.

“At our institution, the oncologists are a little bit nervous about using biologics in cancer patients, but I think more and more they’re going to have to accept it. And so far there isn’t a ton of evidence that suggests the addition of biologics interferes with the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” the rheumatologist said.

He underscored the critical importance of one of the overarching principles of the EULAR guidelines: the need for interdisciplinary coordination between rheumatologists and oncologists regarding the problem of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events.

“Oncologists aren’t good at managing inflammatory arthritis. I think they really need us,” he said.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving a research grant from nine pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.

Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
 

RA improvement on an ITIS diet

Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.

However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.

The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.

As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.

At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.

Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.

The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.

Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.

Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.

“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.

If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.

In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.

“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.

American RA patients embrace turmeric

Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.

Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.

Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
 

What about osteoarthritis?

Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.

Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.

Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.

Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.

Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
 

RA improvement on an ITIS diet

Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.

However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.

The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.

As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.

At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.

Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.

The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.

Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.

Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.

“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.

If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.

In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.

“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.

American RA patients embrace turmeric

Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.

Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.

Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
 

What about osteoarthritis?

Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.

Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.

Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.

Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.

Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
 

RA improvement on an ITIS diet

Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.

However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.

The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.

As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.

At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.

Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.

The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.

Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.

Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.

“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.

If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.

In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.

“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.

American RA patients embrace turmeric

Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.

Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.

Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
 

What about osteoarthritis?

Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.

Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.

Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.

Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com