ACR Winter Rheumatology Symposium 2019

A number of conditions can mimic myositis, but clues that can point to the correct diagnosis are often present in cases involving the mimics, according to Lisa Christopher-Stine, MD.

For example, elevated levels of certain muscle enzymes are an important source of diagnostic information, Dr. Christopher-Stine, director of the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center, Baltimore, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

Isolated elevations in aldolase can be seen in connective tissue–associated interstitial lung disease or in patients with fascial edema, and aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and creatine kinase (CK) levels can also be helpful, she explained.

The latter can also be elevated in the absence of muscle disease, for example, in healthy individuals following exercise. CK peaks at 24 hours after exercise before returning to baseline by 72 hours. In an experimental setting, a threefold increase in CK levels has been seen at 8-24 hours after exercise, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.
 

“HyperCKemia”

Trauma from causes such as intramuscular injection, electromyography (EMG), major surgery, or biopsy can also lead to increased CK levels. Motor neuron disease can also cause such increases. In one study, 75% of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis had a mean twofold increase in CK levels, she said.

Asymptomatic CK elevations may also represent presymptomatic myopathies, type 1 or 2 macro-CK, manual labor occupations, or they may be idiopathic.

Race can play a role in CK levels as well. Black people tend to have higher CK levels than white people, she said, noting that one study of more than 10,000 adults showed that black race was strongly associated with CK, and that body composition largely explained differences in CK by age, but not by race/ethnicity (Medicine. Aug 2016;95[33]:e4344).

“So elevated CK may not herald any discernible illness,” she said.

Dr. Christopher-Stine described a case involving an otherwise healthy 30-year-old man with a CK level of 695 IU/L that was found incidentally. He had a desk job, no recent travel, and denied weakness, myalgias, joint pain, dysphagia, shortness of breath, and fevers. In this case, the elevated CK was felt to be secondary to his African American race given that other causes were ruled out.

Another case involved a 72-year-old man with left-arm pain. A cardiac event was ruled out, and CK was found to be about 4,500 IU/L. He reported “flare-ups” of diffuse swelling of the hands and feet. X-rays showed concerning signs of erosions. His transaminases and electromyogram were normal; he reported no weakness or myalgia; and an MRI showed no muscle edema. He was diagnosed with macro-CK, which refers to CK with an increased molecular weight. A clue to this diagnosis is a normal liver function test. In some cases, muscle/brain CK levels (CK-MB) are elevated and higher than total CK, she noted.

She presented an algorithm for the diagnostic work-up of patients presenting with elevated CK of unclear significance. Her recommended approach involves repeat CK assessment and a closer look at family history, medication, drug/toxin history, examination for weakness and neurologic abnormalities, and additional lab assessments in those whose levels remain elevated. In those in whom a diagnosis is not identified, the algorithm calls for observation every 3 months – including physical examination and labs – in asymptomatic patients with levels at less than five times the upper limit of normal, and further evaluation, including EMG with nerve-conduction velocity testing, muscle biopsy, and MRI in those with (or who later develop) marked elevation greater than five times the upper limit of normal and/or symptoms.
 

Patient assessment

The physical examination should involve localization and quantification of weakness, and assessment for fever, rash, atrophy/wasting/scooping of forearms, fasciculations, cranial nerve involvement, Raynaud’s phenomenon, nailfold capillary changes, arthritis, calcinosis, “mechanic’s hands,” signs of other autoimmune diseases, and lung crackles. Initial laboratory testing should include HIV and hepatitis B and C testing; measurement of CK, AST, ALT, aldolase, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and magnesium levels; a comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count; and measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein.

“Weakness may be secondary to a neuropathy, myopathy, or a problem at the neuropathic junction. Many causes of weakness can be readily identified by careful history taking, focused physical examination, and directed laboratory evaluation,” she said.

Features pointing toward a diagnosis of myositis include characteristic rashes, gradual symptom onset, proximal limb and truncal weakness, other connective tissue disease features such as Raynaud’s and arthritis, and the presence of lung disease, including interstitial lung disease or unexplained infiltrates, she said.

Features pointing away from a diagnosis of myositis include a family history of a similar illness, weakness that is associated with eating or fasting, neurologic signs, cranial nerve involvement, fasciculations, severe muscle cramping, early atrophy, and creatine phosphokinase levels that are either less than 2 times or more than 100 times the upper limit of normal.

Among the conditions to consider in the presence of the features that point away from a myositis diagnosis are muscular dystrophies, metabolic myopathies, and toxic (drug-induced) myopathies, to name a few, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

She described a number of other cases to illustrate the need for – and to help develop – a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with apparent myositis.
 

Muscular dystrophies

A 38-year-old woman with limited scleroderma and anti-PM/Scl autoantibodies developed proximal weakness over 9 months and was eventually unable to walk up a flight of stairs. She had heliotrope rash and Gottron’s sign, her serum CK was 723 IU/L, and EMG showed an irritable myopathy.

Muscle biopsy showed inflammation, and she was treated with prednisone, but this led to worsening weakness. She complained of prominent fatigue and double vision at the end of the day, and these symptoms did not improve with steroids.

Anti-AChR and anti-MuSK antibodies were negative, but she had a decrement on repetitive nerve stimulation testing.

She was treated with pyridostigmine and experienced near-complete resolution of her proximal weakness and double vision. A chest CT scan showed thymic hyperplasia; thymectomy was recommended.

In another case, a 19-year-old woman who complained of leg pain after exercise was found to have intact strength but asymmetric calf hypertrophy. Her CK level was 5,000 IU/L, and she was referred to rule out acute myositis.

A quadriceps biopsy was performed and showed abnormal dystrophin immunostaining but no inflammation. A molecular genetic analysis showed deletions in Xp21 and she was diagnosed as a manifesting carrier of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It was recommended that she be evaluated for cardiomyopathy and receive genetic counseling.

A number of other cases presented by Dr. Christopher-Stine highlighted other muscular dystrophies that can mimic myositis, such as:

• Myotonic dystrophies. These are more often type 2 than type 1. Myotonia may be subtle, cataracts are seen early in all patients, and cardiac arrhythmias are common.
• Limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2 B (dysferlinopathy). In the legs, this often affects the gastrocnemius muscle, and this will be visible on MRI. In the arms, it most often affects the biceps, sparing the deltoids. CKs are typically very high.
• Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). This involves facial weakness, especially obicularis oris, in 95% of cases, as well as scapular weakness and winging, inflammation on muscle biopsy in 75% of cases, and typically is endomysial or perivascular.

Metabolic myopathies

Among metabolic myopathies that can mimic myositis are disorders of carbohydrate metabolism such as McArdle’s disease, 6-phosphofructokinase deficiency, and Pompe’s disease (adult acid maltase deficiency); disorders of lipid metabolism such as carnitine deficiency and carnitine palmitoyltransferase 2 (CPT2) deficiency; and disorders of purine metabolism, such as myoadenylate deaminase deficiency.

A 27-year-old patient who complained of weakness with activity was referred for possible myositis and was found to have a CK of 3,650 IU/L that never normalized. Physical examination showed intact strength and no muscle atrophy or fasciculations, and an enzyme stain for myophosphorylase showed a normal staining pattern and complete absence of the enzyme on quadricep biopsy. A 22-year-old man with similar symptoms plus recent onset of brown/black urine after physical activity had CK of 110,000 IU/L when symptomatic, and also underwent biopsy after being referred for possible myopathy. Both patients were ultimately diagnosed with CPT2 deficiency, which is associated with risk of rhabdomyolysis triggered by prolonged exercise, diets low in carbohydrates and high in fat, or by fasting.

Myalgias are common, and CK levels are normal or only mildly elevated between episodes in CPT2 deficiency, Dr. Christopher-Stine noted.
 

Toxic myopathies

Drug-induced myopathies are among the most common etiologies of myopathy and can range from mild myalgia to massive rhabdomyolysis. They can cause mild to severe weakness and may be chronic. The mechanism of toxic injury is direct via myotoxins such as ethyl alcohol, glucocorticoids, lipid-lowering drugs, cocaine, antimalarial drugs, antipsychotic drugs, colchicine, and Ipecac syrup.

One case described by Dr. Christopher-Stine involved “statin myopathy.”

A 55-year-old man on atorvastatin complained of myalgias and brown urine, but had no definitive weakness. He had intact strength and diffuse myalgias that weren’t reproducible. His CK was 45,000 IU/L.

Statin myopathy, as seen in this patient, is usually self-limited and is not associated with autoimmunity or with anti-HMGCR autoantibody positivity.

The mechanism is unknown, but statin myopathy has an incidence of 1.2 per 10,000 patient-years. Myalgias, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, and asymptomatic hyperCKemia are commonly seen. This is in contrast to the immune-mediated necrotizing myelitis that can be secondary to statins and is responsive to immunosuppression, she noted.
 

Other myositis mimics

In addition to these common myositis mimics, certain other neurologic diseases (such as ALS and cervical myelopathy), endocrinopathies (such as hypothyroidism), and infections (like toxoplasmosis) can also be mistaken for myositis, Dr. Christopher-Stine said, noting that cases illustrating these mimics underscore the need for careful consideration of possible alternate diagnoses.

“While most noninflammatory myopathies are self-limited or have no therapies available, knowing the diagnosis can be helpful for genetic counseling of the patient and family, for mitigating risk factors, and for precluding the use of unwarranted immunosuppressive agents,” she said.

Dr. Christopher-Stine reported having intellectual property interest in a novel Inova Diagnostics autoantibody assay detection for anti-HMGCR. She was also the safety officer for the JBT-101 Trial sponsored by Corbus and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A number of conditions can mimic myositis, but clues that can point to the correct diagnosis are often present in cases involving the mimics, according to Lisa Christopher-Stine, MD.

For example, elevated levels of certain muscle enzymes are an important source of diagnostic information, Dr. Christopher-Stine, director of the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center, Baltimore, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

Isolated elevations in aldolase can be seen in connective tissue–associated interstitial lung disease or in patients with fascial edema, and aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and creatine kinase (CK) levels can also be helpful, she explained.

The latter can also be elevated in the absence of muscle disease, for example, in healthy individuals following exercise. CK peaks at 24 hours after exercise before returning to baseline by 72 hours. In an experimental setting, a threefold increase in CK levels has been seen at 8-24 hours after exercise, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.
 

“HyperCKemia”

Trauma from causes such as intramuscular injection, electromyography (EMG), major surgery, or biopsy can also lead to increased CK levels. Motor neuron disease can also cause such increases. In one study, 75% of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis had a mean twofold increase in CK levels, she said.

Asymptomatic CK elevations may also represent presymptomatic myopathies, type 1 or 2 macro-CK, manual labor occupations, or they may be idiopathic.

Race can play a role in CK levels as well. Black people tend to have higher CK levels than white people, she said, noting that one study of more than 10,000 adults showed that black race was strongly associated with CK, and that body composition largely explained differences in CK by age, but not by race/ethnicity (Medicine. Aug 2016;95[33]:e4344).

“So elevated CK may not herald any discernible illness,” she said.

Dr. Christopher-Stine described a case involving an otherwise healthy 30-year-old man with a CK level of 695 IU/L that was found incidentally. He had a desk job, no recent travel, and denied weakness, myalgias, joint pain, dysphagia, shortness of breath, and fevers. In this case, the elevated CK was felt to be secondary to his African American race given that other causes were ruled out.

Another case involved a 72-year-old man with left-arm pain. A cardiac event was ruled out, and CK was found to be about 4,500 IU/L. He reported “flare-ups” of diffuse swelling of the hands and feet. X-rays showed concerning signs of erosions. His transaminases and electromyogram were normal; he reported no weakness or myalgia; and an MRI showed no muscle edema. He was diagnosed with macro-CK, which refers to CK with an increased molecular weight. A clue to this diagnosis is a normal liver function test. In some cases, muscle/brain CK levels (CK-MB) are elevated and higher than total CK, she noted.

She presented an algorithm for the diagnostic work-up of patients presenting with elevated CK of unclear significance. Her recommended approach involves repeat CK assessment and a closer look at family history, medication, drug/toxin history, examination for weakness and neurologic abnormalities, and additional lab assessments in those whose levels remain elevated. In those in whom a diagnosis is not identified, the algorithm calls for observation every 3 months – including physical examination and labs – in asymptomatic patients with levels at less than five times the upper limit of normal, and further evaluation, including EMG with nerve-conduction velocity testing, muscle biopsy, and MRI in those with (or who later develop) marked elevation greater than five times the upper limit of normal and/or symptoms.
 

Patient assessment

The physical examination should involve localization and quantification of weakness, and assessment for fever, rash, atrophy/wasting/scooping of forearms, fasciculations, cranial nerve involvement, Raynaud’s phenomenon, nailfold capillary changes, arthritis, calcinosis, “mechanic’s hands,” signs of other autoimmune diseases, and lung crackles. Initial laboratory testing should include HIV and hepatitis B and C testing; measurement of CK, AST, ALT, aldolase, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and magnesium levels; a comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count; and measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein.

“Weakness may be secondary to a neuropathy, myopathy, or a problem at the neuropathic junction. Many causes of weakness can be readily identified by careful history taking, focused physical examination, and directed laboratory evaluation,” she said.

Features pointing toward a diagnosis of myositis include characteristic rashes, gradual symptom onset, proximal limb and truncal weakness, other connective tissue disease features such as Raynaud’s and arthritis, and the presence of lung disease, including interstitial lung disease or unexplained infiltrates, she said.

Features pointing away from a diagnosis of myositis include a family history of a similar illness, weakness that is associated with eating or fasting, neurologic signs, cranial nerve involvement, fasciculations, severe muscle cramping, early atrophy, and creatine phosphokinase levels that are either less than 2 times or more than 100 times the upper limit of normal.

Among the conditions to consider in the presence of the features that point away from a myositis diagnosis are muscular dystrophies, metabolic myopathies, and toxic (drug-induced) myopathies, to name a few, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

She described a number of other cases to illustrate the need for – and to help develop – a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with apparent myositis.
 

Muscular dystrophies

A 38-year-old woman with limited scleroderma and anti-PM/Scl autoantibodies developed proximal weakness over 9 months and was eventually unable to walk up a flight of stairs. She had heliotrope rash and Gottron’s sign, her serum CK was 723 IU/L, and EMG showed an irritable myopathy.

Muscle biopsy showed inflammation, and she was treated with prednisone, but this led to worsening weakness. She complained of prominent fatigue and double vision at the end of the day, and these symptoms did not improve with steroids.

Anti-AChR and anti-MuSK antibodies were negative, but she had a decrement on repetitive nerve stimulation testing.

She was treated with pyridostigmine and experienced near-complete resolution of her proximal weakness and double vision. A chest CT scan showed thymic hyperplasia; thymectomy was recommended.

In another case, a 19-year-old woman who complained of leg pain after exercise was found to have intact strength but asymmetric calf hypertrophy. Her CK level was 5,000 IU/L, and she was referred to rule out acute myositis.

A quadriceps biopsy was performed and showed abnormal dystrophin immunostaining but no inflammation. A molecular genetic analysis showed deletions in Xp21 and she was diagnosed as a manifesting carrier of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It was recommended that she be evaluated for cardiomyopathy and receive genetic counseling.

A number of other cases presented by Dr. Christopher-Stine highlighted other muscular dystrophies that can mimic myositis, such as:

• Myotonic dystrophies. These are more often type 2 than type 1. Myotonia may be subtle, cataracts are seen early in all patients, and cardiac arrhythmias are common.
• Limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2 B (dysferlinopathy). In the legs, this often affects the gastrocnemius muscle, and this will be visible on MRI. In the arms, it most often affects the biceps, sparing the deltoids. CKs are typically very high.
• Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). This involves facial weakness, especially obicularis oris, in 95% of cases, as well as scapular weakness and winging, inflammation on muscle biopsy in 75% of cases, and typically is endomysial or perivascular.

Metabolic myopathies

Among metabolic myopathies that can mimic myositis are disorders of carbohydrate metabolism such as McArdle’s disease, 6-phosphofructokinase deficiency, and Pompe’s disease (adult acid maltase deficiency); disorders of lipid metabolism such as carnitine deficiency and carnitine palmitoyltransferase 2 (CPT2) deficiency; and disorders of purine metabolism, such as myoadenylate deaminase deficiency.

A 27-year-old patient who complained of weakness with activity was referred for possible myositis and was found to have a CK of 3,650 IU/L that never normalized. Physical examination showed intact strength and no muscle atrophy or fasciculations, and an enzyme stain for myophosphorylase showed a normal staining pattern and complete absence of the enzyme on quadricep biopsy. A 22-year-old man with similar symptoms plus recent onset of brown/black urine after physical activity had CK of 110,000 IU/L when symptomatic, and also underwent biopsy after being referred for possible myopathy. Both patients were ultimately diagnosed with CPT2 deficiency, which is associated with risk of rhabdomyolysis triggered by prolonged exercise, diets low in carbohydrates and high in fat, or by fasting.

Myalgias are common, and CK levels are normal or only mildly elevated between episodes in CPT2 deficiency, Dr. Christopher-Stine noted.
 

Toxic myopathies

Drug-induced myopathies are among the most common etiologies of myopathy and can range from mild myalgia to massive rhabdomyolysis. They can cause mild to severe weakness and may be chronic. The mechanism of toxic injury is direct via myotoxins such as ethyl alcohol, glucocorticoids, lipid-lowering drugs, cocaine, antimalarial drugs, antipsychotic drugs, colchicine, and Ipecac syrup.

One case described by Dr. Christopher-Stine involved “statin myopathy.”

A 55-year-old man on atorvastatin complained of myalgias and brown urine, but had no definitive weakness. He had intact strength and diffuse myalgias that weren’t reproducible. His CK was 45,000 IU/L.

Statin myopathy, as seen in this patient, is usually self-limited and is not associated with autoimmunity or with anti-HMGCR autoantibody positivity.

The mechanism is unknown, but statin myopathy has an incidence of 1.2 per 10,000 patient-years. Myalgias, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, and asymptomatic hyperCKemia are commonly seen. This is in contrast to the immune-mediated necrotizing myelitis that can be secondary to statins and is responsive to immunosuppression, she noted.
 

Other myositis mimics

In addition to these common myositis mimics, certain other neurologic diseases (such as ALS and cervical myelopathy), endocrinopathies (such as hypothyroidism), and infections (like toxoplasmosis) can also be mistaken for myositis, Dr. Christopher-Stine said, noting that cases illustrating these mimics underscore the need for careful consideration of possible alternate diagnoses.

“While most noninflammatory myopathies are self-limited or have no therapies available, knowing the diagnosis can be helpful for genetic counseling of the patient and family, for mitigating risk factors, and for precluding the use of unwarranted immunosuppressive agents,” she said.

Dr. Christopher-Stine reported having intellectual property interest in a novel Inova Diagnostics autoantibody assay detection for anti-HMGCR. She was also the safety officer for the JBT-101 Trial sponsored by Corbus and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A number of conditions can mimic myositis, but clues that can point to the correct diagnosis are often present in cases involving the mimics, according to Lisa Christopher-Stine, MD.

For example, elevated levels of certain muscle enzymes are an important source of diagnostic information, Dr. Christopher-Stine, director of the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center, Baltimore, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

Isolated elevations in aldolase can be seen in connective tissue–associated interstitial lung disease or in patients with fascial edema, and aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and creatine kinase (CK) levels can also be helpful, she explained.

The latter can also be elevated in the absence of muscle disease, for example, in healthy individuals following exercise. CK peaks at 24 hours after exercise before returning to baseline by 72 hours. In an experimental setting, a threefold increase in CK levels has been seen at 8-24 hours after exercise, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.
 

“HyperCKemia”

Trauma from causes such as intramuscular injection, electromyography (EMG), major surgery, or biopsy can also lead to increased CK levels. Motor neuron disease can also cause such increases. In one study, 75% of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis had a mean twofold increase in CK levels, she said.

Asymptomatic CK elevations may also represent presymptomatic myopathies, type 1 or 2 macro-CK, manual labor occupations, or they may be idiopathic.

Race can play a role in CK levels as well. Black people tend to have higher CK levels than white people, she said, noting that one study of more than 10,000 adults showed that black race was strongly associated with CK, and that body composition largely explained differences in CK by age, but not by race/ethnicity (Medicine. Aug 2016;95[33]:e4344).

