Sara Freeman

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – An age-appropriate version of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) has been developed by an international task force that will hopefully enable childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) to be treated to target in the near future.

The new childhood LLDAS (cLLDAS) has been purposefully developed to align with that already used for adults, Eve Smith, MBChB, PhD, explained at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“There’s a lot of compelling data that’s accumulating from adult lupus and increasingly from childhood lupus that [treat to target] might be a good idea,” said Dr. Smith, who is a senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant at the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, also in Liverpool.
 

Urgent need to improve childhood lupus outcomes

“We urgently need to do something to try and improve outcomes for children,” Dr. Smith said.

“We know that childhood lupus patients have got higher disease activity as compared to adults; they have a greater medication burden, particularly steroids; and they tend to have more severe organ manifestations,” she added.

Moreover, data show that one-fifth of pediatric patients with lupus have already accrued early damage, and there is much higher mortality associated with childhood lupus than there is with adult lupus.

“So, really we want to use treat to target as a way to try and improve on these aspects,” Dr. Smith said.

The treat-to-target (T2T) approach is not a new idea in lupus, with a lot of work already done in adult patients. One large study of more than 3,300 patients conducted in 13 countries has shown that patients who never achieve LLDAS are more likely to have high levels of damage, greater glucocorticoid use, worse quality of life, and higher mortality than are those who do.

Conversely, data have also shown that achieving a LLDAS is associated with a reduction in the risk for new damage, flares, and hospitalization, as well as reducing health care costs and improving patients’ overall health-related quality of life.

T2T is a recognized approach in European adult SLE guidelines, Dr. Smith said, although the approach has not really been fully realized as of yet, even in adult practice.
 

The cSLE T2T international task force and cLLDAS definition

With evidence accumulating on the benefits of getting children with SLE to a low disease activity state, Dr. Smith and colleague Michael Beresford, MBChB, PhD, Brough Chair, Professor of Child Health at the University of Liverpool, put out a call to develop a task force to look into the feasibility of a T2T approach.

“We had a really enthusiastic response internationally, which we were really encouraged by,” Dr. Smith said, “and we now lead a task force of 20 experts from across all five continents, and we have really strong patient involvement.”

Through a consensus process, an international cSLE T2T Task Force agreed on overarching principles and points to consider that will “lay the foundation for future T2T approaches in cSLE,” according to the recommendations statement, which was endorsed by the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society.

Next, they looked to develop an age-appropriate definition for low disease activity.

“We’re deliberately wanting to maintain sufficient unity with the adult definition, so that we could facilitate life-course studies,” said Dr. Smith, who presented the results of a literature review and series of Delphi surveys at the meeting.

The conceptual definition of cLLDAS is similar to adults in describing it as a sustained state that is associated with a low likelihood of adverse outcome, Dr. Smith said, but with the added wording of “considering disease activity, damage, and medication toxicity.”

The definition is achieved when the SLE Disease Activity Index-2K is ≤ 4 and there is no activity in major organ systems; there are no new features of lupus disease activity since the last assessment; there is a score of ≤ 1 on Physician Global Assessment; steroid doses are ≤ 0.15 mg/kg/day or a maximum of 7.5 mg/day (whichever is lower); and immunosuppressive treatment is stable, with any changes to medication only because of side effects, adherence, changes in weight, or when in the process of reaching a target dose.

“It’s all very well having a definition, but you need to think about how that will work in practice,” Dr. Smith said. This is something that the task force is thinking about very carefully.

The task force next aims to validate the cLLDAS definition, form an extensive research agenda to inform the T2T methods, and develop innovative methods to apply the approach in practice.

The work is supported by the Wellcome Trust, National Institutes for Health Research, Versus Arthritis, and the University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and the Alder Hey Charity. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – An age-appropriate version of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) has been developed by an international task force that will hopefully enable childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) to be treated to target in the near future.