“So elevated CK may not herald any discernible illness,” she said.

Dr. Christopher-Stine described a case involving an otherwise healthy 30-year-old man with a CK level of 695 IU/L that was found incidentally. He had a desk job, no recent travel, and denied weakness, myalgias, joint pain, dysphagia, shortness of breath, and fevers. In this case, the elevated CK was felt to be secondary to his African American race given that other causes were ruled out.

Another case involved a 72-year-old man with left-arm pain. A cardiac event was ruled out, and CK was found to be about 4,500 IU/L. He reported “flare-ups” of diffuse swelling of the hands and feet. X-rays showed concerning signs of erosions. His transaminases and electromyogram were normal; he reported no weakness or myalgia; and an MRI showed no muscle edema. He was diagnosed with macro-CK, which refers to CK with an increased molecular weight. A clue to this diagnosis is a normal liver function test. In some cases, muscle/brain CK levels (CK-MB) are elevated and higher than total CK, she noted.

She presented an algorithm for the diagnostic work-up of patients presenting with elevated CK of unclear significance. Her recommended approach involves repeat CK assessment and a closer look at family history, medication, drug/toxin history, examination for weakness and neurologic abnormalities, and additional lab assessments in those whose levels remain elevated. In those in whom a diagnosis is not identified, the algorithm calls for observation every 3 months – including physical examination and labs – in asymptomatic patients with levels at less than five times the upper limit of normal, and further evaluation, including EMG with nerve-conduction velocity testing, muscle biopsy, and MRI in those with (or who later develop) marked elevation greater than five times the upper limit of normal and/or symptoms.
 

Patient assessment

The physical examination should involve localization and quantification of weakness, and assessment for fever, rash, atrophy/wasting/scooping of forearms, fasciculations, cranial nerve involvement, Raynaud’s phenomenon, nailfold capillary changes, arthritis, calcinosis, “mechanic’s hands,” signs of other autoimmune diseases, and lung crackles. Initial laboratory testing should include HIV and hepatitis B and C testing; measurement of CK, AST, ALT, aldolase, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and magnesium levels; a comprehensive metabolic panel and complete blood count; and measurement of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein.

“Weakness may be secondary to a neuropathy, myopathy, or a problem at the neuropathic junction. Many causes of weakness can be readily identified by careful history taking, focused physical examination, and directed laboratory evaluation,” she said.

Features pointing toward a diagnosis of myositis include characteristic rashes, gradual symptom onset, proximal limb and truncal weakness, other connective tissue disease features such as Raynaud’s and arthritis, and the presence of lung disease, including interstitial lung disease or unexplained infiltrates, she said.

Features pointing away from a diagnosis of myositis include a family history of a similar illness, weakness that is associated with eating or fasting, neurologic signs, cranial nerve involvement, fasciculations, severe muscle cramping, early atrophy, and creatine phosphokinase levels that are either less than 2 times or more than 100 times the upper limit of normal.

Among the conditions to consider in the presence of the features that point away from a myositis diagnosis are muscular dystrophies, metabolic myopathies, and toxic (drug-induced) myopathies, to name a few, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

She described a number of other cases to illustrate the need for – and to help develop – a differential diagnosis in patients presenting with apparent myositis.
 

Muscular dystrophies

A 38-year-old woman with limited scleroderma and anti-PM/Scl autoantibodies developed proximal weakness over 9 months and was eventually unable to walk up a flight of stairs. She had heliotrope rash and Gottron’s sign, her serum CK was 723 IU/L, and EMG showed an irritable myopathy.

Muscle biopsy showed inflammation, and she was treated with prednisone, but this led to worsening weakness. She complained of prominent fatigue and double vision at the end of the day, and these symptoms did not improve with steroids.

Anti-AChR and anti-MuSK antibodies were negative, but she had a decrement on repetitive nerve stimulation testing.

She was treated with pyridostigmine and experienced near-complete resolution of her proximal weakness and double vision. A chest CT scan showed thymic hyperplasia; thymectomy was recommended.

In another case, a 19-year-old woman who complained of leg pain after exercise was found to have intact strength but asymmetric calf hypertrophy. Her CK level was 5,000 IU/L, and she was referred to rule out acute myositis.

A quadriceps biopsy was performed and showed abnormal dystrophin immunostaining but no inflammation. A molecular genetic analysis showed deletions in Xp21 and she was diagnosed as a manifesting carrier of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It was recommended that she be evaluated for cardiomyopathy and receive genetic counseling.

A number of other cases presented by Dr. Christopher-Stine highlighted other muscular dystrophies that can mimic myositis, such as:

• Myotonic dystrophies. These are more often type 2 than type 1. Myotonia may be subtle, cataracts are seen early in all patients, and cardiac arrhythmias are common.
• Limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2 B (dysferlinopathy). In the legs, this often affects the gastrocnemius muscle, and this will be visible on MRI. In the arms, it most often affects the biceps, sparing the deltoids. CKs are typically very high.
• Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). This involves facial weakness, especially obicularis oris, in 95% of cases, as well as scapular weakness and winging, inflammation on muscle biopsy in 75% of cases, and typically is endomysial or perivascular.

Metabolic myopathies

Among metabolic myopathies that can mimic myositis are disorders of carbohydrate metabolism such as McArdle’s disease, 6-phosphofructokinase deficiency, and Pompe’s disease (adult acid maltase deficiency); disorders of lipid metabolism such as carnitine deficiency and carnitine palmitoyltransferase 2 (CPT2) deficiency; and disorders of purine metabolism, such as myoadenylate deaminase deficiency.

A 27-year-old patient who complained of weakness with activity was referred for possible myositis and was found to have a CK of 3,650 IU/L that never normalized. Physical examination showed intact strength and no muscle atrophy or fasciculations, and an enzyme stain for myophosphorylase showed a normal staining pattern and complete absence of the enzyme on quadricep biopsy. A 22-year-old man with similar symptoms plus recent onset of brown/black urine after physical activity had CK of 110,000 IU/L when symptomatic, and also underwent biopsy after being referred for possible myopathy. Both patients were ultimately diagnosed with CPT2 deficiency, which is associated with risk of rhabdomyolysis triggered by prolonged exercise, diets low in carbohydrates and high in fat, or by fasting.

Myalgias are common, and CK levels are normal or only mildly elevated between episodes in CPT2 deficiency, Dr. Christopher-Stine noted.
 

Toxic myopathies

Drug-induced myopathies are among the most common etiologies of myopathy and can range from mild myalgia to massive rhabdomyolysis. They can cause mild to severe weakness and may be chronic. The mechanism of toxic injury is direct via myotoxins such as ethyl alcohol, glucocorticoids, lipid-lowering drugs, cocaine, antimalarial drugs, antipsychotic drugs, colchicine, and Ipecac syrup.

One case described by Dr. Christopher-Stine involved “statin myopathy.”

A 55-year-old man on atorvastatin complained of myalgias and brown urine, but had no definitive weakness. He had intact strength and diffuse myalgias that weren’t reproducible. His CK was 45,000 IU/L.

Statin myopathy, as seen in this patient, is usually self-limited and is not associated with autoimmunity or with anti-HMGCR autoantibody positivity.

The mechanism is unknown, but statin myopathy has an incidence of 1.2 per 10,000 patient-years. Myalgias, myositis, rhabdomyolysis, and asymptomatic hyperCKemia are commonly seen. This is in contrast to the immune-mediated necrotizing myelitis that can be secondary to statins and is responsive to immunosuppression, she noted.
 

Other myositis mimics

In addition to these common myositis mimics, certain other neurologic diseases (such as ALS and cervical myelopathy), endocrinopathies (such as hypothyroidism), and infections (like toxoplasmosis) can also be mistaken for myositis, Dr. Christopher-Stine said, noting that cases illustrating these mimics underscore the need for careful consideration of possible alternate diagnoses.

“While most noninflammatory myopathies are self-limited or have no therapies available, knowing the diagnosis can be helpful for genetic counseling of the patient and family, for mitigating risk factors, and for precluding the use of unwarranted immunosuppressive agents,” she said.

Dr. Christopher-Stine reported having intellectual property interest in a novel Inova Diagnostics autoantibody assay detection for anti-HMGCR. She was also the safety officer for the JBT-101 Trial sponsored by Corbus and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A variety of trials, some recent and some a decade old, have highlighted the role of inflammation on cardiovascular disease risk in both patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis, spurring greater interest in alleviating inflammation across a wide range of patients, Jon T. Giles, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

However, questions remain about the unique contributions of inflammation to CVD risk in RA patients and the effect of RA treatments on that risk, which future studies hope to answer.
 

Hints of inflammation’s effects in non-RA patients

The JUPITER trial published more than a decade ago, for example, tested the effects of statins in nearly 18,000 older adults without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had elevated levels of inflammation, defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of greater than 2 mg/L and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol less than 130 mg/dL. Such patients would otherwise be considered low risk and not eligible for statin therapy, said Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York.

A marked decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events was seen in those treated with statins, compared with those who received placebo, and all patient subgroups benefited; the number needed to treat to prevent one event was 32 at 5 years (N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195-207).

The trial was remarkable in that it was stopped early for efficacy, he noted.

“So the question is: Should we be thinking about systemic inflammation as the real target here? And should RA patients who have elevated persistent levels of CRP really be the people that we’re thinking about?” he asked. “Obviously this needs to be tested; we don’t know.”

The more recent CANTOS trial looking at secondary CVD prevention in more than 10,000 non-RA patients with a prior myocardial infarction also highlighted the role of inflammation and provided “some support that decreasing inflammatory cytokines may be important for reducing [CVD] events,” he said (N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1119-31).

Participants were treated with the interleukin-1 inhibitor canakinumab (Ilaris) or placebo, and canakinumab was associated with about a 15% reduction in CVD events, providing “more proof of concept to look at the inflammatory innate immune contribution to CVD risk,” Dr. Giles said.

Treated patients had more infections, but they also had less gout, less arthritis, and less cancer than did those who received placebo, he noted.
 

Effect of RA treatments on CVD risk

The effects of existing treatments for RA also highlight the importance of inflammation in CVD risk in RA patients, he said, noting that data support a role for immunomodulators for risk reduction.

“There’s a lot of observational epidemiology in this space – mostly for methotrexate and [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)] inhibitors,” he said.

One analysis showed that across 8 cohort studies involving methotrexate, the disease-modifying antirheumatic agent reduced the risk of CVD events by 28%, and that across 16 cohort studies, TNF inhibitors reduced the risk by 30% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74[3]:480-9).

All of the methotrexate studies showed a reduction, and almost all of the TNF inhibitor trials showed a reduction, Dr. Giles noted.

With respect to other non-TNF biologics, claims data suggest that abatacept (Orencia) is similar to the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) with respect to CVD risk, and in a head-to-head, randomized clinical trial of more than 3,000 RA patients presented as a late-breaking abstract at the ACR annual meeting in 2016, Dr. Giles and his colleagues found similar cardiovascular safety between the anti-IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab (Actemra) and etanercept.

“I think we’ll know more about this in the near future,” he said.

As for the mechanisms of these agents, early data and animal models suggest that abatacept may play “a special role” in atherosclerosis reduction related to its effects on T cell CTLA-4 over-expression, and methotrexate also seems to have a number of “potential mechanistic benefits” that render it atheroprotective, he said.

The disappointing findings from the recently reported CIRT trial, which showed no benefit of methotrexate for secondary CVD prevention in non-RA patients (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:752-62), has dampened enthusiasm regarding methotrexate’s role here, but it is important to note that patients enrolled in CIRT, unlike those in JUPITER and CANTOS, were not enrolled based on elevated levels of CRP, Dr. Giles said.

Various studies of TNF inhibitors have shown atheroprotective effects through reductions in macrophage-derived inflammatory cytokines, downregulation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells, improving the function of high-density lipoprotein, stabilizing atherosclerotic plaque remodeling, and reducing procoagulant states.
 

The TARGET trial

In a recent study of 17 patients with RA, Dr. Giles and his colleagues showed that TNF inhibitor therapy with either adalimumab (Humira) or etanercept significantly reduced aortic inflammation as measured by baseline and 8-week fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT.

“Is this proof that this helps? It’s not proof; there’s no control group, we don’t know that this is not the natural progression of vascular inflammation in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings were suggestive enough to prompt the launch of the TARGET trial, which is now enrolling patients at centers in the United States and Canada, Dr. Giles said.

The TARGET trial is a project involving his team at Columbia University along with researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. They plan to enroll 200 RA patients without CVD who have an inadequate response to methotrexate. Participants will be randomized to receive an added TNF inhibitor or added triple therapy, and the primary outcome will be changes in inflammation in the aortic and carotid arteries on FDG PET-CT at 6 months versus baseline.

“So stay tuned and hopefully we’ll have some good information about the effect of two different types of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis on vascular inflammation,” Dr. Giles said.

A final question he addressed is whether the RA-CVD risk link is really a problem that has already been solved – one that “we’re just learning about after the fact.”

“The answer is partially yes and partially no,” he said.

The most up-to-date estimate of whether RA patients have a problem with CVD comes from a Swedish population-based study of more than 15,700 RA patients and nearly 70,900 comparators, which was published in 2018 and showed across-the-board declines in CVD rates over time.

RA and non-RA patients experienced an overall 40% reduction in acute coronary syndromes between 1997 and 2014, but the relative difference in event rates between the groups persisted (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1642-7).

“There is still a gap ... so we haven’t answered this question yet,” he said, adding that “the rates have been reduced, but we want those rates to be equal or maybe even less.

“Why can’t RA patients have less cardiovascular disease if we’re using drugs that are so effective for treating the inflammatory component of atherogenesis?” he asked.

The authors of the study noted that most RA patients in Sweden are in low disease activity by 3-6 months, so they were “a little confounded by why there is no equalization of these rates as of yet,” he said.

“I think we still have more to learn about this problem, and it is still a problem in our patients,” Dr. Giles said.

Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A variety of trials, some recent and some a decade old, have highlighted the role of inflammation on cardiovascular disease risk in both patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis, spurring greater interest in alleviating inflammation across a wide range of patients, Jon T. Giles, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

However, questions remain about the unique contributions of inflammation to CVD risk in RA patients and the effect of RA treatments on that risk, which future studies hope to answer.
 

Hints of inflammation’s effects in non-RA patients

The JUPITER trial published more than a decade ago, for example, tested the effects of statins in nearly 18,000 older adults without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had elevated levels of inflammation, defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of greater than 2 mg/L and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol less than 130 mg/dL. Such patients would otherwise be considered low risk and not eligible for statin therapy, said Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York.

A marked decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events was seen in those treated with statins, compared with those who received placebo, and all patient subgroups benefited; the number needed to treat to prevent one event was 32 at 5 years (N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195-207).

The trial was remarkable in that it was stopped early for efficacy, he noted.

“So the question is: Should we be thinking about systemic inflammation as the real target here? And should RA patients who have elevated persistent levels of CRP really be the people that we’re thinking about?” he asked. “Obviously this needs to be tested; we don’t know.”

The more recent CANTOS trial looking at secondary CVD prevention in more than 10,000 non-RA patients with a prior myocardial infarction also highlighted the role of inflammation and provided “some support that decreasing inflammatory cytokines may be important for reducing [CVD] events,” he said (N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1119-31).

Participants were treated with the interleukin-1 inhibitor canakinumab (Ilaris) or placebo, and canakinumab was associated with about a 15% reduction in CVD events, providing “more proof of concept to look at the inflammatory innate immune contribution to CVD risk,” Dr. Giles said.

Treated patients had more infections, but they also had less gout, less arthritis, and less cancer than did those who received placebo, he noted.
 

Effect of RA treatments on CVD risk

The effects of existing treatments for RA also highlight the importance of inflammation in CVD risk in RA patients, he said, noting that data support a role for immunomodulators for risk reduction.

“There’s a lot of observational epidemiology in this space – mostly for methotrexate and [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)] inhibitors,” he said.

One analysis showed that across 8 cohort studies involving methotrexate, the disease-modifying antirheumatic agent reduced the risk of CVD events by 28%, and that across 16 cohort studies, TNF inhibitors reduced the risk by 30% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74[3]:480-9).

All of the methotrexate studies showed a reduction, and almost all of the TNF inhibitor trials showed a reduction, Dr. Giles noted.

With respect to other non-TNF biologics, claims data suggest that abatacept (Orencia) is similar to the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) with respect to CVD risk, and in a head-to-head, randomized clinical trial of more than 3,000 RA patients presented as a late-breaking abstract at the ACR annual meeting in 2016, Dr. Giles and his colleagues found similar cardiovascular safety between the anti-IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab (Actemra) and etanercept.

“I think we’ll know more about this in the near future,” he said.

As for the mechanisms of these agents, early data and animal models suggest that abatacept may play “a special role” in atherosclerosis reduction related to its effects on T cell CTLA-4 over-expression, and methotrexate also seems to have a number of “potential mechanistic benefits” that render it atheroprotective, he said.

The disappointing findings from the recently reported CIRT trial, which showed no benefit of methotrexate for secondary CVD prevention in non-RA patients (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:752-62), has dampened enthusiasm regarding methotrexate’s role here, but it is important to note that patients enrolled in CIRT, unlike those in JUPITER and CANTOS, were not enrolled based on elevated levels of CRP, Dr. Giles said.

Various studies of TNF inhibitors have shown atheroprotective effects through reductions in macrophage-derived inflammatory cytokines, downregulation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells, improving the function of high-density lipoprotein, stabilizing atherosclerotic plaque remodeling, and reducing procoagulant states.
 

The TARGET trial

In a recent study of 17 patients with RA, Dr. Giles and his colleagues showed that TNF inhibitor therapy with either adalimumab (Humira) or etanercept significantly reduced aortic inflammation as measured by baseline and 8-week fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT.

“Is this proof that this helps? It’s not proof; there’s no control group, we don’t know that this is not the natural progression of vascular inflammation in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings were suggestive enough to prompt the launch of the TARGET trial, which is now enrolling patients at centers in the United States and Canada, Dr. Giles said.

The TARGET trial is a project involving his team at Columbia University along with researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. They plan to enroll 200 RA patients without CVD who have an inadequate response to methotrexate. Participants will be randomized to receive an added TNF inhibitor or added triple therapy, and the primary outcome will be changes in inflammation in the aortic and carotid arteries on FDG PET-CT at 6 months versus baseline.

“So stay tuned and hopefully we’ll have some good information about the effect of two different types of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis on vascular inflammation,” Dr. Giles said.

A final question he addressed is whether the RA-CVD risk link is really a problem that has already been solved – one that “we’re just learning about after the fact.”

“The answer is partially yes and partially no,” he said.

The most up-to-date estimate of whether RA patients have a problem with CVD comes from a Swedish population-based study of more than 15,700 RA patients and nearly 70,900 comparators, which was published in 2018 and showed across-the-board declines in CVD rates over time.

RA and non-RA patients experienced an overall 40% reduction in acute coronary syndromes between 1997 and 2014, but the relative difference in event rates between the groups persisted (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1642-7).

“There is still a gap ... so we haven’t answered this question yet,” he said, adding that “the rates have been reduced, but we want those rates to be equal or maybe even less.

“Why can’t RA patients have less cardiovascular disease if we’re using drugs that are so effective for treating the inflammatory component of atherogenesis?” he asked.

The authors of the study noted that most RA patients in Sweden are in low disease activity by 3-6 months, so they were “a little confounded by why there is no equalization of these rates as of yet,” he said.

“I think we still have more to learn about this problem, and it is still a problem in our patients,” Dr. Giles said.

Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A variety of trials, some recent and some a decade old, have highlighted the role of inflammation on cardiovascular disease risk in both patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis, spurring greater interest in alleviating inflammation across a wide range of patients, Jon T. Giles, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

However, questions remain about the unique contributions of inflammation to CVD risk in RA patients and the effect of RA treatments on that risk, which future studies hope to answer.
 

Hints of inflammation’s effects in non-RA patients

The JUPITER trial published more than a decade ago, for example, tested the effects of statins in nearly 18,000 older adults without rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had elevated levels of inflammation, defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of greater than 2 mg/L and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol less than 130 mg/dL. Such patients would otherwise be considered low risk and not eligible for statin therapy, said Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York.

A marked decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events was seen in those treated with statins, compared with those who received placebo, and all patient subgroups benefited; the number needed to treat to prevent one event was 32 at 5 years (N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195-207).