The new childhood LLDAS (cLLDAS) has been purposefully developed to align with that already used for adults, Eve Smith, MBChB, PhD, explained at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“There’s a lot of compelling data that’s accumulating from adult lupus and increasingly from childhood lupus that [treat to target] might be a good idea,” said Dr. Smith, who is a senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant at the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, also in Liverpool.
 

Urgent need to improve childhood lupus outcomes

“We urgently need to do something to try and improve outcomes for children,” Dr. Smith said.

“We know that childhood lupus patients have got higher disease activity as compared to adults; they have a greater medication burden, particularly steroids; and they tend to have more severe organ manifestations,” she added.

Moreover, data show that one-fifth of pediatric patients with lupus have already accrued early damage, and there is much higher mortality associated with childhood lupus than there is with adult lupus.

“So, really we want to use treat to target as a way to try and improve on these aspects,” Dr. Smith said.

The treat-to-target (T2T) approach is not a new idea in lupus, with a lot of work already done in adult patients. One large study of more than 3,300 patients conducted in 13 countries has shown that patients who never achieve LLDAS are more likely to have high levels of damage, greater glucocorticoid use, worse quality of life, and higher mortality than are those who do.

Conversely, data have also shown that achieving a LLDAS is associated with a reduction in the risk for new damage, flares, and hospitalization, as well as reducing health care costs and improving patients’ overall health-related quality of life.

T2T is a recognized approach in European adult SLE guidelines, Dr. Smith said, although the approach has not really been fully realized as of yet, even in adult practice.
 

The cSLE T2T international task force and cLLDAS definition

With evidence accumulating on the benefits of getting children with SLE to a low disease activity state, Dr. Smith and colleague Michael Beresford, MBChB, PhD, Brough Chair, Professor of Child Health at the University of Liverpool, put out a call to develop a task force to look into the feasibility of a T2T approach.

“We had a really enthusiastic response internationally, which we were really encouraged by,” Dr. Smith said, “and we now lead a task force of 20 experts from across all five continents, and we have really strong patient involvement.”

Through a consensus process, an international cSLE T2T Task Force agreed on overarching principles and points to consider that will “lay the foundation for future T2T approaches in cSLE,” according to the recommendations statement, which was endorsed by the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society.

Next, they looked to develop an age-appropriate definition for low disease activity.

“We’re deliberately wanting to maintain sufficient unity with the adult definition, so that we could facilitate life-course studies,” said Dr. Smith, who presented the results of a literature review and series of Delphi surveys at the meeting.

The conceptual definition of cLLDAS is similar to adults in describing it as a sustained state that is associated with a low likelihood of adverse outcome, Dr. Smith said, but with the added wording of “considering disease activity, damage, and medication toxicity.”

The definition is achieved when the SLE Disease Activity Index-2K is ≤ 4 and there is no activity in major organ systems; there are no new features of lupus disease activity since the last assessment; there is a score of ≤ 1 on Physician Global Assessment; steroid doses are ≤ 0.15 mg/kg/day or a maximum of 7.5 mg/day (whichever is lower); and immunosuppressive treatment is stable, with any changes to medication only because of side effects, adherence, changes in weight, or when in the process of reaching a target dose.

“It’s all very well having a definition, but you need to think about how that will work in practice,” Dr. Smith said. This is something that the task force is thinking about very carefully.

The task force next aims to validate the cLLDAS definition, form an extensive research agenda to inform the T2T methods, and develop innovative methods to apply the approach in practice.

The work is supported by the Wellcome Trust, National Institutes for Health Research, Versus Arthritis, and the University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and the Alder Hey Charity. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – An age-appropriate version of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) has been developed by an international task force that will hopefully enable childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) to be treated to target in the near future.

The new childhood LLDAS (cLLDAS) has been purposefully developed to align with that already used for adults, Eve Smith, MBChB, PhD, explained at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“There’s a lot of compelling data that’s accumulating from adult lupus and increasingly from childhood lupus that [treat to target] might be a good idea,” said Dr. Smith, who is a senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant at the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, also in Liverpool.
 

Urgent need to improve childhood lupus outcomes

“We urgently need to do something to try and improve outcomes for children,” Dr. Smith said.

“We know that childhood lupus patients have got higher disease activity as compared to adults; they have a greater medication burden, particularly steroids; and they tend to have more severe organ manifestations,” she added.

Moreover, data show that one-fifth of pediatric patients with lupus have already accrued early damage, and there is much higher mortality associated with childhood lupus than there is with adult lupus.

“So, really we want to use treat to target as a way to try and improve on these aspects,” Dr. Smith said.

The treat-to-target (T2T) approach is not a new idea in lupus, with a lot of work already done in adult patients. One large study of more than 3,300 patients conducted in 13 countries has shown that patients who never achieve LLDAS are more likely to have high levels of damage, greater glucocorticoid use, worse quality of life, and higher mortality than are those who do.

Conversely, data have also shown that achieving a LLDAS is associated with a reduction in the risk for new damage, flares, and hospitalization, as well as reducing health care costs and improving patients’ overall health-related quality of life.

T2T is a recognized approach in European adult SLE guidelines, Dr. Smith said, although the approach has not really been fully realized as of yet, even in adult practice.
 

The cSLE T2T international task force and cLLDAS definition

With evidence accumulating on the benefits of getting children with SLE to a low disease activity state, Dr. Smith and colleague Michael Beresford, MBChB, PhD, Brough Chair, Professor of Child Health at the University of Liverpool, put out a call to develop a task force to look into the feasibility of a T2T approach.

“We had a really enthusiastic response internationally, which we were really encouraged by,” Dr. Smith said, “and we now lead a task force of 20 experts from across all five continents, and we have really strong patient involvement.”

Through a consensus process, an international cSLE T2T Task Force agreed on overarching principles and points to consider that will “lay the foundation for future T2T approaches in cSLE,” according to the recommendations statement, which was endorsed by the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society.

Next, they looked to develop an age-appropriate definition for low disease activity.

“We’re deliberately wanting to maintain sufficient unity with the adult definition, so that we could facilitate life-course studies,” said Dr. Smith, who presented the results of a literature review and series of Delphi surveys at the meeting.

The conceptual definition of cLLDAS is similar to adults in describing it as a sustained state that is associated with a low likelihood of adverse outcome, Dr. Smith said, but with the added wording of “considering disease activity, damage, and medication toxicity.”

The definition is achieved when the SLE Disease Activity Index-2K is ≤ 4 and there is no activity in major organ systems; there are no new features of lupus disease activity since the last assessment; there is a score of ≤ 1 on Physician Global Assessment; steroid doses are ≤ 0.15 mg/kg/day or a maximum of 7.5 mg/day (whichever is lower); and immunosuppressive treatment is stable, with any changes to medication only because of side effects, adherence, changes in weight, or when in the process of reaching a target dose.

“It’s all very well having a definition, but you need to think about how that will work in practice,” Dr. Smith said. This is something that the task force is thinking about very carefully.

The task force next aims to validate the cLLDAS definition, form an extensive research agenda to inform the T2T methods, and develop innovative methods to apply the approach in practice.

The work is supported by the Wellcome Trust, National Institutes for Health Research, Versus Arthritis, and the University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and the Alder Hey Charity. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

MANCHESTER, England – Even when C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are normal, patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could still be experiencing significant disease that persists over time, researchers from University College London have found.

Similar levels of joint erosion and disease activity were observed over a 5-year period; researchers compared patients who had high CRP levels (> 5 mg/L)* with patients whose CRP levels were consistently normal (< 5 mg/L) at the time of an ultrasound-proven disease flare.