The trial was remarkable in that it was stopped early for efficacy, he noted.

“So the question is: Should we be thinking about systemic inflammation as the real target here? And should RA patients who have elevated persistent levels of CRP really be the people that we’re thinking about?” he asked. “Obviously this needs to be tested; we don’t know.”

The more recent CANTOS trial looking at secondary CVD prevention in more than 10,000 non-RA patients with a prior myocardial infarction also highlighted the role of inflammation and provided “some support that decreasing inflammatory cytokines may be important for reducing [CVD] events,” he said (N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1119-31).

Participants were treated with the interleukin-1 inhibitor canakinumab (Ilaris) or placebo, and canakinumab was associated with about a 15% reduction in CVD events, providing “more proof of concept to look at the inflammatory innate immune contribution to CVD risk,” Dr. Giles said.

Treated patients had more infections, but they also had less gout, less arthritis, and less cancer than did those who received placebo, he noted.
 

Effect of RA treatments on CVD risk

The effects of existing treatments for RA also highlight the importance of inflammation in CVD risk in RA patients, he said, noting that data support a role for immunomodulators for risk reduction.

“There’s a lot of observational epidemiology in this space – mostly for methotrexate and [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)] inhibitors,” he said.

One analysis showed that across 8 cohort studies involving methotrexate, the disease-modifying antirheumatic agent reduced the risk of CVD events by 28%, and that across 16 cohort studies, TNF inhibitors reduced the risk by 30% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74[3]:480-9).

All of the methotrexate studies showed a reduction, and almost all of the TNF inhibitor trials showed a reduction, Dr. Giles noted.

With respect to other non-TNF biologics, claims data suggest that abatacept (Orencia) is similar to the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) with respect to CVD risk, and in a head-to-head, randomized clinical trial of more than 3,000 RA patients presented as a late-breaking abstract at the ACR annual meeting in 2016, Dr. Giles and his colleagues found similar cardiovascular safety between the anti-IL-6 receptor blocker tocilizumab (Actemra) and etanercept.

“I think we’ll know more about this in the near future,” he said.

As for the mechanisms of these agents, early data and animal models suggest that abatacept may play “a special role” in atherosclerosis reduction related to its effects on T cell CTLA-4 over-expression, and methotrexate also seems to have a number of “potential mechanistic benefits” that render it atheroprotective, he said.

The disappointing findings from the recently reported CIRT trial, which showed no benefit of methotrexate for secondary CVD prevention in non-RA patients (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:752-62), has dampened enthusiasm regarding methotrexate’s role here, but it is important to note that patients enrolled in CIRT, unlike those in JUPITER and CANTOS, were not enrolled based on elevated levels of CRP, Dr. Giles said.

Various studies of TNF inhibitors have shown atheroprotective effects through reductions in macrophage-derived inflammatory cytokines, downregulation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells, improving the function of high-density lipoprotein, stabilizing atherosclerotic plaque remodeling, and reducing procoagulant states.
 

The TARGET trial

In a recent study of 17 patients with RA, Dr. Giles and his colleagues showed that TNF inhibitor therapy with either adalimumab (Humira) or etanercept significantly reduced aortic inflammation as measured by baseline and 8-week fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT.

“Is this proof that this helps? It’s not proof; there’s no control group, we don’t know that this is not the natural progression of vascular inflammation in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings were suggestive enough to prompt the launch of the TARGET trial, which is now enrolling patients at centers in the United States and Canada, Dr. Giles said.

The TARGET trial is a project involving his team at Columbia University along with researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. They plan to enroll 200 RA patients without CVD who have an inadequate response to methotrexate. Participants will be randomized to receive an added TNF inhibitor or added triple therapy, and the primary outcome will be changes in inflammation in the aortic and carotid arteries on FDG PET-CT at 6 months versus baseline.

“So stay tuned and hopefully we’ll have some good information about the effect of two different types of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis on vascular inflammation,” Dr. Giles said.

A final question he addressed is whether the RA-CVD risk link is really a problem that has already been solved – one that “we’re just learning about after the fact.”

“The answer is partially yes and partially no,” he said.

The most up-to-date estimate of whether RA patients have a problem with CVD comes from a Swedish population-based study of more than 15,700 RA patients and nearly 70,900 comparators, which was published in 2018 and showed across-the-board declines in CVD rates over time.

RA and non-RA patients experienced an overall 40% reduction in acute coronary syndromes between 1997 and 2014, but the relative difference in event rates between the groups persisted (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1642-7).

“There is still a gap ... so we haven’t answered this question yet,” he said, adding that “the rates have been reduced, but we want those rates to be equal or maybe even less.

“Why can’t RA patients have less cardiovascular disease if we’re using drugs that are so effective for treating the inflammatory component of atherogenesis?” he asked.

The authors of the study noted that most RA patients in Sweden are in low disease activity by 3-6 months, so they were “a little confounded by why there is no equalization of these rates as of yet,” he said.

“I think we still have more to learn about this problem, and it is still a problem in our patients,” Dr. Giles said.

Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.

sworcester@mdedge.com

True polymyositis is rare, so it’s important to carefully consider other likely diagnoses, according to Lisa Christopher-Stine, MD.

“When someone refers you [a patient with suspected] polymyositis, I want you to do a checklist in your head and say, ‘Have I thought about these five things?’ ” Dr. Christopher-Stine, director of the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center, Baltimore, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

The five most common diagnoses in patients labeled as having polymyositis are immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), overlap with other rheumatologic conditions, antisynthetase syndrome, inclusion body myositis (IBM), and muscular dystrophy, she explained.

“You may say, ‘look, it’s all what you call it,’ but I think we need to be a little bit more careful in what we call it,” she said.

IMNM

Patients with IMNM present with clinical symptoms similar to those seen in polymyositis and dermatomyositis – mainly proximal muscle weakness.

However, there are some important differences, both clinically and histologically, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

“Look for higher [creatine kinase (CK)] levels,” she said. “In the thousands, usually multiple thousands ... like 5,000, 10,000, 2,000 ... that’s when you’re thinking about a necrotizing phenotype before you even look at the biopsy.”

CK levels will usually be under 30,000 U/L in IMNM, she noted, adding that data increasingly suggest that the extensive muscle necrosis in IMNM explains the elevated CK levels versus those seen in other myopathies.

Myalgias also tend to be more prominent in IMNM than in polymyositis.

“These folks hurt,” she said, noting that IMNM patients tend to have more extensive muscle atrophy and functional disability. “Many will be wheelchair bound within 9 months of diagnosis; it’s not subtle.”

The most important tool for making an IMNM diagnosis is muscle biopsy; look for prominent myocyte necrosis and a relative paucity of lymphocytes, she advised.

Overlap

Sometimes patients with polymyositis also have other rheumatologic conditions that shouldn’t be overlooked, therefore “overlap is its own category,” she said.

“In our experience, the most common overlap is scleroderma,” she noted, adding that the scleroderma is often, but not always, subtle, and that there may be overlapping autoantibodies.

Overt sclerodactyly is rarely seen, although a small amount may be present, but significant Raynaud’s phenomenon is common in these patients, and tiny telangiectasias across the neck are a tell-tale sign.

“Why does that matter? It’s not an esoteric argument; those are the folks that go on to have pulmonary hypertension,” she said. “They can have the same [interstitial lung disease] and all of the other internal scleroderma manifestations.”

Think about overlap and “look close phenotypically and with antibodies,” she advised.

There is also “the typical RA seropositive overlap,” she said, but lupus only rarely overlaps with myositis.

“However, the next diagnosis on the list – antisynthetase syndrome – can be a forme fruste where you first see a seronegative RA-like picture, and it’s important to think about that as well,” she said.

Antisynthetase syndrome

In patients referred for polymyositis, it’s also important to evaluate for antisynthetase syndrome, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

The arthritis seen in the extramuscular phenotype of the syndrome is rarely deforming, but despite what many physicians were taught, “it absolutely can be erosive,” she said.

In fact, 40% of people with this syndrome present with an isolated forme fruste seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, she said.

Roughening and desquamation of the skin on the radial surface of fingers or palms – a sign known as mechanic’s hands – that doesn’t have another identifiable cause suggests this diagnosis in patients with this type of arthritis, as does interstitial lung disease and Raynaud’s phenomenon.

The Raynaud’s can be “fairly significant in the sense that it is bothersome,” but it usually doesn’t lead to ulceration or digital necrosis.

This is different from what is seen with the scleroderma phenotype, she said, adding that “if you’re starting to see gangrene and digital loss, think of something else.”

IBM

IBM is “probably the No. 1 most-missed diagnosis” among patients referred for what is initially believed to be polymyositis, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

“I used to think that this was missed at entry, that everybody [with IBM] had all of these criteria and that rheumatologists really didn’t understand this phenotype ... but some people morph into this,” she said, explaining that they often start out looking like they have polymyositis with proximal muscle weakness.

“They may even initially respond to steroids. And then they get this phenotype,” she said.

Older men are more likely to present with the phenotype from the beginning; women, in her experience, tend to present with what appears to be polymyositis, and then develop the phenotype over time, she noted.

An IBM diagnosis requires age over 30 years, but most patients are over 50, she said.

“This is the only one of the myopathies that is preferential to men,” she added, noting that it affects men twice as often as it does women.

The syndrome is characterized by proximal strength loss and muscle atrophy. Also, a finding that a patient’s knee extensors are weaker than their hip flexors is “a fantastic bedside sign” differentiating IBM from polymyositis, she said.

That’s not to say IBM patients don’t have hip flexor weakness, but their knee extensors usually are “considerably weaker by a grade strength or more” versus their hip flexors, she explained.

“It’s a very easy bedside test. In typical other myopathies we have this, but the knee extensors aren’t that weak in general, or they’re not as weak as the hip flexors,” she added.

Another sign is distal strength loss, particularly in the forearm and finger flexors.

“I was taught to have them make a fist; don’t have them make a fist,” she said, explaining that this recruits intrinsic muscles which basically allows cheating that may mask weakness.

Instead, ask them to flex just their distal interphalangeal joints by making a claw and using the fingers to pull against your fingers, she suggested.

Mixed myopathic and neuropathic features on electromyography also indicate IBM, she said.

Muscle biopsy may be helpful, but inclusions are seen in less than one-third of IBM patients.

“At times, we have had to biopsy three times to see them at all, and some people never show them, so you have to rely on your clinical acumen if you don’t see them,” she said.

Also, keep in mind that these patients are often labeled as having treatment-resistant polymyositis.

“Please, when somebody refers to you somebody that’s treatment resistant, that may be the case, but I want you to think maybe they’re treatment resistant because they don’t have that disease.”
 

Muscular dystrophy

Some cases of myositis mimic certain types of muscular dystrophy, Dr. Christopher-Stine said, providing a checklist of muscular dystrophies that can look “clinically completely indistinguishable from a typical inflammatory myopathy,” and should therefore be considered in these patients.

The checklist includes Duchenne’s manifesting carrier, limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2b, myotonic dystrophy (usually type 2), and facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Christopher-Stine reported having intellectual property interest in a novel Inova Diagnostics autoantibody assay detection for anti-HMGCR. She was also the safety officer for the JBT-101 Trial sponsored by Corbus and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

sworcester@mdedge.com

True polymyositis is rare, so it’s important to carefully consider other likely diagnoses, according to Lisa Christopher-Stine, MD.

“When someone refers you [a patient with suspected] polymyositis, I want you to do a checklist in your head and say, ‘Have I thought about these five things?’ ” Dr. Christopher-Stine, director of the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center, Baltimore, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

The five most common diagnoses in patients labeled as having polymyositis are immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), overlap with other rheumatologic conditions, antisynthetase syndrome, inclusion body myositis (IBM), and muscular dystrophy, she explained.

“You may say, ‘look, it’s all what you call it,’ but I think we need to be a little bit more careful in what we call it,” she said.

IMNM

Patients with IMNM present with clinical symptoms similar to those seen in polymyositis and dermatomyositis – mainly proximal muscle weakness.

However, there are some important differences, both clinically and histologically, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

“Look for higher [creatine kinase (CK)] levels,” she said. “In the thousands, usually multiple thousands ... like 5,000, 10,000, 2,000 ... that’s when you’re thinking about a necrotizing phenotype before you even look at the biopsy.”

CK levels will usually be under 30,000 U/L in IMNM, she noted, adding that data increasingly suggest that the extensive muscle necrosis in IMNM explains the elevated CK levels versus those seen in other myopathies.

Myalgias also tend to be more prominent in IMNM than in polymyositis.

“These folks hurt,” she said, noting that IMNM patients tend to have more extensive muscle atrophy and functional disability. “Many will be wheelchair bound within 9 months of diagnosis; it’s not subtle.”

The most important tool for making an IMNM diagnosis is muscle biopsy; look for prominent myocyte necrosis and a relative paucity of lymphocytes, she advised.

Overlap

Sometimes patients with polymyositis also have other rheumatologic conditions that shouldn’t be overlooked, therefore “overlap is its own category,” she said.

“In our experience, the most common overlap is scleroderma,” she noted, adding that the scleroderma is often, but not always, subtle, and that there may be overlapping autoantibodies.

Overt sclerodactyly is rarely seen, although a small amount may be present, but significant Raynaud’s phenomenon is common in these patients, and tiny telangiectasias across the neck are a tell-tale sign.

“Why does that matter? It’s not an esoteric argument; those are the folks that go on to have pulmonary hypertension,” she said. “They can have the same [interstitial lung disease] and all of the other internal scleroderma manifestations.”

Think about overlap and “look close phenotypically and with antibodies,” she advised.

There is also “the typical RA seropositive overlap,” she said, but lupus only rarely overlaps with myositis.

“However, the next diagnosis on the list – antisynthetase syndrome – can be a forme fruste where you first see a seronegative RA-like picture, and it’s important to think about that as well,” she said.

Antisynthetase syndrome

In patients referred for polymyositis, it’s also important to evaluate for antisynthetase syndrome, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

The arthritis seen in the extramuscular phenotype of the syndrome is rarely deforming, but despite what many physicians were taught, “it absolutely can be erosive,” she said.

In fact, 40% of people with this syndrome present with an isolated forme fruste seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, she said.

Roughening and desquamation of the skin on the radial surface of fingers or palms – a sign known as mechanic’s hands – that doesn’t have another identifiable cause suggests this diagnosis in patients with this type of arthritis, as does interstitial lung disease and Raynaud’s phenomenon.

The Raynaud’s can be “fairly significant in the sense that it is bothersome,” but it usually doesn’t lead to ulceration or digital necrosis.

This is different from what is seen with the scleroderma phenotype, she said, adding that “if you’re starting to see gangrene and digital loss, think of something else.”

IBM

IBM is “probably the No. 1 most-missed diagnosis” among patients referred for what is initially believed to be polymyositis, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

“I used to think that this was missed at entry, that everybody [with IBM] had all of these criteria and that rheumatologists really didn’t understand this phenotype ... but some people morph into this,” she said, explaining that they often start out looking like they have polymyositis with proximal muscle weakness.

“They may even initially respond to steroids. And then they get this phenotype,” she said.

Older men are more likely to present with the phenotype from the beginning; women, in her experience, tend to present with what appears to be polymyositis, and then develop the phenotype over time, she noted.

An IBM diagnosis requires age over 30 years, but most patients are over 50, she said.

“This is the only one of the myopathies that is preferential to men,” she added, noting that it affects men twice as often as it does women.

The syndrome is characterized by proximal strength loss and muscle atrophy. Also, a finding that a patient’s knee extensors are weaker than their hip flexors is “a fantastic bedside sign” differentiating IBM from polymyositis, she said.

That’s not to say IBM patients don’t have hip flexor weakness, but their knee extensors usually are “considerably weaker by a grade strength or more” versus their hip flexors, she explained.

“It’s a very easy bedside test. In typical other myopathies we have this, but the knee extensors aren’t that weak in general, or they’re not as weak as the hip flexors,” she added.

Another sign is distal strength loss, particularly in the forearm and finger flexors.

“I was taught to have them make a fist; don’t have them make a fist,” she said, explaining that this recruits intrinsic muscles which basically allows cheating that may mask weakness.

Instead, ask them to flex just their distal interphalangeal joints by making a claw and using the fingers to pull against your fingers, she suggested.

Mixed myopathic and neuropathic features on electromyography also indicate IBM, she said.

Muscle biopsy may be helpful, but inclusions are seen in less than one-third of IBM patients.

“At times, we have had to biopsy three times to see them at all, and some people never show them, so you have to rely on your clinical acumen if you don’t see them,” she said.

Also, keep in mind that these patients are often labeled as having treatment-resistant polymyositis.

“Please, when somebody refers to you somebody that’s treatment resistant, that may be the case, but I want you to think maybe they’re treatment resistant because they don’t have that disease.”
 

Muscular dystrophy

Some cases of myositis mimic certain types of muscular dystrophy, Dr. Christopher-Stine said, providing a checklist of muscular dystrophies that can look “clinically completely indistinguishable from a typical inflammatory myopathy,” and should therefore be considered in these patients.

The checklist includes Duchenne’s manifesting carrier, limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2b, myotonic dystrophy (usually type 2), and facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Christopher-Stine reported having intellectual property interest in a novel Inova Diagnostics autoantibody assay detection for anti-HMGCR. She was also the safety officer for the JBT-101 Trial sponsored by Corbus and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

sworcester@mdedge.com

True polymyositis is rare, so it’s important to carefully consider other likely diagnoses, according to Lisa Christopher-Stine, MD.

“When someone refers you [a patient with suspected] polymyositis, I want you to do a checklist in your head and say, ‘Have I thought about these five things?’ ” Dr. Christopher-Stine, director of the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center, Baltimore, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

The five most common diagnoses in patients labeled as having polymyositis are immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), overlap with other rheumatologic conditions, antisynthetase syndrome, inclusion body myositis (IBM), and muscular dystrophy, she explained.

“You may say, ‘look, it’s all what you call it,’ but I think we need to be a little bit more careful in what we call it,” she said.

IMNM

Patients with IMNM present with clinical symptoms similar to those seen in polymyositis and dermatomyositis – mainly proximal muscle weakness.

However, there are some important differences, both clinically and histologically, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

“Look for higher [creatine kinase (CK)] levels,” she said. “In the thousands, usually multiple thousands ... like 5,000, 10,000, 2,000 ... that’s when you’re thinking about a necrotizing phenotype before you even look at the biopsy.”

CK levels will usually be under 30,000 U/L in IMNM, she noted, adding that data increasingly suggest that the extensive muscle necrosis in IMNM explains the elevated CK levels versus those seen in other myopathies.

Myalgias also tend to be more prominent in IMNM than in polymyositis.

“These folks hurt,” she said, noting that IMNM patients tend to have more extensive muscle atrophy and functional disability. “Many will be wheelchair bound within 9 months of diagnosis; it’s not subtle.”

The most important tool for making an IMNM diagnosis is muscle biopsy; look for prominent myocyte necrosis and a relative paucity of lymphocytes, she advised.

Overlap

Sometimes patients with polymyositis also have other rheumatologic conditions that shouldn’t be overlooked, therefore “overlap is its own category,” she said.

“In our experience, the most common overlap is scleroderma,” she noted, adding that the scleroderma is often, but not always, subtle, and that there may be overlapping autoantibodies.

Overt sclerodactyly is rarely seen, although a small amount may be present, but significant Raynaud’s phenomenon is common in these patients, and tiny telangiectasias across the neck are a tell-tale sign.

“Why does that matter? It’s not an esoteric argument; those are the folks that go on to have pulmonary hypertension,” she said. “They can have the same [interstitial lung disease] and all of the other internal scleroderma manifestations.”

Think about overlap and “look close phenotypically and with antibodies,” she advised.

There is also “the typical RA seropositive overlap,” she said, but lupus only rarely overlaps with myositis.

“However, the next diagnosis on the list – antisynthetase syndrome – can be a forme fruste where you first see a seronegative RA-like picture, and it’s important to think about that as well,” she said.

Antisynthetase syndrome

In patients referred for polymyositis, it’s also important to evaluate for antisynthetase syndrome, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

The arthritis seen in the extramuscular phenotype of the syndrome is rarely deforming, but despite what many physicians were taught, “it absolutely can be erosive,” she said.

In fact, 40% of people with this syndrome present with an isolated forme fruste seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, she said.