“Our data suggests that the phenotype of normal CRP represents at least 5% of our cohort,” Bhavika Sethi, MBChB, reported in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“They are more likely to require biologic treatment, and this continues on even though they have equivalent DAS28 [disease activity score in 28 joints] and risk of joint damage” to high-CRP patients, she said.

These patients are a significant minority, Dr. Sethi added, and “we need to think about how we provide care for them and allocate resources.”
 

Diagnostic delay and poor outcomes previously seen

The study is a continuation of a larger project, the corresponding author for the poster, Matthew Hutchinson, MBChB, told this news organization.

A few years ago, Dr. Hutchinson explained, a subset of patients with normal CRP levels during RA flares were identified and were found to be more likely to have experienced diagnostic delay and worse outcomes than did those with high CRP levels.

The aim of the current study was to see whether those findings persisted by longitudinally assessing patient records and seeing what happened 1, 2, and 5 years later. They evaluated 312 patients with seropositive RA, of whom 28 had CRP < 5 mg/L as well as active disease, which was determined on the basis of a DAS28 > 4.5. Of those 28 patients, 16 had persistently low CRP (< 5 mg/L) despite active disease. All patients who were taking tocilizumab were excluded from the study because of its CRP-lowering properties.

“Our project was showing that this group of people exist, trying to characterize them a little better” and that the study serves as a “jumping-off point” for future research, Dr. Hutchinson said.

The study was also conducted to “make people more aware of [patients with normal CRP during flare], because treating clinicians could be falsely reassured by a normal CRP,” he added. “Patients in front of them could actually be undertreated and have worse outcomes if [it is] not picked up,” Dr. Hutchinson suggested.

In comparison with those with high CRP levels, those with normal CRP levels were more likely to be receiving biologic treatment at 5 years (76.6% vs. 44.4%; P =  .0323).

At 5 years, DAS28 was similar (P = .9615) among patients with normal CRP levels and those with high CRP levels, at a median of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. A similar percentage of patients in these two groups also had joint damage (63.3% vs. 71.4%; P = .7384).
 

Don’t rely only on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares

“CRP is a generic inflammatory marker in most people,” Dr. Hutchinson said. “In the majority of situations when either there is inflammation or an infection, certainly if it’s systemic infection or inflammation, you will find CRP being elevated on the blood tests.”

For someone presenting with joint pain, high CRP can be a useful indicator that it’s more of an inflammatory process than physical injury, he added. CRP is also frequently used to calculate DAS28 to monitor disease activity.

“This study highlights that CRP may be normal during flares in some people with RA,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, told this news organization.

“These patients may still require advanced therapies and can accrue damage,” the rheumatologist from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, added.

“Clinicians should not only rely on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares,” said Dr. Sparks, who was not involved in the study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Hutchinson and Dr. Sethi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care; he has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.

*Correction, 5/9/2023: This article has been updated to correct the units for C-reactive protein from mg/dL to mg/L.

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

MANCHESTER, England – Even when C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are normal, patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could still be experiencing significant disease that persists over time, researchers from University College London have found.

Similar levels of joint erosion and disease activity were observed over a 5-year period; researchers compared patients who had high CRP levels (> 5 mg/L)* with patients whose CRP levels were consistently normal (< 5 mg/L) at the time of an ultrasound-proven disease flare.

“Our data suggests that the phenotype of normal CRP represents at least 5% of our cohort,” Bhavika Sethi, MBChB, reported in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“They are more likely to require biologic treatment, and this continues on even though they have equivalent DAS28 [disease activity score in 28 joints] and risk of joint damage” to high-CRP patients, she said.

These patients are a significant minority, Dr. Sethi added, and “we need to think about how we provide care for them and allocate resources.”
 

Diagnostic delay and poor outcomes previously seen

The study is a continuation of a larger project, the corresponding author for the poster, Matthew Hutchinson, MBChB, told this news organization.

A few years ago, Dr. Hutchinson explained, a subset of patients with normal CRP levels during RA flares were identified and were found to be more likely to have experienced diagnostic delay and worse outcomes than did those with high CRP levels.

The aim of the current study was to see whether those findings persisted by longitudinally assessing patient records and seeing what happened 1, 2, and 5 years later. They evaluated 312 patients with seropositive RA, of whom 28 had CRP < 5 mg/L as well as active disease, which was determined on the basis of a DAS28 > 4.5. Of those 28 patients, 16 had persistently low CRP (< 5 mg/L) despite active disease. All patients who were taking tocilizumab were excluded from the study because of its CRP-lowering properties.

“Our project was showing that this group of people exist, trying to characterize them a little better” and that the study serves as a “jumping-off point” for future research, Dr. Hutchinson said.

The study was also conducted to “make people more aware of [patients with normal CRP during flare], because treating clinicians could be falsely reassured by a normal CRP,” he added. “Patients in front of them could actually be undertreated and have worse outcomes if [it is] not picked up,” Dr. Hutchinson suggested.

In comparison with those with high CRP levels, those with normal CRP levels were more likely to be receiving biologic treatment at 5 years (76.6% vs. 44.4%; P =  .0323).

At 5 years, DAS28 was similar (P = .9615) among patients with normal CRP levels and those with high CRP levels, at a median of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. A similar percentage of patients in these two groups also had joint damage (63.3% vs. 71.4%; P = .7384).
 

Don’t rely only on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares

“CRP is a generic inflammatory marker in most people,” Dr. Hutchinson said. “In the majority of situations when either there is inflammation or an infection, certainly if it’s systemic infection or inflammation, you will find CRP being elevated on the blood tests.”

For someone presenting with joint pain, high CRP can be a useful indicator that it’s more of an inflammatory process than physical injury, he added. CRP is also frequently used to calculate DAS28 to monitor disease activity.

“This study highlights that CRP may be normal during flares in some people with RA,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, told this news organization.

“These patients may still require advanced therapies and can accrue damage,” the rheumatologist from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, added.

“Clinicians should not only rely on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares,” said Dr. Sparks, who was not involved in the study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Hutchinson and Dr. Sethi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care; he has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.

*Correction, 5/9/2023: This article has been updated to correct the units for C-reactive protein from mg/dL to mg/L.

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

MANCHESTER, England – Even when C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are normal, patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could still be experiencing significant disease that persists over time, researchers from University College London have found.

Similar levels of joint erosion and disease activity were observed over a 5-year period; researchers compared patients who had high CRP levels (> 5 mg/L)* with patients whose CRP levels were consistently normal (< 5 mg/L) at the time of an ultrasound-proven disease flare.

“Our data suggests that the phenotype of normal CRP represents at least 5% of our cohort,” Bhavika Sethi, MBChB, reported in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“They are more likely to require biologic treatment, and this continues on even though they have equivalent DAS28 [disease activity score in 28 joints] and risk of joint damage” to high-CRP patients, she said.

These patients are a significant minority, Dr. Sethi added, and “we need to think about how we provide care for them and allocate resources.”
 

Diagnostic delay and poor outcomes previously seen

The study is a continuation of a larger project, the corresponding author for the poster, Matthew Hutchinson, MBChB, told this news organization.

A few years ago, Dr. Hutchinson explained, a subset of patients with normal CRP levels during RA flares were identified and were found to be more likely to have experienced diagnostic delay and worse outcomes than did those with high CRP levels.

The aim of the current study was to see whether those findings persisted by longitudinally assessing patient records and seeing what happened 1, 2, and 5 years later. They evaluated 312 patients with seropositive RA, of whom 28 had CRP < 5 mg/L as well as active disease, which was determined on the basis of a DAS28 > 4.5. Of those 28 patients, 16 had persistently low CRP (< 5 mg/L) despite active disease. All patients who were taking tocilizumab were excluded from the study because of its CRP-lowering properties.