Roughening and desquamation of the skin on the radial surface of fingers or palms – a sign known as mechanic’s hands – that doesn’t have another identifiable cause suggests this diagnosis in patients with this type of arthritis, as does interstitial lung disease and Raynaud’s phenomenon.

The Raynaud’s can be “fairly significant in the sense that it is bothersome,” but it usually doesn’t lead to ulceration or digital necrosis.

This is different from what is seen with the scleroderma phenotype, she said, adding that “if you’re starting to see gangrene and digital loss, think of something else.”

IBM

IBM is “probably the No. 1 most-missed diagnosis” among patients referred for what is initially believed to be polymyositis, Dr. Christopher-Stine said.

“I used to think that this was missed at entry, that everybody [with IBM] had all of these criteria and that rheumatologists really didn’t understand this phenotype ... but some people morph into this,” she said, explaining that they often start out looking like they have polymyositis with proximal muscle weakness.

“They may even initially respond to steroids. And then they get this phenotype,” she said.

Older men are more likely to present with the phenotype from the beginning; women, in her experience, tend to present with what appears to be polymyositis, and then develop the phenotype over time, she noted.

An IBM diagnosis requires age over 30 years, but most patients are over 50, she said.

“This is the only one of the myopathies that is preferential to men,” she added, noting that it affects men twice as often as it does women.

The syndrome is characterized by proximal strength loss and muscle atrophy. Also, a finding that a patient’s knee extensors are weaker than their hip flexors is “a fantastic bedside sign” differentiating IBM from polymyositis, she said.

That’s not to say IBM patients don’t have hip flexor weakness, but their knee extensors usually are “considerably weaker by a grade strength or more” versus their hip flexors, she explained.

“It’s a very easy bedside test. In typical other myopathies we have this, but the knee extensors aren’t that weak in general, or they’re not as weak as the hip flexors,” she added.

Another sign is distal strength loss, particularly in the forearm and finger flexors.

“I was taught to have them make a fist; don’t have them make a fist,” she said, explaining that this recruits intrinsic muscles which basically allows cheating that may mask weakness.

Instead, ask them to flex just their distal interphalangeal joints by making a claw and using the fingers to pull against your fingers, she suggested.

Mixed myopathic and neuropathic features on electromyography also indicate IBM, she said.

Muscle biopsy may be helpful, but inclusions are seen in less than one-third of IBM patients.

“At times, we have had to biopsy three times to see them at all, and some people never show them, so you have to rely on your clinical acumen if you don’t see them,” she said.

Also, keep in mind that these patients are often labeled as having treatment-resistant polymyositis.

“Please, when somebody refers to you somebody that’s treatment resistant, that may be the case, but I want you to think maybe they’re treatment resistant because they don’t have that disease.”
 

Muscular dystrophy

Some cases of myositis mimic certain types of muscular dystrophy, Dr. Christopher-Stine said, providing a checklist of muscular dystrophies that can look “clinically completely indistinguishable from a typical inflammatory myopathy,” and should therefore be considered in these patients.

The checklist includes Duchenne’s manifesting carrier, limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2b, myotonic dystrophy (usually type 2), and facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Christopher-Stine reported having intellectual property interest in a novel Inova Diagnostics autoantibody assay detection for anti-HMGCR. She was also the safety officer for the JBT-101 Trial sponsored by Corbus and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Emerging understanding of the increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is providing greater insight regarding mitigation of risk, according to Jon T. Giles, MD.

The mechanisms of increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are multifactorial; in addition to traditional risk factors for CVD, chronically elevated levels of systemic inflammatory cytokines likely play a major role in atherogenesis and myocardial dysfunction in RA patients, and the interactions between those elevated cytokine levels and traditional risk factors also play a likely role, Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

In addition, the relationship between traditional fasting lipids and atherosclerosis is different in RA patients from that in non-RA patients, he said, noting that this has important implications for CVD screening and risk management. The phenotype of CVD in RA based on the current literature is also one involving more coronary atherosclerosis in which the atherosclerotic plaques are more inflamed.

“There’s more myocardial dysfunction,” Dr. Giles said, noting that this dysfunction may be partly mediated by more myocardial fibrosis and possibly active subclinical low-grade myocarditis.

It is possible that traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking and hypertension have a greater impact in RA patients, but it’s likely that most of the differences are related to RA-specific factors such as autoimmunity, inflammation, and genetics, as well as some nontraditional CVD risk factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression that may be increased in RA patients, he noted.


With respect to traditional CVD risk factors, a recent study of more than 5,600 RA patients without CVD who were followed for an average of almost 6 years at 13 centers in Europe and the United States showed that 389 experienced CVD events, and the most common CVD risk factors in those patients were smoking – particularly in men – and hypertension.

“But also, RA characteristics played a big role,” he said.

Disease activity was one of the major risk factors for CVD events in RA patients, and the traditional CVD risk factor of hyperlipidemia, and particularly elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, had less influence in RA patients than in the general population. In men it was “a negative predictor” of CVD events, he said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:48-54).

Prior studies have also shown a “strange relationship” between lipids and CVD risk in RA patients. For example, RA patients with very low LDL cholesterol have been shown to have higher CVD event rates – a phenomenon known as the “lipid paradox” – and it may be related to inflammation, but the mechanism is unclear,” he said.

To further assess whether RA patients with abnormally low LDL cholesterol levels without the use of statin therapy had more atherosclerotic burden, Dr. Giles and his colleagues looked at more than 600 RA patients and more than 1,000 non-RA patients (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]:Abstract 2127). They found that RA patients did, indeed, have a greater atherosclerotic burden, which was “quite shocking,” he said.

The burden rivaled that seen in patients with LDL levels greater than 160 mg/dL, he noted.

“Interestingly, these patients did not have higher levels of inflammatory markers, and they did not have higher disease activity scores. They looked exactly the same as the rest of the RA patients,” he said, noting that investigation into why the LDL levels in these patients are so low is ongoing.

As for how atherogenic lipoproteins allow for atherosclerosis and atherogenesis to occur in the setting of low LDL in RA patients, it turns out it’s not just the amount, but also the characteristics of the lipoproteins, such as the size and oxidization of the LDL, which change in the context of systemic inflammation, he explained.

Further, during an acute-phase reaction, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) composition changes rapidly from antiatherogenic to proinflammatory.

Extensive evidence shows that endothelial function is diminished in RA, and that RA patients have these and other proatherogenic mechanisms, as well as other elements of immunity that are associated with atherogenesis, including aspects of both innate and adaptive immune function, he said.

Given the emerging understanding of CVD risk in RA, mitigation of that risk is an important consideration. In fact, the European League Against Rheumatism updated its CVD management guidelines in 2015/2016, including a statement that rheumatologists are responsible for CVD risk management in RA patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:17-28).

The guidelines are intended for all inflammatory arthritis, and the recommendation with the strongest level of evidence relates to optimization of disease activity. Also recommended are:

• CVD screening every 5 years.
• Use of a 1.5 multiplier for risk scores.
• Secondary screening with imaging for select patients.
• Management of traditional risk factors according to local guidelines.
• Minimization of the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
• Emphasis on lifestyle management.

Importantly, research has suggested that screening for hyperlipidemia is substandard in RA, and that standard risk stratification tools underperform in the setting of RA, he said.

“So my approach, and this is not evidence based yet ... comes down to what [a patient’s] apparent risk is. So if an RA patient is high risk based on your apparent risk prediction, then they are likely high risk and maybe even higher than estimated,” Dr. Giles said. These patients need optimization of their traditional risk factors and their inflammatory factors and should therefore receive a high-intensity statin regardless of lipid levels, he said.

That means atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg or rosuvastatin at a dose of at least 20 mg, he said, adding that some studies have suggested that statins work as well in RA patients as in non-RA patients, and that RA patients with CVD risk do better with a statin than without.

He considers patients who have intermediate risk based on the risk calculation to actually be high risk in most cases, and they, too, need maximal optimization of traditional CVD risk factors and inflammatory factors.

“Consider one-time secondary imaging for all of these patients,” he advised, noting that a coronary calcium score from a chest CT scan is a good option that has low radiation, can be quantified, and is increasingly covered by insurance.

A coronary calcium score of 0 on chest CT is highly reassuring, and a score that is greater than what is expected for age, gender, and/or race can help define the intensity of intervention, he said.

For example, if a patient’s score is 300 but should be 50, that patient should be treated as if he or she has coronary artery disease. Patients with high scores in general – particularly those with scores over 300 – should also be maximally managed, he said.

Patients at low risk based on risk calculations usually are low risk, but some can be high risk, so again, maximal optimization of risk factors is recommended.

Secondary imaging can be considered in some of these patients, and while it’s not entirely clear which are at greatest risk, Dr. Giles said he recommends screening those with treatment-resistant active disease, those with high disease severity, and those with abnormally low LDL.

Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Emerging understanding of the increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is providing greater insight regarding mitigation of risk, according to Jon T. Giles, MD.

The mechanisms of increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are multifactorial; in addition to traditional risk factors for CVD, chronically elevated levels of systemic inflammatory cytokines likely play a major role in atherogenesis and myocardial dysfunction in RA patients, and the interactions between those elevated cytokine levels and traditional risk factors also play a likely role, Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

In addition, the relationship between traditional fasting lipids and atherosclerosis is different in RA patients from that in non-RA patients, he said, noting that this has important implications for CVD screening and risk management. The phenotype of CVD in RA based on the current literature is also one involving more coronary atherosclerosis in which the atherosclerotic plaques are more inflamed.

“There’s more myocardial dysfunction,” Dr. Giles said, noting that this dysfunction may be partly mediated by more myocardial fibrosis and possibly active subclinical low-grade myocarditis.

It is possible that traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking and hypertension have a greater impact in RA patients, but it’s likely that most of the differences are related to RA-specific factors such as autoimmunity, inflammation, and genetics, as well as some nontraditional CVD risk factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression that may be increased in RA patients, he noted.


With respect to traditional CVD risk factors, a recent study of more than 5,600 RA patients without CVD who were followed for an average of almost 6 years at 13 centers in Europe and the United States showed that 389 experienced CVD events, and the most common CVD risk factors in those patients were smoking – particularly in men – and hypertension.

“But also, RA characteristics played a big role,” he said.

Disease activity was one of the major risk factors for CVD events in RA patients, and the traditional CVD risk factor of hyperlipidemia, and particularly elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, had less influence in RA patients than in the general population. In men it was “a negative predictor” of CVD events, he said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:48-54).

Prior studies have also shown a “strange relationship” between lipids and CVD risk in RA patients. For example, RA patients with very low LDL cholesterol have been shown to have higher CVD event rates – a phenomenon known as the “lipid paradox” – and it may be related to inflammation, but the mechanism is unclear,” he said.

To further assess whether RA patients with abnormally low LDL cholesterol levels without the use of statin therapy had more atherosclerotic burden, Dr. Giles and his colleagues looked at more than 600 RA patients and more than 1,000 non-RA patients (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]:Abstract 2127). They found that RA patients did, indeed, have a greater atherosclerotic burden, which was “quite shocking,” he said.

The burden rivaled that seen in patients with LDL levels greater than 160 mg/dL, he noted.

“Interestingly, these patients did not have higher levels of inflammatory markers, and they did not have higher disease activity scores. They looked exactly the same as the rest of the RA patients,” he said, noting that investigation into why the LDL levels in these patients are so low is ongoing.

As for how atherogenic lipoproteins allow for atherosclerosis and atherogenesis to occur in the setting of low LDL in RA patients, it turns out it’s not just the amount, but also the characteristics of the lipoproteins, such as the size and oxidization of the LDL, which change in the context of systemic inflammation, he explained.

Further, during an acute-phase reaction, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) composition changes rapidly from antiatherogenic to proinflammatory.

Extensive evidence shows that endothelial function is diminished in RA, and that RA patients have these and other proatherogenic mechanisms, as well as other elements of immunity that are associated with atherogenesis, including aspects of both innate and adaptive immune function, he said.

Given the emerging understanding of CVD risk in RA, mitigation of that risk is an important consideration. In fact, the European League Against Rheumatism updated its CVD management guidelines in 2015/2016, including a statement that rheumatologists are responsible for CVD risk management in RA patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:17-28).

The guidelines are intended for all inflammatory arthritis, and the recommendation with the strongest level of evidence relates to optimization of disease activity. Also recommended are:

• CVD screening every 5 years.
• Use of a 1.5 multiplier for risk scores.
• Secondary screening with imaging for select patients.
• Management of traditional risk factors according to local guidelines.
• Minimization of the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
• Emphasis on lifestyle management.

Importantly, research has suggested that screening for hyperlipidemia is substandard in RA, and that standard risk stratification tools underperform in the setting of RA, he said.

“So my approach, and this is not evidence based yet ... comes down to what [a patient’s] apparent risk is. So if an RA patient is high risk based on your apparent risk prediction, then they are likely high risk and maybe even higher than estimated,” Dr. Giles said. These patients need optimization of their traditional risk factors and their inflammatory factors and should therefore receive a high-intensity statin regardless of lipid levels, he said.

That means atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg or rosuvastatin at a dose of at least 20 mg, he said, adding that some studies have suggested that statins work as well in RA patients as in non-RA patients, and that RA patients with CVD risk do better with a statin than without.

He considers patients who have intermediate risk based on the risk calculation to actually be high risk in most cases, and they, too, need maximal optimization of traditional CVD risk factors and inflammatory factors.

“Consider one-time secondary imaging for all of these patients,” he advised, noting that a coronary calcium score from a chest CT scan is a good option that has low radiation, can be quantified, and is increasingly covered by insurance.

A coronary calcium score of 0 on chest CT is highly reassuring, and a score that is greater than what is expected for age, gender, and/or race can help define the intensity of intervention, he said.

For example, if a patient’s score is 300 but should be 50, that patient should be treated as if he or she has coronary artery disease. Patients with high scores in general – particularly those with scores over 300 – should also be maximally managed, he said.

Patients at low risk based on risk calculations usually are low risk, but some can be high risk, so again, maximal optimization of risk factors is recommended.

Secondary imaging can be considered in some of these patients, and while it’s not entirely clear which are at greatest risk, Dr. Giles said he recommends screening those with treatment-resistant active disease, those with high disease severity, and those with abnormally low LDL.

Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Emerging understanding of the increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is providing greater insight regarding mitigation of risk, according to Jon T. Giles, MD.

The mechanisms of increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are multifactorial; in addition to traditional risk factors for CVD, chronically elevated levels of systemic inflammatory cytokines likely play a major role in atherogenesis and myocardial dysfunction in RA patients, and the interactions between those elevated cytokine levels and traditional risk factors also play a likely role, Dr. Giles, a rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and clinical researcher in the division of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

In addition, the relationship between traditional fasting lipids and atherosclerosis is different in RA patients from that in non-RA patients, he said, noting that this has important implications for CVD screening and risk management. The phenotype of CVD in RA based on the current literature is also one involving more coronary atherosclerosis in which the atherosclerotic plaques are more inflamed.

“There’s more myocardial dysfunction,” Dr. Giles said, noting that this dysfunction may be partly mediated by more myocardial fibrosis and possibly active subclinical low-grade myocarditis.

It is possible that traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking and hypertension have a greater impact in RA patients, but it’s likely that most of the differences are related to RA-specific factors such as autoimmunity, inflammation, and genetics, as well as some nontraditional CVD risk factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression that may be increased in RA patients, he noted.


With respect to traditional CVD risk factors, a recent study of more than 5,600 RA patients without CVD who were followed for an average of almost 6 years at 13 centers in Europe and the United States showed that 389 experienced CVD events, and the most common CVD risk factors in those patients were smoking – particularly in men – and hypertension.

“But also, RA characteristics played a big role,” he said.

Disease activity was one of the major risk factors for CVD events in RA patients, and the traditional CVD risk factor of hyperlipidemia, and particularly elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels, had less influence in RA patients than in the general population. In men it was “a negative predictor” of CVD events, he said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:48-54).

Prior studies have also shown a “strange relationship” between lipids and CVD risk in RA patients. For example, RA patients with very low LDL cholesterol have been shown to have higher CVD event rates – a phenomenon known as the “lipid paradox” – and it may be related to inflammation, but the mechanism is unclear,” he said.

To further assess whether RA patients with abnormally low LDL cholesterol levels without the use of statin therapy had more atherosclerotic burden, Dr. Giles and his colleagues looked at more than 600 RA patients and more than 1,000 non-RA patients (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]:Abstract 2127). They found that RA patients did, indeed, have a greater atherosclerotic burden, which was “quite shocking,” he said.

The burden rivaled that seen in patients with LDL levels greater than 160 mg/dL, he noted.

“Interestingly, these patients did not have higher levels of inflammatory markers, and they did not have higher disease activity scores. They looked exactly the same as the rest of the RA patients,” he said, noting that investigation into why the LDL levels in these patients are so low is ongoing.

As for how atherogenic lipoproteins allow for atherosclerosis and atherogenesis to occur in the setting of low LDL in RA patients, it turns out it’s not just the amount, but also the characteristics of the lipoproteins, such as the size and oxidization of the LDL, which change in the context of systemic inflammation, he explained.

Further, during an acute-phase reaction, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) composition changes rapidly from antiatherogenic to proinflammatory.

Extensive evidence shows that endothelial function is diminished in RA, and that RA patients have these and other proatherogenic mechanisms, as well as other elements of immunity that are associated with atherogenesis, including aspects of both innate and adaptive immune function, he said.

Given the emerging understanding of CVD risk in RA, mitigation of that risk is an important consideration. In fact, the European League Against Rheumatism updated its CVD management guidelines in 2015/2016, including a statement that rheumatologists are responsible for CVD risk management in RA patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:17-28).

The guidelines are intended for all inflammatory arthritis, and the recommendation with the strongest level of evidence relates to optimization of disease activity. Also recommended are:

• CVD screening every 5 years.
• Use of a 1.5 multiplier for risk scores.
• Secondary screening with imaging for select patients.
• Management of traditional risk factors according to local guidelines.
• Minimization of the use of NSAIDs and corticosteroids.
• Emphasis on lifestyle management.

Importantly, research has suggested that screening for hyperlipidemia is substandard in RA, and that standard risk stratification tools underperform in the setting of RA, he said.

“So my approach, and this is not evidence based yet ... comes down to what [a patient’s] apparent risk is. So if an RA patient is high risk based on your apparent risk prediction, then they are likely high risk and maybe even higher than estimated,” Dr. Giles said. These patients need optimization of their traditional risk factors and their inflammatory factors and should therefore receive a high-intensity statin regardless of lipid levels, he said.

That means atorvastatin at a dose of at least 40 mg or rosuvastatin at a dose of at least 20 mg, he said, adding that some studies have suggested that statins work as well in RA patients as in non-RA patients, and that RA patients with CVD risk do better with a statin than without.

He considers patients who have intermediate risk based on the risk calculation to actually be high risk in most cases, and they, too, need maximal optimization of traditional CVD risk factors and inflammatory factors.

“Consider one-time secondary imaging for all of these patients,” he advised, noting that a coronary calcium score from a chest CT scan is a good option that has low radiation, can be quantified, and is increasingly covered by insurance.

A coronary calcium score of 0 on chest CT is highly reassuring, and a score that is greater than what is expected for age, gender, and/or race can help define the intensity of intervention, he said.

For example, if a patient’s score is 300 but should be 50, that patient should be treated as if he or she has coronary artery disease. Patients with high scores in general – particularly those with scores over 300 – should also be maximally managed, he said.

Patients at low risk based on risk calculations usually are low risk, but some can be high risk, so again, maximal optimization of risk factors is recommended.

Secondary imaging can be considered in some of these patients, and while it’s not entirely clear which are at greatest risk, Dr. Giles said he recommends screening those with treatment-resistant active disease, those with high disease severity, and those with abnormally low LDL.

Dr. Giles is a consultant for Genentech, Lilly, Horizon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and UCB, and he has received grant support from Pfizer.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) have long been considered an important marker in rheumatologic conditions, particularly for the diagnosis and classification of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, but recent findings are raising new questions about their role.

“We’ve measured ANAs for a long time – it’s a very important test in rheumatology,” David S. Pisetsky, MD, PhD, explained in an interview.

However, even though this test has been around for decades, “some interesting things have developed around it that have made a lot of people, including me, take a second look,” said Dr. Pisetsky, professor of medicine and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

He elaborated on those recent findings, which relate to the findings of ANA negativity in patients with an established diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to variability among ANA test kit findings, during a presentation at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“Screening of patients during clinical trials for new treatments of SLE suggest that a significant number of people with lupus – 20%-30%, in fact – are ANA negative despite disease activity at the time the test is done,” he said.

For example, unpublished (but recently submitted) data from a phase 2 trial looking at the efficacy and safety of an interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of SLE showed that 23.8% of baseline samples from 183 SLE patients with positive historical ANA and clinically active lupus prior to randomization were ANA negative.

A particular concern with respect to such findings is that ANA positivity is typically a criterion for entry into clinical trials of therapies for lupus and prescription of medications approved for active lupus, Dr. Pisetsky said.

“On the other hand, about 20% of otherwise healthy people – especially women – can be ANA positive, so it’s always been problematic as a screening test due to these false positives, but these new findings suggest that in lupus a real concern is false negatives,” he said. “It’s quite a surprise.”

The findings raise questions about whether ANA negativity in SLE reflects the natural history of the disease, an effect of treatments, or a problem with the assays.

It appears an important problem relates to test kit variability, he said.

“There are lots of different ANA test kits. Their performance characteristics are very different. The performance of ANA tests is much more variable than people realize,” he said, citing data from an analysis that he and his colleagues conducted using 103 samples from a cohort of patients with established SLE.

In that 2017 study, an ANA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay showed an ANA-negativity rate of 11.7% with zero indeterminate tests, whereas three different test kits showed ANA-negativity rates of 22.3% (with 8.7% of samples reported as indeterminate), 9.7% (with another 9.7% indeterminate), and 4.9% (with another 1.9% indeterminate), respectively. Multiplex testing showed a 13.6% ANA-negativity rate and an indeterminate rate of 7.8% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:911-3).

Only one sample tested negative for ANA on all three test kits, and disagreement about ANA negativity occurred in one-third of the samples, he said.

Anti–double-stranded DNA assays

Recent findings also raise questions about the use of assays that specifically assess for anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, which are highly associated with SLE and have been used as a biomarker for the disease, Dr. Pisetsky said.

For example, a comparison of two anti-dsDNA assays showed discordant results with respect to negativity for anti-dsDNA antibodies in 64 of 181 samples from SLE patients. One assay showed a 70.7% rate of anti-dsDNA negativity and the other showed a 37.6% rate.

The concern regarding test variability relates to the issue of ANA positivity and eligibility for study enrollment and certain treatments; test variability can affect the diagnosis of patients with SLE because ANA positivity is an important finding in routine clinical care, and for anti-dsDNA, test variability can affect assessment of disease activity, he explained.

Tests may differ in a number of ways, such as in their specificity, sensitivity, avidity, and range of epitopes detected. Unfortunately, not enough is known at this point to make specific recommendations regarding best test kits, and while there are alternative technologies that could be useful for ANA testing, none has been validated for particular use in the assessment of trial eligibility, Dr. Pisetsky said.

Nonetheless, awareness of the test variability is important, especially when it comes to assessing patients for trial eligibility and prescribing medications, he added. “For practical, real-world utilization, people need to know about this.”

Dr. Pisetsky reported receiving ANA-related research support from Pfizer, conducting collaborative research with Bio-Rad and EuroImmun, and serving as an adviser to ImmunArray.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) have long been considered an important marker in rheumatologic conditions, particularly for the diagnosis and classification of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, but recent findings are raising new questions about their role.

“We’ve measured ANAs for a long time – it’s a very important test in rheumatology,” David S. Pisetsky, MD, PhD, explained in an interview.

However, even though this test has been around for decades, “some interesting things have developed around it that have made a lot of people, including me, take a second look,” said Dr. Pisetsky, professor of medicine and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

He elaborated on those recent findings, which relate to the findings of ANA negativity in patients with an established diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to variability among ANA test kit findings, during a presentation at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“Screening of patients during clinical trials for new treatments of SLE suggest that a significant number of people with lupus – 20%-30%, in fact – are ANA negative despite disease activity at the time the test is done,” he said.

For example, unpublished (but recently submitted) data from a phase 2 trial looking at the efficacy and safety of an interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of SLE showed that 23.8% of baseline samples from 183 SLE patients with positive historical ANA and clinically active lupus prior to randomization were ANA negative.

A particular concern with respect to such findings is that ANA positivity is typically a criterion for entry into clinical trials of therapies for lupus and prescription of medications approved for active lupus, Dr. Pisetsky said.

“On the other hand, about 20% of otherwise healthy people – especially women – can be ANA positive, so it’s always been problematic as a screening test due to these false positives, but these new findings suggest that in lupus a real concern is false negatives,” he said. “It’s quite a surprise.”

The findings raise questions about whether ANA negativity in SLE reflects the natural history of the disease, an effect of treatments, or a problem with the assays.

It appears an important problem relates to test kit variability, he said.

“There are lots of different ANA test kits. Their performance characteristics are very different. The performance of ANA tests is much more variable than people realize,” he said, citing data from an analysis that he and his colleagues conducted using 103 samples from a cohort of patients with established SLE.

In that 2017 study, an ANA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay showed an ANA-negativity rate of 11.7% with zero indeterminate tests, whereas three different test kits showed ANA-negativity rates of 22.3% (with 8.7% of samples reported as indeterminate), 9.7% (with another 9.7% indeterminate), and 4.9% (with another 1.9% indeterminate), respectively. Multiplex testing showed a 13.6% ANA-negativity rate and an indeterminate rate of 7.8% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:911-3).

Only one sample tested negative for ANA on all three test kits, and disagreement about ANA negativity occurred in one-third of the samples, he said.

Anti–double-stranded DNA assays

Recent findings also raise questions about the use of assays that specifically assess for anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, which are highly associated with SLE and have been used as a biomarker for the disease, Dr. Pisetsky said.

For example, a comparison of two anti-dsDNA assays showed discordant results with respect to negativity for anti-dsDNA antibodies in 64 of 181 samples from SLE patients. One assay showed a 70.7% rate of anti-dsDNA negativity and the other showed a 37.6% rate.

The concern regarding test variability relates to the issue of ANA positivity and eligibility for study enrollment and certain treatments; test variability can affect the diagnosis of patients with SLE because ANA positivity is an important finding in routine clinical care, and for anti-dsDNA, test variability can affect assessment of disease activity, he explained.

Tests may differ in a number of ways, such as in their specificity, sensitivity, avidity, and range of epitopes detected. Unfortunately, not enough is known at this point to make specific recommendations regarding best test kits, and while there are alternative technologies that could be useful for ANA testing, none has been validated for particular use in the assessment of trial eligibility, Dr. Pisetsky said.

Nonetheless, awareness of the test variability is important, especially when it comes to assessing patients for trial eligibility and prescribing medications, he added. “For practical, real-world utilization, people need to know about this.”

Dr. Pisetsky reported receiving ANA-related research support from Pfizer, conducting collaborative research with Bio-Rad and EuroImmun, and serving as an adviser to ImmunArray.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) have long been considered an important marker in rheumatologic conditions, particularly for the diagnosis and classification of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, but recent findings are raising new questions about their role.

“We’ve measured ANAs for a long time – it’s a very important test in rheumatology,” David S. Pisetsky, MD, PhD, explained in an interview.

However, even though this test has been around for decades, “some interesting things have developed around it that have made a lot of people, including me, take a second look,” said Dr. Pisetsky, professor of medicine and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

He elaborated on those recent findings, which relate to the findings of ANA negativity in patients with an established diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to variability among ANA test kit findings, during a presentation at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“Screening of patients during clinical trials for new treatments of SLE suggest that a significant number of people with lupus – 20%-30%, in fact – are ANA negative despite disease activity at the time the test is done,” he said.

For example, unpublished (but recently submitted) data from a phase 2 trial looking at the efficacy and safety of an interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of SLE showed that 23.8% of baseline samples from 183 SLE patients with positive historical ANA and clinically active lupus prior to randomization were ANA negative.

A particular concern with respect to such findings is that ANA positivity is typically a criterion for entry into clinical trials of therapies for lupus and prescription of medications approved for active lupus, Dr. Pisetsky said.

“On the other hand, about 20% of otherwise healthy people – especially women – can be ANA positive, so it’s always been problematic as a screening test due to these false positives, but these new findings suggest that in lupus a real concern is false negatives,” he said. “It’s quite a surprise.”

The findings raise questions about whether ANA negativity in SLE reflects the natural history of the disease, an effect of treatments, or a problem with the assays.

It appears an important problem relates to test kit variability, he said.

“There are lots of different ANA test kits. Their performance characteristics are very different. The performance of ANA tests is much more variable than people realize,” he said, citing data from an analysis that he and his colleagues conducted using 103 samples from a cohort of patients with established SLE.

In that 2017 study, an ANA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay showed an ANA-negativity rate of 11.7% with zero indeterminate tests, whereas three different test kits showed ANA-negativity rates of 22.3% (with 8.7% of samples reported as indeterminate), 9.7% (with another 9.7% indeterminate), and 4.9% (with another 1.9% indeterminate), respectively. Multiplex testing showed a 13.6% ANA-negativity rate and an indeterminate rate of 7.8% (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:911-3).

Only one sample tested negative for ANA on all three test kits, and disagreement about ANA negativity occurred in one-third of the samples, he said.

Anti–double-stranded DNA assays

Recent findings also raise questions about the use of assays that specifically assess for anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, which are highly associated with SLE and have been used as a biomarker for the disease, Dr. Pisetsky said.

For example, a comparison of two anti-dsDNA assays showed discordant results with respect to negativity for anti-dsDNA antibodies in 64 of 181 samples from SLE patients. One assay showed a 70.7% rate of anti-dsDNA negativity and the other showed a 37.6% rate.

The concern regarding test variability relates to the issue of ANA positivity and eligibility for study enrollment and certain treatments; test variability can affect the diagnosis of patients with SLE because ANA positivity is an important finding in routine clinical care, and for anti-dsDNA, test variability can affect assessment of disease activity, he explained.

Tests may differ in a number of ways, such as in their specificity, sensitivity, avidity, and range of epitopes detected. Unfortunately, not enough is known at this point to make specific recommendations regarding best test kits, and while there are alternative technologies that could be useful for ANA testing, none has been validated for particular use in the assessment of trial eligibility, Dr. Pisetsky said.

Nonetheless, awareness of the test variability is important, especially when it comes to assessing patients for trial eligibility and prescribing medications, he added. “For practical, real-world utilization, people need to know about this.”

Dr. Pisetsky reported receiving ANA-related research support from Pfizer, conducting collaborative research with Bio-Rad and EuroImmun, and serving as an adviser to ImmunArray.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Findings from an ongoing study of individuals with seropositive arthralgia, as well as from numerous other ongoing research efforts, suggest that it will soon be possible to predict a future rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis, according to Douglas J. Veale, MD.

Evidence also suggests that disease onset can be delayed, and that there is potential for disease prevention in those cases, Dr. Veale, a professor and consultant rheumatologist at St. Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Cellular and molecular profiling of RA risk

Dr. Veale’s current research focuses on patients presenting with joint pain but no joint swelling or clinical evidence of soft tissue swelling, who are found to be seropositive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and/or rheumatoid factor (RF).

“We have termed these patients [as having] ‘seropositive arthralgia,’ and we started a study in our institution because we started seeing more of these patients being referred in by the general practitioners,” said Dr. Veale, who is also director of translational research at the Dublin Academic Medical Centre of University College Dublin.

The aim of the study is to biopsy synovial tissue obtained during knee joint arthroscopy (which has been shown in prior studies to provide the same synovial findings as can be obtained through wrist and ankle biopsies) and to assess cellular and molecular profiles and clinical outcomes in these subjects, he said.

Of 36 seropositive arthralgia patients recruited to date, 22 are women, and 19 developed RA by 2010 ACR criteria within 12 months; most of those did so within 2-3 months, he said.

Median swollen joint counts were zero, and tender joint counts were slightly raised (median = 0, interquartile range = 0-4) in the subjects at baseline. Overall, 82% were RF positive, 91% were ACPA positive, and 73% were both RF and ACPA positive.

“The median [C-reactive protein (CRP) level] was 3 [mg/dL] with a range of 2-7, so most of these are normal when they’re coming to see us,” he said.

The level of synovitis seen on knee arthroscopy was a median of 60 on a visual analog scale of 0-100.

“So the level of synovitis that we’re seeing is certainly over a median of 50%,” he added.

Of 22 patients who were followed for at least 1 year – including the 19 who developed RA – none were on therapy at baseline, and none had CRP over 5 mg/dL at baseline. Two of the 19 who later developed RA elected to begin treatment before they developed the disease – one with hydroxychloroquine and one with methotrexate – and treatment was initiated in the remaining 17 RA patients as soon as they met the ACR RA criteria. Currently, 14 are on synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and 5 are on biologic DMARDs. Overall, 13 of the 22 patients followed for 1 year have no disease activity, 5 have low disease activity, and 4 have moderate disease activity, he said.

One question addressed in this study is whether immunostaining predicts arthritis, Dr. Veale noted.

“The short answer is ‘no,’ ” he said, explaining that activated T and B cells are seen in the biopsies of subjects who remain as seropositive arthralgia patients, and also in patients who actually develop RA. “So the immunohistology of these biopsies is not telling us a great deal.”

Immunophenotyping to establish RA risk

Another finding of interest is an increase in the synovial tissue CD38 plasmablasts as detected by RNA sequencing in seropositive arthralgia subjects.

“Their pattern looks more like early RA or established RA,” he noted.

Similarly, the proportion of B cells is already increased in the seropositive arthralgia subjects, compared with healthy subjects, and is similar to that seen in established seropositive and seronegative RA patients.

After looking at “a whole range of immunophenotypes,” Dr. Veale and his colleagues found that several other genes (not just for CD38) are expressed at increased levels in the arthralgia patients.

“The pattern that we’re seeing is that the seropositive arthralgia patients look more like the early rheumatoid and the established rheumatoid patients when we actually analyze their gene signatures using immunophenotyping,” he said.

The patients in this study were all referred by general practitioners, but another study – the PRAIRI study – recruited seropositive arthralgia patients from the community and randomized them to receive a single rituximab infusion or placebo (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:179-85).

“What they showed is that patients who received one dose of rituximab actually developed rheumatoid arthritis at a slower rate and at a later time than the patients who received placebo,” he said.

At 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in the rate of development of RA between the groups; rituximab had merely delayed the onset of RA, he said.

“They do discuss in this paper what the effect would be if you continued treatment in these patients: Would we actually prevent the onset of rheumatoid arthritis in a significant cohort of patients?” he said. “But we don’t know that.”
 

Could immune checkpoint inhibition reveal RA risk?

Recent findings from work with immune checkpoint therapy in the hematology/oncology arena, however, raise other interesting possibilities with respect to early treatment and prevention of RA.

A number of case reports have documented the development of autoimmune diseases in patients with cancer who have undergone treatment with checkpoint inhibitors.

“Essentially what happens in cancer is that the activated T cells upregulate immune checkpoint molecules. ... and what these molecules do is they make the T cells essentially resistant to attacking the tumor cells,” he explained, noting that the molecules include programmed death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4).

Checkpoint inhibitors bind to these molecules and “free up these activated T cells to attack the tumor cells” both through cytokines (interferon release) and direct cell cytotoxicity, he said.

This is relevant for rheumatology patients, because the PD-1 checkpoint molecule is overexpressed in pathogenic T cells in RA and systemic lupus erythematosus.

A closer look at his own RA patients showed that those who were ACPA positive had higher levels of soluble PD-1 than did the ACPA-negative RA patients – a finding that has been replicated in two other cohorts, he noted.

“So we wanted to look at our seropositive arthralgia subjects and see if there is something in their gene signatures on immunophenotyping which actually would give us a clue in terms of this checkpoint inhibitor pathway,” he said. “What we found is that the anti–PD-1 signature is increased in our arthralgia patients, and again, the pattern of expression is more similar to early rheumatoid arthritis and established rheumatoid arthritis, and is significantly different from both healthy controls and patients with osteoarthritis.”

PD-1 expression was also found to be increased on CD4- and CD8-positive T cells taken from the synovial tissues in these patients, he said.

Immunostaining of the T cells showed, interestingly, that the ligand for PD-1 is “almost absent,” he noted.

“So there’s an overexpression of PD-1, but there’s a downregulation of the ligand for PD-1, so that means that the PD-1 pathway is not active in these patients because the PD-1 ... has no ligand to actually bind on to.”

This suggests that “something else may happen that will upregulate the ligand – maybe a second hit,” thereby allowing PD-1 to bind and become active, he said.

“I realize what I’ve been talking about is fairly controversial, but I think it may be possible soon to predict a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis before clinical arthritis develops, but not in everybody,” he said, noting that current diagnostic tools are often unreliable.

For example, CRP levels in most of his study subjects remained normal even after converting to meet RA criteria, he explained.

However, “the checkpoint inhibitor story is absolutely fascinating,” he said.

“It’s unmasked an RA phenotype in patients who are receiving these drugs, and we have identified that the PD-1 pathway is altered in the synovial tissue, not just in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, but also in subjects before they have developed arthritis and they have circulating autoantibodies,” he said.

The CD38 plasmablasts found to be present in the synovial tissue before RA presents clinically may also represent a therapeutic target, he added.

Dr. Veale disclosed financial relationships (research grants, consulting fees, speaker’s bureau, and “other” relationships) with AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, and Janssen.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Findings from an ongoing study of individuals with seropositive arthralgia, as well as from numerous other ongoing research efforts, suggest that it will soon be possible to predict a future rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis, according to Douglas J. Veale, MD.

Evidence also suggests that disease onset can be delayed, and that there is potential for disease prevention in those cases, Dr. Veale, a professor and consultant rheumatologist at St. Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Cellular and molecular profiling of RA risk

Dr. Veale’s current research focuses on patients presenting with joint pain but no joint swelling or clinical evidence of soft tissue swelling, who are found to be seropositive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and/or rheumatoid factor (RF).

“We have termed these patients [as having] ‘seropositive arthralgia,’ and we started a study in our institution because we started seeing more of these patients being referred in by the general practitioners,” said Dr. Veale, who is also director of translational research at the Dublin Academic Medical Centre of University College Dublin.

The aim of the study is to biopsy synovial tissue obtained during knee joint arthroscopy (which has been shown in prior studies to provide the same synovial findings as can be obtained through wrist and ankle biopsies) and to assess cellular and molecular profiles and clinical outcomes in these subjects, he said.

Of 36 seropositive arthralgia patients recruited to date, 22 are women, and 19 developed RA by 2010 ACR criteria within 12 months; most of those did so within 2-3 months, he said.

Median swollen joint counts were zero, and tender joint counts were slightly raised (median = 0, interquartile range = 0-4) in the subjects at baseline. Overall, 82% were RF positive, 91% were ACPA positive, and 73% were both RF and ACPA positive.

“The median [C-reactive protein (CRP) level] was 3 [mg/dL] with a range of 2-7, so most of these are normal when they’re coming to see us,” he said.

The level of synovitis seen on knee arthroscopy was a median of 60 on a visual analog scale of 0-100.

“So the level of synovitis that we’re seeing is certainly over a median of 50%,” he added.

Of 22 patients who were followed for at least 1 year – including the 19 who developed RA – none were on therapy at baseline, and none had CRP over 5 mg/dL at baseline. Two of the 19 who later developed RA elected to begin treatment before they developed the disease – one with hydroxychloroquine and one with methotrexate – and treatment was initiated in the remaining 17 RA patients as soon as they met the ACR RA criteria. Currently, 14 are on synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and 5 are on biologic DMARDs. Overall, 13 of the 22 patients followed for 1 year have no disease activity, 5 have low disease activity, and 4 have moderate disease activity, he said.

One question addressed in this study is whether immunostaining predicts arthritis, Dr. Veale noted.

“The short answer is ‘no,’ ” he said, explaining that activated T and B cells are seen in the biopsies of subjects who remain as seropositive arthralgia patients, and also in patients who actually develop RA. “So the immunohistology of these biopsies is not telling us a great deal.”

Immunophenotyping to establish RA risk

Another finding of interest is an increase in the synovial tissue CD38 plasmablasts as detected by RNA sequencing in seropositive arthralgia subjects.