“Our project was showing that this group of people exist, trying to characterize them a little better” and that the study serves as a “jumping-off point” for future research, Dr. Hutchinson said.

The study was also conducted to “make people more aware of [patients with normal CRP during flare], because treating clinicians could be falsely reassured by a normal CRP,” he added. “Patients in front of them could actually be undertreated and have worse outcomes if [it is] not picked up,” Dr. Hutchinson suggested.

In comparison with those with high CRP levels, those with normal CRP levels were more likely to be receiving biologic treatment at 5 years (76.6% vs. 44.4%; P =  .0323).

At 5 years, DAS28 was similar (P = .9615) among patients with normal CRP levels and those with high CRP levels, at a median of 2.8 and 3.2, respectively. A similar percentage of patients in these two groups also had joint damage (63.3% vs. 71.4%; P = .7384).
 

Don’t rely only on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares

“CRP is a generic inflammatory marker in most people,” Dr. Hutchinson said. “In the majority of situations when either there is inflammation or an infection, certainly if it’s systemic infection or inflammation, you will find CRP being elevated on the blood tests.”

For someone presenting with joint pain, high CRP can be a useful indicator that it’s more of an inflammatory process than physical injury, he added. CRP is also frequently used to calculate DAS28 to monitor disease activity.

“This study highlights that CRP may be normal during flares in some people with RA,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, told this news organization.

“These patients may still require advanced therapies and can accrue damage,” the rheumatologist from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, added.

“Clinicians should not only rely on CRP to diagnose and manage RA flares,” said Dr. Sparks, who was not involved in the study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Hutchinson and Dr. Sethi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care; he has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and has performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.

*Correction, 5/9/2023: This article has been updated to correct the units for C-reactive protein from mg/dL to mg/L.

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

MANCHESTER, England – Data from the COVAD-2 e-survey suggest that people with a rheumatic disease are twice as likely as are those without to experience long-term effects after contracting COVID-19.

The prevalence of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), the term the World Health Organization advocates for describing the widely popularized term long COVID, was 10.8% among people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) vs. 5.3% among those with no autoimmune condition (designated as “healthy controls”). The odds ratio was 2.1, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4-3.2 and a P-value of .002.

The prevalence in people with nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases was also higher than it was in the control participants but still lower, at 7.3%, than in those with AIRDs.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Our findings highlight the importance of close monitoring for PCC,” Arvind Nune, MBBCh, MSc, said in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

They also show the need for “appropriate referral for optimized multidisciplinary care for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the recovery period following COVID-19,” added Dr. Nune, who works for Southport (England) and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust.

In an interview, he noted that it was patients who had a severe COVID-19 course or had other coexisting conditions that appeared to experience more long-term effects than did their less-affected counterparts.

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, told this news organization: “This is one of the first studies to find that the prevalence of long COVID is higher among people with systemic rheumatic diseases than those without.”

Dr. Sparks, who is based at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, added: “Since the symptoms of long COVID and rheumatic diseases can overlap substantially, more work will need to be done to determine whether COVID may have induced flares, new symptoms, or whether the finding is due to the presence of the chronic rheumatic disease.”
 

The COVAD study

Using an electronic survey platform, the COVAD study has been set up to look at the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with AIRDs. It’s now a large international effort involving more than 150 collaborating clinics in 106 countries.

A huge amount of data has been collected. “We collected demographics, details of autoimmune disease, including treatment, comorbidity, COVID infection, vaccination history and outcomes, date on flares, and validated patient-reported outcomes, including pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life,” Dr. Nune said in his presentation.

A total of 12,358 people who were invited to participate responded to the e-survey. Of them, 2,640 were confirmed to have COVID-19. Because the analysis aimed to look at PCC, anyone who had completed the survey less than 3 months after infection was excluded. This left 1,677 eligible respondents, of whom, an overall 8.7% (n = 136) were identified as having PCC.