“Their pattern looks more like early RA or established RA,” he noted.

Similarly, the proportion of B cells is already increased in the seropositive arthralgia subjects, compared with healthy subjects, and is similar to that seen in established seropositive and seronegative RA patients.

After looking at “a whole range of immunophenotypes,” Dr. Veale and his colleagues found that several other genes (not just for CD38) are expressed at increased levels in the arthralgia patients.

“The pattern that we’re seeing is that the seropositive arthralgia patients look more like the early rheumatoid and the established rheumatoid patients when we actually analyze their gene signatures using immunophenotyping,” he said.

The patients in this study were all referred by general practitioners, but another study – the PRAIRI study – recruited seropositive arthralgia patients from the community and randomized them to receive a single rituximab infusion or placebo (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:179-85).

“What they showed is that patients who received one dose of rituximab actually developed rheumatoid arthritis at a slower rate and at a later time than the patients who received placebo,” he said.

At 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in the rate of development of RA between the groups; rituximab had merely delayed the onset of RA, he said.

“They do discuss in this paper what the effect would be if you continued treatment in these patients: Would we actually prevent the onset of rheumatoid arthritis in a significant cohort of patients?” he said. “But we don’t know that.”
 

Could immune checkpoint inhibition reveal RA risk?

Recent findings from work with immune checkpoint therapy in the hematology/oncology arena, however, raise other interesting possibilities with respect to early treatment and prevention of RA.

A number of case reports have documented the development of autoimmune diseases in patients with cancer who have undergone treatment with checkpoint inhibitors.

“Essentially what happens in cancer is that the activated T cells upregulate immune checkpoint molecules. ... and what these molecules do is they make the T cells essentially resistant to attacking the tumor cells,” he explained, noting that the molecules include programmed death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4).

Checkpoint inhibitors bind to these molecules and “free up these activated T cells to attack the tumor cells” both through cytokines (interferon release) and direct cell cytotoxicity, he said.

This is relevant for rheumatology patients, because the PD-1 checkpoint molecule is overexpressed in pathogenic T cells in RA and systemic lupus erythematosus.

A closer look at his own RA patients showed that those who were ACPA positive had higher levels of soluble PD-1 than did the ACPA-negative RA patients – a finding that has been replicated in two other cohorts, he noted.

“So we wanted to look at our seropositive arthralgia subjects and see if there is something in their gene signatures on immunophenotyping which actually would give us a clue in terms of this checkpoint inhibitor pathway,” he said. “What we found is that the anti–PD-1 signature is increased in our arthralgia patients, and again, the pattern of expression is more similar to early rheumatoid arthritis and established rheumatoid arthritis, and is significantly different from both healthy controls and patients with osteoarthritis.”

PD-1 expression was also found to be increased on CD4- and CD8-positive T cells taken from the synovial tissues in these patients, he said.

Immunostaining of the T cells showed, interestingly, that the ligand for PD-1 is “almost absent,” he noted.

“So there’s an overexpression of PD-1, but there’s a downregulation of the ligand for PD-1, so that means that the PD-1 pathway is not active in these patients because the PD-1 ... has no ligand to actually bind on to.”

This suggests that “something else may happen that will upregulate the ligand – maybe a second hit,” thereby allowing PD-1 to bind and become active, he said.

“I realize what I’ve been talking about is fairly controversial, but I think it may be possible soon to predict a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis before clinical arthritis develops, but not in everybody,” he said, noting that current diagnostic tools are often unreliable.

For example, CRP levels in most of his study subjects remained normal even after converting to meet RA criteria, he explained.

However, “the checkpoint inhibitor story is absolutely fascinating,” he said.

“It’s unmasked an RA phenotype in patients who are receiving these drugs, and we have identified that the PD-1 pathway is altered in the synovial tissue, not just in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, but also in subjects before they have developed arthritis and they have circulating autoantibodies,” he said.

The CD38 plasmablasts found to be present in the synovial tissue before RA presents clinically may also represent a therapeutic target, he added.

Dr. Veale disclosed financial relationships (research grants, consulting fees, speaker’s bureau, and “other” relationships) with AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, and Janssen.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Findings from an ongoing study of individuals with seropositive arthralgia, as well as from numerous other ongoing research efforts, suggest that it will soon be possible to predict a future rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis, according to Douglas J. Veale, MD.

Evidence also suggests that disease onset can be delayed, and that there is potential for disease prevention in those cases, Dr. Veale, a professor and consultant rheumatologist at St. Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Cellular and molecular profiling of RA risk

Dr. Veale’s current research focuses on patients presenting with joint pain but no joint swelling or clinical evidence of soft tissue swelling, who are found to be seropositive for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and/or rheumatoid factor (RF).

“We have termed these patients [as having] ‘seropositive arthralgia,’ and we started a study in our institution because we started seeing more of these patients being referred in by the general practitioners,” said Dr. Veale, who is also director of translational research at the Dublin Academic Medical Centre of University College Dublin.

The aim of the study is to biopsy synovial tissue obtained during knee joint arthroscopy (which has been shown in prior studies to provide the same synovial findings as can be obtained through wrist and ankle biopsies) and to assess cellular and molecular profiles and clinical outcomes in these subjects, he said.

Of 36 seropositive arthralgia patients recruited to date, 22 are women, and 19 developed RA by 2010 ACR criteria within 12 months; most of those did so within 2-3 months, he said.

Median swollen joint counts were zero, and tender joint counts were slightly raised (median = 0, interquartile range = 0-4) in the subjects at baseline. Overall, 82% were RF positive, 91% were ACPA positive, and 73% were both RF and ACPA positive.

“The median [C-reactive protein (CRP) level] was 3 [mg/dL] with a range of 2-7, so most of these are normal when they’re coming to see us,” he said.

The level of synovitis seen on knee arthroscopy was a median of 60 on a visual analog scale of 0-100.

“So the level of synovitis that we’re seeing is certainly over a median of 50%,” he added.

Of 22 patients who were followed for at least 1 year – including the 19 who developed RA – none were on therapy at baseline, and none had CRP over 5 mg/dL at baseline. Two of the 19 who later developed RA elected to begin treatment before they developed the disease – one with hydroxychloroquine and one with methotrexate – and treatment was initiated in the remaining 17 RA patients as soon as they met the ACR RA criteria. Currently, 14 are on synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and 5 are on biologic DMARDs. Overall, 13 of the 22 patients followed for 1 year have no disease activity, 5 have low disease activity, and 4 have moderate disease activity, he said.

One question addressed in this study is whether immunostaining predicts arthritis, Dr. Veale noted.

“The short answer is ‘no,’ ” he said, explaining that activated T and B cells are seen in the biopsies of subjects who remain as seropositive arthralgia patients, and also in patients who actually develop RA. “So the immunohistology of these biopsies is not telling us a great deal.”

Immunophenotyping to establish RA risk

Another finding of interest is an increase in the synovial tissue CD38 plasmablasts as detected by RNA sequencing in seropositive arthralgia subjects.

“Their pattern looks more like early RA or established RA,” he noted.

Similarly, the proportion of B cells is already increased in the seropositive arthralgia subjects, compared with healthy subjects, and is similar to that seen in established seropositive and seronegative RA patients.

After looking at “a whole range of immunophenotypes,” Dr. Veale and his colleagues found that several other genes (not just for CD38) are expressed at increased levels in the arthralgia patients.

“The pattern that we’re seeing is that the seropositive arthralgia patients look more like the early rheumatoid and the established rheumatoid patients when we actually analyze their gene signatures using immunophenotyping,” he said.

The patients in this study were all referred by general practitioners, but another study – the PRAIRI study – recruited seropositive arthralgia patients from the community and randomized them to receive a single rituximab infusion or placebo (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:179-85).

“What they showed is that patients who received one dose of rituximab actually developed rheumatoid arthritis at a slower rate and at a later time than the patients who received placebo,” he said.

At 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in the rate of development of RA between the groups; rituximab had merely delayed the onset of RA, he said.

“They do discuss in this paper what the effect would be if you continued treatment in these patients: Would we actually prevent the onset of rheumatoid arthritis in a significant cohort of patients?” he said. “But we don’t know that.”
 

Could immune checkpoint inhibition reveal RA risk?

Recent findings from work with immune checkpoint therapy in the hematology/oncology arena, however, raise other interesting possibilities with respect to early treatment and prevention of RA.

A number of case reports have documented the development of autoimmune diseases in patients with cancer who have undergone treatment with checkpoint inhibitors.

“Essentially what happens in cancer is that the activated T cells upregulate immune checkpoint molecules. ... and what these molecules do is they make the T cells essentially resistant to attacking the tumor cells,” he explained, noting that the molecules include programmed death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4).

Checkpoint inhibitors bind to these molecules and “free up these activated T cells to attack the tumor cells” both through cytokines (interferon release) and direct cell cytotoxicity, he said.

This is relevant for rheumatology patients, because the PD-1 checkpoint molecule is overexpressed in pathogenic T cells in RA and systemic lupus erythematosus.

A closer look at his own RA patients showed that those who were ACPA positive had higher levels of soluble PD-1 than did the ACPA-negative RA patients – a finding that has been replicated in two other cohorts, he noted.

“So we wanted to look at our seropositive arthralgia subjects and see if there is something in their gene signatures on immunophenotyping which actually would give us a clue in terms of this checkpoint inhibitor pathway,” he said. “What we found is that the anti–PD-1 signature is increased in our arthralgia patients, and again, the pattern of expression is more similar to early rheumatoid arthritis and established rheumatoid arthritis, and is significantly different from both healthy controls and patients with osteoarthritis.”

PD-1 expression was also found to be increased on CD4- and CD8-positive T cells taken from the synovial tissues in these patients, he said.

Immunostaining of the T cells showed, interestingly, that the ligand for PD-1 is “almost absent,” he noted.

“So there’s an overexpression of PD-1, but there’s a downregulation of the ligand for PD-1, so that means that the PD-1 pathway is not active in these patients because the PD-1 ... has no ligand to actually bind on to.”

This suggests that “something else may happen that will upregulate the ligand – maybe a second hit,” thereby allowing PD-1 to bind and become active, he said.

“I realize what I’ve been talking about is fairly controversial, but I think it may be possible soon to predict a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis before clinical arthritis develops, but not in everybody,” he said, noting that current diagnostic tools are often unreliable.

For example, CRP levels in most of his study subjects remained normal even after converting to meet RA criteria, he explained.

However, “the checkpoint inhibitor story is absolutely fascinating,” he said.

“It’s unmasked an RA phenotype in patients who are receiving these drugs, and we have identified that the PD-1 pathway is altered in the synovial tissue, not just in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, but also in subjects before they have developed arthritis and they have circulating autoantibodies,” he said.

The CD38 plasmablasts found to be present in the synovial tissue before RA presents clinically may also represent a therapeutic target, he added.

Dr. Veale disclosed financial relationships (research grants, consulting fees, speaker’s bureau, and “other” relationships) with AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, and Janssen.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Methotrexate-related nausea and fatigue are an issue for many rheumatology patients who otherwise benefit from the treatment, but there are actually a few approaches beyond folic-acid supplementation that can help improve tolerance, according to a panel of arthritis experts.

Subcutaneous dosing is one option suggested by panel members Christopher Ritchlin, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and Douglas Veale, MD, of St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, who along with several other colleagues fielded questions during a discussion session at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“I like sub-Q,” agreed discussion moderator Michael E. Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “But I actually would lower the dose sub-Q before I gave it because you actually may get a higher serum level,” he said, explaining that that may negate the benefits with respect to nausea.

His preferred approach, he said, is to either split dosing – for example, splitting a 20-mg dose into two 10-mg doses followed 10 hours later with Leucovorin (folinic acid) – or to give the full methotrexate dose at bedtime followed 10 hours later with Leucovorin.

“I use a lot of Leucovorin – a lot,” he noted.

For those patients who get nauseated at the mere mention of methotrexate, though, it’s probably best to try a different drug, he said.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Another approach, suggested by Vivian Bykerk, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, is to give Zofran (ondansetron) with methotrexate. Other suggestions included lowering the methotrexate dose and injecting the drug.

For fatigue, there has been some suggestion of a benefit with B-12 supplementation, panel members said. Dr. Bykerk noted some ongoing work that is demonstrating a benefit with sublingual B-12 for methotrexate intolerance in general, and it appears to allow for much higher methotrexate dosing, she said.

Early reports regarding those as-yet-unpublished data are, indeed, promising, Dr. Weinblatt said, noting that in his practice he has been using subcutaneous B-12 given at about 1,000 mcg 2 days before methotrexate and then on the day of methotrexate for patients with fatigue who are “failing Leucovorin, failing caffeine.”

Addressing fatigue and nausea in patients on methotrexate is important because, in his experience in appropriately monitored patients, it’s not serious adverse events, but rather fatigue and nausea, that most often lead to stopping methotrexate.

Dr. Weinblatt reported financial relationships with nearly 20 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bykerk reported financial relationships with Amgen, Brainstorm, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr. Veale reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Ritchlin reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Methotrexate-related nausea and fatigue are an issue for many rheumatology patients who otherwise benefit from the treatment, but there are actually a few approaches beyond folic-acid supplementation that can help improve tolerance, according to a panel of arthritis experts.

Subcutaneous dosing is one option suggested by panel members Christopher Ritchlin, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and Douglas Veale, MD, of St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, who along with several other colleagues fielded questions during a discussion session at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“I like sub-Q,” agreed discussion moderator Michael E. Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “But I actually would lower the dose sub-Q before I gave it because you actually may get a higher serum level,” he said, explaining that that may negate the benefits with respect to nausea.

His preferred approach, he said, is to either split dosing – for example, splitting a 20-mg dose into two 10-mg doses followed 10 hours later with Leucovorin (folinic acid) – or to give the full methotrexate dose at bedtime followed 10 hours later with Leucovorin.

“I use a lot of Leucovorin – a lot,” he noted.

For those patients who get nauseated at the mere mention of methotrexate, though, it’s probably best to try a different drug, he said.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Another approach, suggested by Vivian Bykerk, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, is to give Zofran (ondansetron) with methotrexate. Other suggestions included lowering the methotrexate dose and injecting the drug.

For fatigue, there has been some suggestion of a benefit with B-12 supplementation, panel members said. Dr. Bykerk noted some ongoing work that is demonstrating a benefit with sublingual B-12 for methotrexate intolerance in general, and it appears to allow for much higher methotrexate dosing, she said.

Early reports regarding those as-yet-unpublished data are, indeed, promising, Dr. Weinblatt said, noting that in his practice he has been using subcutaneous B-12 given at about 1,000 mcg 2 days before methotrexate and then on the day of methotrexate for patients with fatigue who are “failing Leucovorin, failing caffeine.”

Addressing fatigue and nausea in patients on methotrexate is important because, in his experience in appropriately monitored patients, it’s not serious adverse events, but rather fatigue and nausea, that most often lead to stopping methotrexate.

Dr. Weinblatt reported financial relationships with nearly 20 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bykerk reported financial relationships with Amgen, Brainstorm, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr. Veale reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Ritchlin reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Methotrexate-related nausea and fatigue are an issue for many rheumatology patients who otherwise benefit from the treatment, but there are actually a few approaches beyond folic-acid supplementation that can help improve tolerance, according to a panel of arthritis experts.

Subcutaneous dosing is one option suggested by panel members Christopher Ritchlin, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and Douglas Veale, MD, of St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, who along with several other colleagues fielded questions during a discussion session at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“I like sub-Q,” agreed discussion moderator Michael E. Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “But I actually would lower the dose sub-Q before I gave it because you actually may get a higher serum level,” he said, explaining that that may negate the benefits with respect to nausea.

His preferred approach, he said, is to either split dosing – for example, splitting a 20-mg dose into two 10-mg doses followed 10 hours later with Leucovorin (folinic acid) – or to give the full methotrexate dose at bedtime followed 10 hours later with Leucovorin.

“I use a lot of Leucovorin – a lot,” he noted.

For those patients who get nauseated at the mere mention of methotrexate, though, it’s probably best to try a different drug, he said.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Another approach, suggested by Vivian Bykerk, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, is to give Zofran (ondansetron) with methotrexate. Other suggestions included lowering the methotrexate dose and injecting the drug.

For fatigue, there has been some suggestion of a benefit with B-12 supplementation, panel members said. Dr. Bykerk noted some ongoing work that is demonstrating a benefit with sublingual B-12 for methotrexate intolerance in general, and it appears to allow for much higher methotrexate dosing, she said.

Early reports regarding those as-yet-unpublished data are, indeed, promising, Dr. Weinblatt said, noting that in his practice he has been using subcutaneous B-12 given at about 1,000 mcg 2 days before methotrexate and then on the day of methotrexate for patients with fatigue who are “failing Leucovorin, failing caffeine.”

Addressing fatigue and nausea in patients on methotrexate is important because, in his experience in appropriately monitored patients, it’s not serious adverse events, but rather fatigue and nausea, that most often lead to stopping methotrexate.

Dr. Weinblatt reported financial relationships with nearly 20 pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bykerk reported financial relationships with Amgen, Brainstorm, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr. Veale reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Ritchlin reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Recent findings, new classification criteria and treatment guidelines, and concerted efforts by various organizations to provide educational resources are among a number of factors improving the outlook for patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome, according to Judith James, MD, PhD.

Additionally, the number of studies of primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) is increasing, albeit slowly, and ongoing studies of biologics are showing promise, Dr. James said during a clinical update at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Classification criteria

The ACR in conjunction with the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) published new criteria for pSS classification in 2016 based on the available evidence and expert consensus. Inclusion criteria include daily, persistent, troublesome dry eyes for more than 3 months, recurrent sensation of sand or gravel in the eyes, use of tear substitutes more than three times each day, frequent drinking of liquids to aid in swallowing dry food, or at least one EULAR Sjögren’s syndrome disease activity index (ESSDAI) domain with a positive item. Exclusion criteria include prior head and neck radiation treatment, polymerase chain reaction–confirmed active hepatitis C infection, AIDS, sarcoidosis, amyloidosis, graft-versus-host disease, or IgG4-related disease, said Dr. James, professor and chair of the arthritis and clinical immunology research program at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City (Arthritis Rheumatol. Jan 2017;69[1]:35-45).

• A score of 4 or higher in patients who meet the inclusion criteria and do not have any of the exclusion criteria leads to classification with pSS, based on the following findings:
• Labial salivary gland with focal lymphocytic sialadenitis and focus score of at least 1 foci/4 mm² (weight/score = 3).
• Anti-SSA/Ro-positivity (weight/score = 3).
• Ocular Staining Score of at least 5, or van Bijsterveld score of at least 4, in at least one eye (weight/score = 1).
• Schirmer’s test of no more than 5 mm/5 min in at least one eye (weight/score = 1).
• Unstimulated whole saliva flow rate of no more than 0.1 mL/min (weight/score = 1).

Clinical pearls for detection and management

In Dr. James’ experience, the three symptoms (taken together) with the highest predictive value for diagnosing pSS are dry mouth, sore mouth/tongue, and dry eyes. About 25% of Sjögren’s patients may have no detectable salivary flow, she said.

Dry, cracked skin that can lead to secondary infections is another common issue affecting about 55% of patients.

“So we always have to talk to our Sjögren’s patients about skin,” she said. “We also have recurrent sinusitis, chronic cough, dyspepsia, constipation, and other symptoms.”

Concurrent autoimmune diseases are another concern in Sjögren’s patients, she said. One to particularly keep in mind, in addition to lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, is autoimmune thyroid disease.

Data suggest that up to 45% of Sjögren’s patients have thyroid dysfunction, and if you look at just those with autoimmune thyroiditis, their risk of Sjögren’s is increased 10-fold vs. those without autoimmune thyroiditis, she said.

Other conditions to keep in mind when it comes to diagnosing and managing patients, as has been shown in numerous studies over the years, include Raynaud’s phenomenon, which affects at least 13% of patients, and subclinical muscle inflammation, which affects more than 50% of patients, Dr. James said.

“Depression ... as well as anxiety, is quite common in Sjögren’s patients, and fatigue is profound,” she added, noting that fatigue is “the No. 1 issue” for many patients.

Another area of particular concern in Sjögren’s is the increased risk of lymphoma, she said.

Studies show varying rates of lymphoma in Sjögren’s, with one suggesting a 44-fold increased risk, but this is likely only among those at very high risk. Other studies suggest the increase is risk overall is in the range of 4- to 10-fold, she said.