“The [WHO] definition for PCC was employed, which is persistent signs or symptoms beyond 3 months of COVID-19 infection lasting at least 2 months,” Dr. Nune told this news organization.

“Symptoms could be anything from fatigue to breathlessness to arthralgias,” he added. However, the focus of the present analysis was to look at how many people were experiencing the condition rather than specific symptoms.

A higher risk for PCC was seen in women than in men (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.7; P = .037) in the entire cohort.

In addition, those with comorbidities were found to have a greater chance of long-term sequelae from COVID-19 than were those without comorbid disease (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.7; P = .005).

Patients who experienced more severe acute COVID-19, such as those who needed intensive care treatment, oxygen therapy, or advanced treatment for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies, were significantly more likely to later have PCC than were those who did not (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.6; P = .039).

Having PCC was also associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes for physical function, compared with not having PCC. “However, no association with disease flares of underlying rheumatic diseases or immunosuppressive drugs used were noted,” Dr. Nune said.

These new findings from the COVAD study should be published soon. Dr. Nune suggested that the findings might be used to help identify patients early so that they can be referred to the appropriate services in good time.

The COVAD study was independently supported. Dr. Nune reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.
 

MANCHESTER, England – Data from the COVAD-2 e-survey suggest that people with a rheumatic disease are twice as likely as are those without to experience long-term effects after contracting COVID-19.

The prevalence of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), the term the World Health Organization advocates for describing the widely popularized term long COVID, was 10.8% among people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) vs. 5.3% among those with no autoimmune condition (designated as “healthy controls”). The odds ratio was 2.1, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4-3.2 and a P-value of .002.

The prevalence in people with nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases was also higher than it was in the control participants but still lower, at 7.3%, than in those with AIRDs.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Our findings highlight the importance of close monitoring for PCC,” Arvind Nune, MBBCh, MSc, said in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

They also show the need for “appropriate referral for optimized multidisciplinary care for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the recovery period following COVID-19,” added Dr. Nune, who works for Southport (England) and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust.

In an interview, he noted that it was patients who had a severe COVID-19 course or had other coexisting conditions that appeared to experience more long-term effects than did their less-affected counterparts.

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, told this news organization: “This is one of the first studies to find that the prevalence of long COVID is higher among people with systemic rheumatic diseases than those without.”

Dr. Sparks, who is based at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, added: “Since the symptoms of long COVID and rheumatic diseases can overlap substantially, more work will need to be done to determine whether COVID may have induced flares, new symptoms, or whether the finding is due to the presence of the chronic rheumatic disease.”
 

The COVAD study

Using an electronic survey platform, the COVAD study has been set up to look at the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with AIRDs. It’s now a large international effort involving more than 150 collaborating clinics in 106 countries.

A huge amount of data has been collected. “We collected demographics, details of autoimmune disease, including treatment, comorbidity, COVID infection, vaccination history and outcomes, date on flares, and validated patient-reported outcomes, including pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life,” Dr. Nune said in his presentation.

A total of 12,358 people who were invited to participate responded to the e-survey. Of them, 2,640 were confirmed to have COVID-19. Because the analysis aimed to look at PCC, anyone who had completed the survey less than 3 months after infection was excluded. This left 1,677 eligible respondents, of whom, an overall 8.7% (n = 136) were identified as having PCC.

“The [WHO] definition for PCC was employed, which is persistent signs or symptoms beyond 3 months of COVID-19 infection lasting at least 2 months,” Dr. Nune told this news organization.

“Symptoms could be anything from fatigue to breathlessness to arthralgias,” he added. However, the focus of the present analysis was to look at how many people were experiencing the condition rather than specific symptoms.

A higher risk for PCC was seen in women than in men (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.7; P = .037) in the entire cohort.

In addition, those with comorbidities were found to have a greater chance of long-term sequelae from COVID-19 than were those without comorbid disease (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.7; P = .005).

Patients who experienced more severe acute COVID-19, such as those who needed intensive care treatment, oxygen therapy, or advanced treatment for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies, were significantly more likely to later have PCC than were those who did not (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.6; P = .039).

Having PCC was also associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes for physical function, compared with not having PCC. “However, no association with disease flares of underlying rheumatic diseases or immunosuppressive drugs used were noted,” Dr. Nune said.

These new findings from the COVAD study should be published soon. Dr. Nune suggested that the findings might be used to help identify patients early so that they can be referred to the appropriate services in good time.

The COVAD study was independently supported. Dr. Nune reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.
 

MANCHESTER, England – Data from the COVAD-2 e-survey suggest that people with a rheumatic disease are twice as likely as are those without to experience long-term effects after contracting COVID-19.

The prevalence of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), the term the World Health Organization advocates for describing the widely popularized term long COVID, was 10.8% among people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) vs. 5.3% among those with no autoimmune condition (designated as “healthy controls”). The odds ratio was 2.1, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4-3.2 and a P-value of .002.

The prevalence in people with nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases was also higher than it was in the control participants but still lower, at 7.3%, than in those with AIRDs.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Our findings highlight the importance of close monitoring for PCC,” Arvind Nune, MBBCh, MSc, said in a virtual poster presentation at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

They also show the need for “appropriate referral for optimized multidisciplinary care for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during the recovery period following COVID-19,” added Dr. Nune, who works for Southport (England) and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust.

In an interview, he noted that it was patients who had a severe COVID-19 course or had other coexisting conditions that appeared to experience more long-term effects than did their less-affected counterparts.

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, told this news organization: “This is one of the first studies to find that the prevalence of long COVID is higher among people with systemic rheumatic diseases than those without.”

Dr. Sparks, who is based at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, added: “Since the symptoms of long COVID and rheumatic diseases can overlap substantially, more work will need to be done to determine whether COVID may have induced flares, new symptoms, or whether the finding is due to the presence of the chronic rheumatic disease.”
 

The COVAD study

Using an electronic survey platform, the COVAD study has been set up to look at the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with AIRDs. It’s now a large international effort involving more than 150 collaborating clinics in 106 countries.

A huge amount of data has been collected. “We collected demographics, details of autoimmune disease, including treatment, comorbidity, COVID infection, vaccination history and outcomes, date on flares, and validated patient-reported outcomes, including pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life,” Dr. Nune said in his presentation.

A total of 12,358 people who were invited to participate responded to the e-survey. Of them, 2,640 were confirmed to have COVID-19. Because the analysis aimed to look at PCC, anyone who had completed the survey less than 3 months after infection was excluded. This left 1,677 eligible respondents, of whom, an overall 8.7% (n = 136) were identified as having PCC.

“The [WHO] definition for PCC was employed, which is persistent signs or symptoms beyond 3 months of COVID-19 infection lasting at least 2 months,” Dr. Nune told this news organization.

“Symptoms could be anything from fatigue to breathlessness to arthralgias,” he added. However, the focus of the present analysis was to look at how many people were experiencing the condition rather than specific symptoms.

A higher risk for PCC was seen in women than in men (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.7; P = .037) in the entire cohort.

In addition, those with comorbidities were found to have a greater chance of long-term sequelae from COVID-19 than were those without comorbid disease (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.7; P = .005).

Patients who experienced more severe acute COVID-19, such as those who needed intensive care treatment, oxygen therapy, or advanced treatment for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies, were significantly more likely to later have PCC than were those who did not (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-13.6; P = .039).

Having PCC was also associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes for physical function, compared with not having PCC. “However, no association with disease flares of underlying rheumatic diseases or immunosuppressive drugs used were noted,” Dr. Nune said.

These new findings from the COVAD study should be published soon. Dr. Nune suggested that the findings might be used to help identify patients early so that they can be referred to the appropriate services in good time.

The COVAD study was independently supported. Dr. Nune reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer.
 

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.