Mortality in Sjögren’s patients

A 2015 study by Soledad Retamozo et al. showed that the presence of cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (CV) at diagnosis is associated with increased mortality risk.

Of 515 consecutive pSS patients with a mean follow-up of 110 months, 65 (12%) had cryoglobulins detected, and 21 of those (32%) fulfilled CV criteria. The patients with cryoglobulins had higher cumulative mean disease activity, 45 (9%) developed B-cell lymphoma, and 33 (6%) died (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]. Abstract 628).

Additionally, both CV-positive and CV-negative patients had higher risk of B-cell lymphoma, but the risk was greatest in the CV-positive group (hazard ratios, 7.47 and 2.56, respectively), and the CV-positive patients had a higher risk of death (HR, 11.68).

“This actually has changed practice in our Sjögren’s clinic because we didn’t used to do cryos on everybody unless they had leukocytoclastic vasculitis, because they also have a higher risk of death,” Dr. James said.

Systemic activity also predicts pSS mortality, according to findings published in 2016 by Pilar Brito-Zerón et al. Of 1,045 patients who were part of the Spanish Group of Autoimmune Disease-SS Study Group and who were followed for a mean of 117 months, mortality was 11%. Survival was 96% at 5 years, 90% at 10 years, 81% at 20 years, and 60% at 30 years (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:348-55).

Baseline factors associated with increased mortality on multivariate analysis included male gender, cryoglobulins, and low complement levels; the strongest model for death included high activity in at least one ESSDAI domain, baseline ESSDAI of at least 14, more than one laboratory predictive marker such as lymphopenia, anti-La, monoclonal gammopathy, low C3, low C4, and/or cryoglobulins.
 

Predicting progression to pSS

Progress has also been made with respect to predicting progression to pSS among patients who present with some related symptoms but don’t meet Sjögren’s criteria, Dr. James noted.

A 2017 study by Caroline Shiboski et al. looked at 771 patients from the Sjögren’s International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) registry who had previously had objective measures of salivary hypofunction, dry eyes, focal lymphocytic sialadenitis or anti-Ro/anti-La. When these patients were recalled 2-3 years after their baseline evaluation, 28 (9%) of 308 patients who did not meet pSS criteria at baseline had then progressed to pSS (Arthritis Care Res. 2017;70[2]:284-94).

Those with baseline hypergammaglobulinemia were four times more likely to progress, and those with baseline low complement levels were six times more likely to progress.

Many patients will present with symptoms, but won’t ever develop Sjögren’s, but the subset of patients with these baseline characteristics may be at greater risk, she said.
 

Autoantibodies and pathogenesis

Up to 90% of pSS patients will have one or more of anti-Ro, anti-La, or rheumatoid factor, and many will have a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) level of at least 1:320, Dr. James said, adding that anti-Ro and anti-La are linked with earlier disease onset, increased disease severity, longer disease duration, and extraglandular involvement.

Ro52, a target of Sjögren’s autoantibodies, may also confer more severe disease, and autoantibodies to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors appear to contribute to pathogenesis in Sjögren’s patients “above and beyond what we see with lymphocytic infiltrates and other things that are happening in the salivary gland,” she said.

Other exciting progress with respect to disease pathogenesis includes an increased focus on genetics and genetic predisposition beyond human leukocyte antigen associations.

Mutations in genes that overlap with Sjögren’s and lupus or Sjögren’s and RA, such as IRF5, Blk, and STAT4 appear to contribute to Sjögren’s syndrome development.

“And then there’s also some new genetics looking at Sjögren’s-specific genes, and these may help us as we think about new targetable pathways in this disorder,” she said.

Genomics and gene-environment interactions, such as interactions with viral infections or “other things that lead to molecular mimicry that get the disease process started,” are also getting increased attention; gene-expression profiling has shown overlap between Sjögren’s and lupus (shared genetics, autoantibodies, and similarly strong interferon signatures, for example), which isn’t surprising.

“But we’re also seeing NF-kB [NF-kappa B] activation, antigen presentation, and migration pathways that are being found in Sjögren’s that aren’t necessarily the ones that we see in lupus,” she added.
 

Clinical practice guidelines

A number of practice guidelines addressing various symptoms and issues associated with pSS have been released in the last few years, including several from EULAR, the United States, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, are summarized and reviewed in a recent paper by Vasco Romão et al. (RMD Open. 2018;4:e000789. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000789).

The British Society of Rheumatology guideline, which came out about a year ago, has particularly practical guidance on the management of dryness and systemic disease, she said (Rheumatology. 2017;56[10]:1643-7).

The increasing focus on pSS research has important implications both for trial design and patient care, especially in light of the new classification criteria, practice guidelines, and educational resources provided by organizations such as the Sjögren’s Syndrome Foundation (including videos, health care provider information, and downloadable brochures and resource sheets) and the European Research Network’s ReCONNET Disease Info Toolbox for Sjögren’s, Dr. James concluded.

Dr. James reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Recent findings, new classification criteria and treatment guidelines, and concerted efforts by various organizations to provide educational resources are among a number of factors improving the outlook for patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome, according to Judith James, MD, PhD.

Additionally, the number of studies of primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) is increasing, albeit slowly, and ongoing studies of biologics are showing promise, Dr. James said during a clinical update at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Classification criteria

The ACR in conjunction with the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) published new criteria for pSS classification in 2016 based on the available evidence and expert consensus. Inclusion criteria include daily, persistent, troublesome dry eyes for more than 3 months, recurrent sensation of sand or gravel in the eyes, use of tear substitutes more than three times each day, frequent drinking of liquids to aid in swallowing dry food, or at least one EULAR Sjögren’s syndrome disease activity index (ESSDAI) domain with a positive item. Exclusion criteria include prior head and neck radiation treatment, polymerase chain reaction–confirmed active hepatitis C infection, AIDS, sarcoidosis, amyloidosis, graft-versus-host disease, or IgG4-related disease, said Dr. James, professor and chair of the arthritis and clinical immunology research program at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City (Arthritis Rheumatol. Jan 2017;69[1]:35-45).

• A score of 4 or higher in patients who meet the inclusion criteria and do not have any of the exclusion criteria leads to classification with pSS, based on the following findings:
• Labial salivary gland with focal lymphocytic sialadenitis and focus score of at least 1 foci/4 mm² (weight/score = 3).
• Anti-SSA/Ro-positivity (weight/score = 3).
• Ocular Staining Score of at least 5, or van Bijsterveld score of at least 4, in at least one eye (weight/score = 1).
• Schirmer’s test of no more than 5 mm/5 min in at least one eye (weight/score = 1).
• Unstimulated whole saliva flow rate of no more than 0.1 mL/min (weight/score = 1).

Clinical pearls for detection and management

In Dr. James’ experience, the three symptoms (taken together) with the highest predictive value for diagnosing pSS are dry mouth, sore mouth/tongue, and dry eyes. About 25% of Sjögren’s patients may have no detectable salivary flow, she said.

Dry, cracked skin that can lead to secondary infections is another common issue affecting about 55% of patients.

“So we always have to talk to our Sjögren’s patients about skin,” she said. “We also have recurrent sinusitis, chronic cough, dyspepsia, constipation, and other symptoms.”

Concurrent autoimmune diseases are another concern in Sjögren’s patients, she said. One to particularly keep in mind, in addition to lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, is autoimmune thyroid disease.

Data suggest that up to 45% of Sjögren’s patients have thyroid dysfunction, and if you look at just those with autoimmune thyroiditis, their risk of Sjögren’s is increased 10-fold vs. those without autoimmune thyroiditis, she said.

Other conditions to keep in mind when it comes to diagnosing and managing patients, as has been shown in numerous studies over the years, include Raynaud’s phenomenon, which affects at least 13% of patients, and subclinical muscle inflammation, which affects more than 50% of patients, Dr. James said.

“Depression ... as well as anxiety, is quite common in Sjögren’s patients, and fatigue is profound,” she added, noting that fatigue is “the No. 1 issue” for many patients.

Another area of particular concern in Sjögren’s is the increased risk of lymphoma, she said.

Studies show varying rates of lymphoma in Sjögren’s, with one suggesting a 44-fold increased risk, but this is likely only among those at very high risk. Other studies suggest the increase is risk overall is in the range of 4- to 10-fold, she said.

Mortality in Sjögren’s patients

A 2015 study by Soledad Retamozo et al. showed that the presence of cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (CV) at diagnosis is associated with increased mortality risk.

Of 515 consecutive pSS patients with a mean follow-up of 110 months, 65 (12%) had cryoglobulins detected, and 21 of those (32%) fulfilled CV criteria. The patients with cryoglobulins had higher cumulative mean disease activity, 45 (9%) developed B-cell lymphoma, and 33 (6%) died (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]. Abstract 628).

Additionally, both CV-positive and CV-negative patients had higher risk of B-cell lymphoma, but the risk was greatest in the CV-positive group (hazard ratios, 7.47 and 2.56, respectively), and the CV-positive patients had a higher risk of death (HR, 11.68).

“This actually has changed practice in our Sjögren’s clinic because we didn’t used to do cryos on everybody unless they had leukocytoclastic vasculitis, because they also have a higher risk of death,” Dr. James said.

Systemic activity also predicts pSS mortality, according to findings published in 2016 by Pilar Brito-Zerón et al. Of 1,045 patients who were part of the Spanish Group of Autoimmune Disease-SS Study Group and who were followed for a mean of 117 months, mortality was 11%. Survival was 96% at 5 years, 90% at 10 years, 81% at 20 years, and 60% at 30 years (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:348-55).

Baseline factors associated with increased mortality on multivariate analysis included male gender, cryoglobulins, and low complement levels; the strongest model for death included high activity in at least one ESSDAI domain, baseline ESSDAI of at least 14, more than one laboratory predictive marker such as lymphopenia, anti-La, monoclonal gammopathy, low C3, low C4, and/or cryoglobulins.
 

Predicting progression to pSS

Progress has also been made with respect to predicting progression to pSS among patients who present with some related symptoms but don’t meet Sjögren’s criteria, Dr. James noted.

A 2017 study by Caroline Shiboski et al. looked at 771 patients from the Sjögren’s International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) registry who had previously had objective measures of salivary hypofunction, dry eyes, focal lymphocytic sialadenitis or anti-Ro/anti-La. When these patients were recalled 2-3 years after their baseline evaluation, 28 (9%) of 308 patients who did not meet pSS criteria at baseline had then progressed to pSS (Arthritis Care Res. 2017;70[2]:284-94).

Those with baseline hypergammaglobulinemia were four times more likely to progress, and those with baseline low complement levels were six times more likely to progress.

Many patients will present with symptoms, but won’t ever develop Sjögren’s, but the subset of patients with these baseline characteristics may be at greater risk, she said.
 

Autoantibodies and pathogenesis

Up to 90% of pSS patients will have one or more of anti-Ro, anti-La, or rheumatoid factor, and many will have a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) level of at least 1:320, Dr. James said, adding that anti-Ro and anti-La are linked with earlier disease onset, increased disease severity, longer disease duration, and extraglandular involvement.

Ro52, a target of Sjögren’s autoantibodies, may also confer more severe disease, and autoantibodies to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors appear to contribute to pathogenesis in Sjögren’s patients “above and beyond what we see with lymphocytic infiltrates and other things that are happening in the salivary gland,” she said.

Other exciting progress with respect to disease pathogenesis includes an increased focus on genetics and genetic predisposition beyond human leukocyte antigen associations.

Mutations in genes that overlap with Sjögren’s and lupus or Sjögren’s and RA, such as IRF5, Blk, and STAT4 appear to contribute to Sjögren’s syndrome development.

“And then there’s also some new genetics looking at Sjögren’s-specific genes, and these may help us as we think about new targetable pathways in this disorder,” she said.

Genomics and gene-environment interactions, such as interactions with viral infections or “other things that lead to molecular mimicry that get the disease process started,” are also getting increased attention; gene-expression profiling has shown overlap between Sjögren’s and lupus (shared genetics, autoantibodies, and similarly strong interferon signatures, for example), which isn’t surprising.

“But we’re also seeing NF-kB [NF-kappa B] activation, antigen presentation, and migration pathways that are being found in Sjögren’s that aren’t necessarily the ones that we see in lupus,” she added.
 

Clinical practice guidelines

A number of practice guidelines addressing various symptoms and issues associated with pSS have been released in the last few years, including several from EULAR, the United States, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, are summarized and reviewed in a recent paper by Vasco Romão et al. (RMD Open. 2018;4:e000789. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000789).

The British Society of Rheumatology guideline, which came out about a year ago, has particularly practical guidance on the management of dryness and systemic disease, she said (Rheumatology. 2017;56[10]:1643-7).

The increasing focus on pSS research has important implications both for trial design and patient care, especially in light of the new classification criteria, practice guidelines, and educational resources provided by organizations such as the Sjögren’s Syndrome Foundation (including videos, health care provider information, and downloadable brochures and resource sheets) and the European Research Network’s ReCONNET Disease Info Toolbox for Sjögren’s, Dr. James concluded.

Dr. James reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Recent findings, new classification criteria and treatment guidelines, and concerted efforts by various organizations to provide educational resources are among a number of factors improving the outlook for patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome, according to Judith James, MD, PhD.

Additionally, the number of studies of primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) is increasing, albeit slowly, and ongoing studies of biologics are showing promise, Dr. James said during a clinical update at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
 

Classification criteria

The ACR in conjunction with the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) published new criteria for pSS classification in 2016 based on the available evidence and expert consensus. Inclusion criteria include daily, persistent, troublesome dry eyes for more than 3 months, recurrent sensation of sand or gravel in the eyes, use of tear substitutes more than three times each day, frequent drinking of liquids to aid in swallowing dry food, or at least one EULAR Sjögren’s syndrome disease activity index (ESSDAI) domain with a positive item. Exclusion criteria include prior head and neck radiation treatment, polymerase chain reaction–confirmed active hepatitis C infection, AIDS, sarcoidosis, amyloidosis, graft-versus-host disease, or IgG4-related disease, said Dr. James, professor and chair of the arthritis and clinical immunology research program at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City (Arthritis Rheumatol. Jan 2017;69[1]:35-45).

• A score of 4 or higher in patients who meet the inclusion criteria and do not have any of the exclusion criteria leads to classification with pSS, based on the following findings:
• Labial salivary gland with focal lymphocytic sialadenitis and focus score of at least 1 foci/4 mm² (weight/score = 3).
• Anti-SSA/Ro-positivity (weight/score = 3).
• Ocular Staining Score of at least 5, or van Bijsterveld score of at least 4, in at least one eye (weight/score = 1).
• Schirmer’s test of no more than 5 mm/5 min in at least one eye (weight/score = 1).
• Unstimulated whole saliva flow rate of no more than 0.1 mL/min (weight/score = 1).

Clinical pearls for detection and management

In Dr. James’ experience, the three symptoms (taken together) with the highest predictive value for diagnosing pSS are dry mouth, sore mouth/tongue, and dry eyes. About 25% of Sjögren’s patients may have no detectable salivary flow, she said.

Dry, cracked skin that can lead to secondary infections is another common issue affecting about 55% of patients.

“So we always have to talk to our Sjögren’s patients about skin,” she said. “We also have recurrent sinusitis, chronic cough, dyspepsia, constipation, and other symptoms.”

Concurrent autoimmune diseases are another concern in Sjögren’s patients, she said. One to particularly keep in mind, in addition to lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, is autoimmune thyroid disease.

Data suggest that up to 45% of Sjögren’s patients have thyroid dysfunction, and if you look at just those with autoimmune thyroiditis, their risk of Sjögren’s is increased 10-fold vs. those without autoimmune thyroiditis, she said.

Other conditions to keep in mind when it comes to diagnosing and managing patients, as has been shown in numerous studies over the years, include Raynaud’s phenomenon, which affects at least 13% of patients, and subclinical muscle inflammation, which affects more than 50% of patients, Dr. James said.

“Depression ... as well as anxiety, is quite common in Sjögren’s patients, and fatigue is profound,” she added, noting that fatigue is “the No. 1 issue” for many patients.

Another area of particular concern in Sjögren’s is the increased risk of lymphoma, she said.

Studies show varying rates of lymphoma in Sjögren’s, with one suggesting a 44-fold increased risk, but this is likely only among those at very high risk. Other studies suggest the increase is risk overall is in the range of 4- to 10-fold, she said.

Mortality in Sjögren’s patients

A 2015 study by Soledad Retamozo et al. showed that the presence of cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (CV) at diagnosis is associated with increased mortality risk.

Of 515 consecutive pSS patients with a mean follow-up of 110 months, 65 (12%) had cryoglobulins detected, and 21 of those (32%) fulfilled CV criteria. The patients with cryoglobulins had higher cumulative mean disease activity, 45 (9%) developed B-cell lymphoma, and 33 (6%) died (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67[suppl 10]. Abstract 628).

Additionally, both CV-positive and CV-negative patients had higher risk of B-cell lymphoma, but the risk was greatest in the CV-positive group (hazard ratios, 7.47 and 2.56, respectively), and the CV-positive patients had a higher risk of death (HR, 11.68).

“This actually has changed practice in our Sjögren’s clinic because we didn’t used to do cryos on everybody unless they had leukocytoclastic vasculitis, because they also have a higher risk of death,” Dr. James said.

Systemic activity also predicts pSS mortality, according to findings published in 2016 by Pilar Brito-Zerón et al. Of 1,045 patients who were part of the Spanish Group of Autoimmune Disease-SS Study Group and who were followed for a mean of 117 months, mortality was 11%. Survival was 96% at 5 years, 90% at 10 years, 81% at 20 years, and 60% at 30 years (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:348-55).

Baseline factors associated with increased mortality on multivariate analysis included male gender, cryoglobulins, and low complement levels; the strongest model for death included high activity in at least one ESSDAI domain, baseline ESSDAI of at least 14, more than one laboratory predictive marker such as lymphopenia, anti-La, monoclonal gammopathy, low C3, low C4, and/or cryoglobulins.
 

Predicting progression to pSS

Progress has also been made with respect to predicting progression to pSS among patients who present with some related symptoms but don’t meet Sjögren’s criteria, Dr. James noted.

A 2017 study by Caroline Shiboski et al. looked at 771 patients from the Sjögren’s International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) registry who had previously had objective measures of salivary hypofunction, dry eyes, focal lymphocytic sialadenitis or anti-Ro/anti-La. When these patients were recalled 2-3 years after their baseline evaluation, 28 (9%) of 308 patients who did not meet pSS criteria at baseline had then progressed to pSS (Arthritis Care Res. 2017;70[2]:284-94).

Those with baseline hypergammaglobulinemia were four times more likely to progress, and those with baseline low complement levels were six times more likely to progress.

Many patients will present with symptoms, but won’t ever develop Sjögren’s, but the subset of patients with these baseline characteristics may be at greater risk, she said.
 

Autoantibodies and pathogenesis

Up to 90% of pSS patients will have one or more of anti-Ro, anti-La, or rheumatoid factor, and many will have a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) level of at least 1:320, Dr. James said, adding that anti-Ro and anti-La are linked with earlier disease onset, increased disease severity, longer disease duration, and extraglandular involvement.

Ro52, a target of Sjögren’s autoantibodies, may also confer more severe disease, and autoantibodies to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors appear to contribute to pathogenesis in Sjögren’s patients “above and beyond what we see with lymphocytic infiltrates and other things that are happening in the salivary gland,” she said.

Other exciting progress with respect to disease pathogenesis includes an increased focus on genetics and genetic predisposition beyond human leukocyte antigen associations.

Mutations in genes that overlap with Sjögren’s and lupus or Sjögren’s and RA, such as IRF5, Blk, and STAT4 appear to contribute to Sjögren’s syndrome development.

“And then there’s also some new genetics looking at Sjögren’s-specific genes, and these may help us as we think about new targetable pathways in this disorder,” she said.

Genomics and gene-environment interactions, such as interactions with viral infections or “other things that lead to molecular mimicry that get the disease process started,” are also getting increased attention; gene-expression profiling has shown overlap between Sjögren’s and lupus (shared genetics, autoantibodies, and similarly strong interferon signatures, for example), which isn’t surprising.

“But we’re also seeing NF-kB [NF-kappa B] activation, antigen presentation, and migration pathways that are being found in Sjögren’s that aren’t necessarily the ones that we see in lupus,” she added.
 

Clinical practice guidelines

A number of practice guidelines addressing various symptoms and issues associated with pSS have been released in the last few years, including several from EULAR, the United States, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, are summarized and reviewed in a recent paper by Vasco Romão et al. (RMD Open. 2018;4:e000789. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000789).

The British Society of Rheumatology guideline, which came out about a year ago, has particularly practical guidance on the management of dryness and systemic disease, she said (Rheumatology. 2017;56[10]:1643-7).

The increasing focus on pSS research has important implications both for trial design and patient care, especially in light of the new classification criteria, practice guidelines, and educational resources provided by organizations such as the Sjögren’s Syndrome Foundation (including videos, health care provider information, and downloadable brochures and resource sheets) and the European Research Network’s ReCONNET Disease Info Toolbox for Sjögren’s, Dr. James concluded.

Dr. James reported having no disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Advances in precision medicine present enormous opportunity for rheumatology, but optimizing its benefits requires more input from the specialty and a sharper focus on related training for rheumatologists, according to Judith A. James, MD, PhD.

Precision medicine is getting a great deal of attention and is an exciting area, but it is already widely used in the field; think treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis, autoantibody testing for patient stratification across various conditions, and individual monitoring and dose escalation to achieve optimal uric acid levels in gout patients, Dr. James, professor of medicine and associate vice provost of clinical and translational science at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“We have historically ... actually had the highest number of FDA approved biomarker tests in rheumatology compared to all other specialties until this last couple of years where we’re starting to see this explosion of genetic testing in oncology – and we’ve been doing genetic testing,” she said.

However, there is a great deal more work to be done.

“We still have a long way to go to go to get the right drug at the right dose at the right time in the right patient in order to optimize outcomes in all of these diseases that we are responsible for as rheumatologists,” she said.

The fields of oncology and hematology have been intensely focused on precision medicine – the development of unique therapies based on specific genetic abnormalities in an individual’s tumor – and this focus is apparent in practice patterns: A recent survey of 132 medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists showed that nearly 90% had ordered DNA sequencing, about 65% do so monthly, and 25% do so weekly.

“Those numbers are just going to continue to climb, and I think will see this in other disciplines as well,” she said.

The possibilities for improved outcomes in rheumatologic conditions using tailored treatments based on individual characteristics are practically limitless, she said, noting the heterogeneity of many rheumatologic conditions.

This is particularly true for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, she said.

Identifying patient subsets based on organ involvement, demographics, and biomarkers, for example, could lead to personalized treatments with different doses, routes of administration, and concurrent medications, she explained.
 

Genetics in SLE

Dr. James highlighted the role of genetics and the value of precision medicine in the SLE setting in a large transancestral association study published in 2017. The investigators analyzed Immunochip genotype data from 27,574 SLE cases and controls and identified 58 distinct non–human leukocyte antigen (HLA) regions in Americans with European ancestry, 9 in those with African ancestry, and 16 in those with Hispanic ancestry. The investigators found that these non-HLA regions included 24 novel to SLE, and in their analysis the researchers were able to refine association signals in previously established regions, extend associations to additional ancestries, and reveal a complex multigenic effect just outside of the HLA region (Nature Commun. 2017;8:16021).

The findings led to a “cumulative hit hypothesis” for autoimmune disease, and help to clarify genetic architecture and ethnic disparities in SLE, they concluded.

“So we now have over a hundred genetic regions that have been associated with lupus, compared to healthy controls,” Dr. James said.

A frustration with genetic data such as these, however, is the challenge of “getting it into the clinic,” she noted.

“I think that looking at individual [single nuclear polymorphisms] is probably not what we’re going to be doing, but we’re seeing a lot of interest in the idea of genetic load,” she said, explaining that it may soon be possible to use genetic load information to evaluate patient risk.

A recent study at her institution looked at lupus risk from another angle: She and her colleagues recontacted family members from Oklahoma Lupus Genetics studies to look more closely at which blood relatives of SLE patients transitioned to SLE, and what factors were associated with that transition when compared with relatives who remained unaffected (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69[3]:630-42).

Among the findings was a higher risk of transitioning among family members with both a positive antinuclear antibody test and a baseline Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire score indicative of connective tissue disease.

“We also found, of course, biomarkers, or blood markers, that helped us identify the individuals who were at the highest risk of transitioning, so we think a blood test might really be helpful,” she said.

That study also suggested that there may be ways to intervene in SLE patients’ relatives at increased risk for also developing lupus. For example, those who transitioned had increased levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors and the interferon-driven chemokine MCP-3; a prevention trial is now underway, she noted.
 

Beyond genetics

Genetics are just one piece of the precision medicine puzzle, and other areas of investigation that may help to divide patients into subgroups for more precise treatment include genomics, soluble mediators, and immunophenotyping, Dr. James said.

“It may be that we need different pieces of all of these things to help guide our treatment in lupus patients,” she said.

Longitudinal clinical and blood transcriptional profiling of patients in the Dallas Pediatric SLE cohort, for example, identified a molecular classification system for SLE patients. The analysis of 972 samples from 158 SLE patients and 48 healthy controls, which were collected for up to 4 years, showed that an interferon response signature was present in 784 of the samples.

The investigators found that a plasmablast signature, which is found more in African-American patients than in other populations, best correlates with disease activity and that a neutrophil-related signature is associated with progression to active lupus nephritis (Cell. 2016;165[3]:551-65).

“This is something that will potentially be helpful [in the clinic], and we need to test this in the adult population,” Dr. James said.

The investigators also were able to stratify patients, based on individual immunoprofiling, into seven major groups based on molecular correlates. They concluded that such stratification could help improve the outcomes of clinical trials in SLE.

In another study, researchers looked at longitudinal gene expression in SLE patients by stratifying each of two independent sets of patients (a pediatric cohort and an adult cohort) into three clinically differentiated disease clusters defined by mechanisms of disease progression (Arthritis Rheumatol. Dec 2018;70[12]:2025-35).

The clusters included one showing a correlation between the percentage of neutrophils and disease activity progression, one showing a correlation between the percentage of lymphocytes and disease activity progression, and a third for which the percentage of neutrophils correlated to a lesser degree with disease activity but was functionally more heterogeneous. Patients in the two neutrophil‐driven clusters had an increased risk of developing proliferative nephritis.

The results have implications for treatment, trial design, and understanding of disease etiology, the investigators concluded.

“This may help us in the future as we think about which medicine to start patients on, and which medicines to start patients on first,” Dr. James said.

It is clear that precision medicine will play an increasingly important role in rheumatology, Dr. James said, when considering the context of other findings in recent years, such as those from studies looking at soluble mediators of inflammation associated with disease flare, as well as those that involved extensive immunophenotyping and showed widely divergent transcriptional patterns based on ancestral backgrounds. Other research, such as the BOLD (Biomarkers of Lupus Disease) study, looked at various mechanisms of disease flare.

Numerous types of personalized therapies are being considered in rheumatology, ranging from expanded regulatory T cells to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy to risk profiling for disease prevention, just to name a few. Going forward it will be important to perform more systems biology analyses to assemble precision medicine–related data that can inform clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy selection and optimization, she said.

The future of personalized therapies in rheumatology will require more input from rheumatologists on large-scale precision medicine projects such as the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Project and the Million Veteran Program, as well as other similar programs of major health systems, she noted, adding that different types of training and interaction with molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, health coaches, and other key players also are needed.

Dr. James reported having no relevant disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Advances in precision medicine present enormous opportunity for rheumatology, but optimizing its benefits requires more input from the specialty and a sharper focus on related training for rheumatologists, according to Judith A. James, MD, PhD.

Precision medicine is getting a great deal of attention and is an exciting area, but it is already widely used in the field; think treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis, autoantibody testing for patient stratification across various conditions, and individual monitoring and dose escalation to achieve optimal uric acid levels in gout patients, Dr. James, professor of medicine and associate vice provost of clinical and translational science at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“We have historically ... actually had the highest number of FDA approved biomarker tests in rheumatology compared to all other specialties until this last couple of years where we’re starting to see this explosion of genetic testing in oncology – and we’ve been doing genetic testing,” she said.

However, there is a great deal more work to be done.

“We still have a long way to go to go to get the right drug at the right dose at the right time in the right patient in order to optimize outcomes in all of these diseases that we are responsible for as rheumatologists,” she said.

The fields of oncology and hematology have been intensely focused on precision medicine – the development of unique therapies based on specific genetic abnormalities in an individual’s tumor – and this focus is apparent in practice patterns: A recent survey of 132 medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists showed that nearly 90% had ordered DNA sequencing, about 65% do so monthly, and 25% do so weekly.

“Those numbers are just going to continue to climb, and I think will see this in other disciplines as well,” she said.

The possibilities for improved outcomes in rheumatologic conditions using tailored treatments based on individual characteristics are practically limitless, she said, noting the heterogeneity of many rheumatologic conditions.

This is particularly true for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, she said.

Identifying patient subsets based on organ involvement, demographics, and biomarkers, for example, could lead to personalized treatments with different doses, routes of administration, and concurrent medications, she explained.
 

Genetics in SLE

Dr. James highlighted the role of genetics and the value of precision medicine in the SLE setting in a large transancestral association study published in 2017. The investigators analyzed Immunochip genotype data from 27,574 SLE cases and controls and identified 58 distinct non–human leukocyte antigen (HLA) regions in Americans with European ancestry, 9 in those with African ancestry, and 16 in those with Hispanic ancestry. The investigators found that these non-HLA regions included 24 novel to SLE, and in their analysis the researchers were able to refine association signals in previously established regions, extend associations to additional ancestries, and reveal a complex multigenic effect just outside of the HLA region (Nature Commun. 2017;8:16021).

The findings led to a “cumulative hit hypothesis” for autoimmune disease, and help to clarify genetic architecture and ethnic disparities in SLE, they concluded.

“So we now have over a hundred genetic regions that have been associated with lupus, compared to healthy controls,” Dr. James said.

A frustration with genetic data such as these, however, is the challenge of “getting it into the clinic,” she noted.

“I think that looking at individual [single nuclear polymorphisms] is probably not what we’re going to be doing, but we’re seeing a lot of interest in the idea of genetic load,” she said, explaining that it may soon be possible to use genetic load information to evaluate patient risk.

A recent study at her institution looked at lupus risk from another angle: She and her colleagues recontacted family members from Oklahoma Lupus Genetics studies to look more closely at which blood relatives of SLE patients transitioned to SLE, and what factors were associated with that transition when compared with relatives who remained unaffected (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69[3]:630-42).

Among the findings was a higher risk of transitioning among family members with both a positive antinuclear antibody test and a baseline Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire score indicative of connective tissue disease.

“We also found, of course, biomarkers, or blood markers, that helped us identify the individuals who were at the highest risk of transitioning, so we think a blood test might really be helpful,” she said.

That study also suggested that there may be ways to intervene in SLE patients’ relatives at increased risk for also developing lupus. For example, those who transitioned had increased levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors and the interferon-driven chemokine MCP-3; a prevention trial is now underway, she noted.
 

Beyond genetics

Genetics are just one piece of the precision medicine puzzle, and other areas of investigation that may help to divide patients into subgroups for more precise treatment include genomics, soluble mediators, and immunophenotyping, Dr. James said.

“It may be that we need different pieces of all of these things to help guide our treatment in lupus patients,” she said.

Longitudinal clinical and blood transcriptional profiling of patients in the Dallas Pediatric SLE cohort, for example, identified a molecular classification system for SLE patients. The analysis of 972 samples from 158 SLE patients and 48 healthy controls, which were collected for up to 4 years, showed that an interferon response signature was present in 784 of the samples.

The investigators found that a plasmablast signature, which is found more in African-American patients than in other populations, best correlates with disease activity and that a neutrophil-related signature is associated with progression to active lupus nephritis (Cell. 2016;165[3]:551-65).

“This is something that will potentially be helpful [in the clinic], and we need to test this in the adult population,” Dr. James said.

The investigators also were able to stratify patients, based on individual immunoprofiling, into seven major groups based on molecular correlates. They concluded that such stratification could help improve the outcomes of clinical trials in SLE.

In another study, researchers looked at longitudinal gene expression in SLE patients by stratifying each of two independent sets of patients (a pediatric cohort and an adult cohort) into three clinically differentiated disease clusters defined by mechanisms of disease progression (Arthritis Rheumatol. Dec 2018;70[12]:2025-35).

The clusters included one showing a correlation between the percentage of neutrophils and disease activity progression, one showing a correlation between the percentage of lymphocytes and disease activity progression, and a third for which the percentage of neutrophils correlated to a lesser degree with disease activity but was functionally more heterogeneous. Patients in the two neutrophil‐driven clusters had an increased risk of developing proliferative nephritis.

The results have implications for treatment, trial design, and understanding of disease etiology, the investigators concluded.

“This may help us in the future as we think about which medicine to start patients on, and which medicines to start patients on first,” Dr. James said.

It is clear that precision medicine will play an increasingly important role in rheumatology, Dr. James said, when considering the context of other findings in recent years, such as those from studies looking at soluble mediators of inflammation associated with disease flare, as well as those that involved extensive immunophenotyping and showed widely divergent transcriptional patterns based on ancestral backgrounds. Other research, such as the BOLD (Biomarkers of Lupus Disease) study, looked at various mechanisms of disease flare.

Numerous types of personalized therapies are being considered in rheumatology, ranging from expanded regulatory T cells to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy to risk profiling for disease prevention, just to name a few. Going forward it will be important to perform more systems biology analyses to assemble precision medicine–related data that can inform clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy selection and optimization, she said.

The future of personalized therapies in rheumatology will require more input from rheumatologists on large-scale precision medicine projects such as the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Project and the Million Veteran Program, as well as other similar programs of major health systems, she noted, adding that different types of training and interaction with molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, health coaches, and other key players also are needed.

Dr. James reported having no relevant disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Advances in precision medicine present enormous opportunity for rheumatology, but optimizing its benefits requires more input from the specialty and a sharper focus on related training for rheumatologists, according to Judith A. James, MD, PhD.

Precision medicine is getting a great deal of attention and is an exciting area, but it is already widely used in the field; think treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis, autoantibody testing for patient stratification across various conditions, and individual monitoring and dose escalation to achieve optimal uric acid levels in gout patients, Dr. James, professor of medicine and associate vice provost of clinical and translational science at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.

“We have historically ... actually had the highest number of FDA approved biomarker tests in rheumatology compared to all other specialties until this last couple of years where we’re starting to see this explosion of genetic testing in oncology – and we’ve been doing genetic testing,” she said.

However, there is a great deal more work to be done.

“We still have a long way to go to go to get the right drug at the right dose at the right time in the right patient in order to optimize outcomes in all of these diseases that we are responsible for as rheumatologists,” she said.

The fields of oncology and hematology have been intensely focused on precision medicine – the development of unique therapies based on specific genetic abnormalities in an individual’s tumor – and this focus is apparent in practice patterns: A recent survey of 132 medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists showed that nearly 90% had ordered DNA sequencing, about 65% do so monthly, and 25% do so weekly.

“Those numbers are just going to continue to climb, and I think will see this in other disciplines as well,” she said.

The possibilities for improved outcomes in rheumatologic conditions using tailored treatments based on individual characteristics are practically limitless, she said, noting the heterogeneity of many rheumatologic conditions.

This is particularly true for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, she said.

Identifying patient subsets based on organ involvement, demographics, and biomarkers, for example, could lead to personalized treatments with different doses, routes of administration, and concurrent medications, she explained.
 

Genetics in SLE

Dr. James highlighted the role of genetics and the value of precision medicine in the SLE setting in a large transancestral association study published in 2017. The investigators analyzed Immunochip genotype data from 27,574 SLE cases and controls and identified 58 distinct non–human leukocyte antigen (HLA) regions in Americans with European ancestry, 9 in those with African ancestry, and 16 in those with Hispanic ancestry. The investigators found that these non-HLA regions included 24 novel to SLE, and in their analysis the researchers were able to refine association signals in previously established regions, extend associations to additional ancestries, and reveal a complex multigenic effect just outside of the HLA region (Nature Commun. 2017;8:16021).

The findings led to a “cumulative hit hypothesis” for autoimmune disease, and help to clarify genetic architecture and ethnic disparities in SLE, they concluded.

“So we now have over a hundred genetic regions that have been associated with lupus, compared to healthy controls,” Dr. James said.

A frustration with genetic data such as these, however, is the challenge of “getting it into the clinic,” she noted.

“I think that looking at individual [single nuclear polymorphisms] is probably not what we’re going to be doing, but we’re seeing a lot of interest in the idea of genetic load,” she said, explaining that it may soon be possible to use genetic load information to evaluate patient risk.

A recent study at her institution looked at lupus risk from another angle: She and her colleagues recontacted family members from Oklahoma Lupus Genetics studies to look more closely at which blood relatives of SLE patients transitioned to SLE, and what factors were associated with that transition when compared with relatives who remained unaffected (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69[3]:630-42).

Among the findings was a higher risk of transitioning among family members with both a positive antinuclear antibody test and a baseline Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire score indicative of connective tissue disease.

“We also found, of course, biomarkers, or blood markers, that helped us identify the individuals who were at the highest risk of transitioning, so we think a blood test might really be helpful,” she said.

That study also suggested that there may be ways to intervene in SLE patients’ relatives at increased risk for also developing lupus. For example, those who transitioned had increased levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors and the interferon-driven chemokine MCP-3; a prevention trial is now underway, she noted.
 

Beyond genetics

Genetics are just one piece of the precision medicine puzzle, and other areas of investigation that may help to divide patients into subgroups for more precise treatment include genomics, soluble mediators, and immunophenotyping, Dr. James said.

“It may be that we need different pieces of all of these things to help guide our treatment in lupus patients,” she said.

Longitudinal clinical and blood transcriptional profiling of patients in the Dallas Pediatric SLE cohort, for example, identified a molecular classification system for SLE patients. The analysis of 972 samples from 158 SLE patients and 48 healthy controls, which were collected for up to 4 years, showed that an interferon response signature was present in 784 of the samples.

The investigators found that a plasmablast signature, which is found more in African-American patients than in other populations, best correlates with disease activity and that a neutrophil-related signature is associated with progression to active lupus nephritis (Cell. 2016;165[3]:551-65).

“This is something that will potentially be helpful [in the clinic], and we need to test this in the adult population,” Dr. James said.

The investigators also were able to stratify patients, based on individual immunoprofiling, into seven major groups based on molecular correlates. They concluded that such stratification could help improve the outcomes of clinical trials in SLE.

In another study, researchers looked at longitudinal gene expression in SLE patients by stratifying each of two independent sets of patients (a pediatric cohort and an adult cohort) into three clinically differentiated disease clusters defined by mechanisms of disease progression (Arthritis Rheumatol. Dec 2018;70[12]:2025-35).

The clusters included one showing a correlation between the percentage of neutrophils and disease activity progression, one showing a correlation between the percentage of lymphocytes and disease activity progression, and a third for which the percentage of neutrophils correlated to a lesser degree with disease activity but was functionally more heterogeneous. Patients in the two neutrophil‐driven clusters had an increased risk of developing proliferative nephritis.

The results have implications for treatment, trial design, and understanding of disease etiology, the investigators concluded.

“This may help us in the future as we think about which medicine to start patients on, and which medicines to start patients on first,” Dr. James said.

It is clear that precision medicine will play an increasingly important role in rheumatology, Dr. James said, when considering the context of other findings in recent years, such as those from studies looking at soluble mediators of inflammation associated with disease flare, as well as those that involved extensive immunophenotyping and showed widely divergent transcriptional patterns based on ancestral backgrounds. Other research, such as the BOLD (Biomarkers of Lupus Disease) study, looked at various mechanisms of disease flare.

Numerous types of personalized therapies are being considered in rheumatology, ranging from expanded regulatory T cells to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy to risk profiling for disease prevention, just to name a few. Going forward it will be important to perform more systems biology analyses to assemble precision medicine–related data that can inform clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy selection and optimization, she said.

The future of personalized therapies in rheumatology will require more input from rheumatologists on large-scale precision medicine projects such as the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Project and the Million Veteran Program, as well as other similar programs of major health systems, she noted, adding that different types of training and interaction with molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, health coaches, and other key players also are needed.

Dr. James reported having no relevant disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com