User login
TNF inhibitor linked to one-third drop in total mortality
AMSTERDAM – Patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for any indication had their mortality rate cut by about one third, compared with the general population, in a combined analysis of safety findings from 78 trials that involved nearly 30,000 patients.
This first indication that treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) significantly cut overall mortality only became apparent because of the very large number of patients and patient-years of treatment analyzed, and is likely a real effect – not an artifact – that’s probably linked in part to the anti-inflammatory effect from treatment and its favorable impact on cardiovascular disease events, Gerd R. Burmester, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The cut in overall mortality might also partially result from a “healthy cohort effect,” in which patients enrolled in trials pay more attention to their diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle, compared with the general population. But Dr. Burmester cited the recent results from the CANTOS trial that showed treatment with the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab (Ilaris) was linked with a significant 12% relative reduction in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (New Engl J Med. 2017 Sept 21;377[12]:1119-31).
“It may be that the anticytokine effect of TNFi works the same way as canakinumab,” Dr. Burmester said in an interview.
The results also confirmed previous reports, based on trial data from fewer numbers of TNFi-treated patients, of low rates of serious infections and malignancies, said Dr. Burmester, professor and director of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité Medical University in Berlin.
The data he presented came from both randomized trials and open-label studies of adalimumab (Humira) conducted in several countries worldwide through the end of 2016. The various studies enrolled a total of 29,987 patients treated with adalimumab for 56,951 patient-years who had any of 11 different diseases, including rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic diseases. The most common condition treated in the studies was rheumatoid arthritis (in 33 of the 78 studies), followed by psoriasis (13 studies), and Crohn’s disease (11 studies).
The studies included 9,363 patients treated for at least 2 years, and 4,003 patients treated for at least 5 years. The median duration of adalimumab exposure was 0.7 years and the maximum exposure was just over 12 years.
The overall rate of serious infections in treated patients was 3.7 per 100 patient-years. The most common serious infections were pneumonia, at a rate of 0.6 per 100 patient-years, followed by cellulitis, at a rate of 0.2 per 100 patient-years. Active tuberculosis infections also occurred at a rate of 0.2 per 100 patient-years. Malignancies occurred at a rate of 0.6 per 100 patient-years. These rates were similar to those reported by Dr. Burmester and his associates in 2013 using data from a small pool of patients – 23,458 – enrolled in 71 studies of adalimumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Apr;72[4]:517-24).
In the current study, Dr. Burmester and his coauthors analyzed the observed mortality rate of the adalimumab-treated patients against the mortality rates for the general populations in the various countries in which the studies were run, based on World Health Organization statistics for the period 1997-2006, and adjusted so that the age and sex of the comparison general populations matched the age and sex of the treated patients. This analysis showed an overall, statistically significant mortality reduction in patients receiving adalimumab of 35%, which was consistent in both the subgroups of men and women.
The observed mortality reduction linked with TNFi treatment is likely a class effect, Dr. Burmester said, although similar analyses have not been conducted using data from patients treated with other TNFis. So far, he has been unsuccessful in getting similar, large-scale trial data from manufacturers of other TNFis that he has approached, but Dr. Burmester said he hopes to eventually receive these data so that he can perform an even larger analysis.
The study was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Burmester has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of AbbVie, as well as for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merk, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.
SOURCE: Burmester GR et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):165. Abstract OP0233.
AMSTERDAM – Patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for any indication had their mortality rate cut by about one third, compared with the general population, in a combined analysis of safety findings from 78 trials that involved nearly 30,000 patients.
This first indication that treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) significantly cut overall mortality only became apparent because of the very large number of patients and patient-years of treatment analyzed, and is likely a real effect – not an artifact – that’s probably linked in part to the anti-inflammatory effect from treatment and its favorable impact on cardiovascular disease events, Gerd R. Burmester, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The cut in overall mortality might also partially result from a “healthy cohort effect,” in which patients enrolled in trials pay more attention to their diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle, compared with the general population. But Dr. Burmester cited the recent results from the CANTOS trial that showed treatment with the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab (Ilaris) was linked with a significant 12% relative reduction in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (New Engl J Med. 2017 Sept 21;377[12]:1119-31).
“It may be that the anticytokine effect of TNFi works the same way as canakinumab,” Dr. Burmester said in an interview.
The results also confirmed previous reports, based on trial data from fewer numbers of TNFi-treated patients, of low rates of serious infections and malignancies, said Dr. Burmester, professor and director of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité Medical University in Berlin.
The data he presented came from both randomized trials and open-label studies of adalimumab (Humira) conducted in several countries worldwide through the end of 2016. The various studies enrolled a total of 29,987 patients treated with adalimumab for 56,951 patient-years who had any of 11 different diseases, including rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic diseases. The most common condition treated in the studies was rheumatoid arthritis (in 33 of the 78 studies), followed by psoriasis (13 studies), and Crohn’s disease (11 studies).
The studies included 9,363 patients treated for at least 2 years, and 4,003 patients treated for at least 5 years. The median duration of adalimumab exposure was 0.7 years and the maximum exposure was just over 12 years.
The overall rate of serious infections in treated patients was 3.7 per 100 patient-years. The most common serious infections were pneumonia, at a rate of 0.6 per 100 patient-years, followed by cellulitis, at a rate of 0.2 per 100 patient-years. Active tuberculosis infections also occurred at a rate of 0.2 per 100 patient-years. Malignancies occurred at a rate of 0.6 per 100 patient-years. These rates were similar to those reported by Dr. Burmester and his associates in 2013 using data from a small pool of patients – 23,458 – enrolled in 71 studies of adalimumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Apr;72[4]:517-24).
In the current study, Dr. Burmester and his coauthors analyzed the observed mortality rate of the adalimumab-treated patients against the mortality rates for the general populations in the various countries in which the studies were run, based on World Health Organization statistics for the period 1997-2006, and adjusted so that the age and sex of the comparison general populations matched the age and sex of the treated patients. This analysis showed an overall, statistically significant mortality reduction in patients receiving adalimumab of 35%, which was consistent in both the subgroups of men and women.
The observed mortality reduction linked with TNFi treatment is likely a class effect, Dr. Burmester said, although similar analyses have not been conducted using data from patients treated with other TNFis. So far, he has been unsuccessful in getting similar, large-scale trial data from manufacturers of other TNFis that he has approached, but Dr. Burmester said he hopes to eventually receive these data so that he can perform an even larger analysis.
The study was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Burmester has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of AbbVie, as well as for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merk, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.
SOURCE: Burmester GR et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):165. Abstract OP0233.
AMSTERDAM – Patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for any indication had their mortality rate cut by about one third, compared with the general population, in a combined analysis of safety findings from 78 trials that involved nearly 30,000 patients.
This first indication that treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) significantly cut overall mortality only became apparent because of the very large number of patients and patient-years of treatment analyzed, and is likely a real effect – not an artifact – that’s probably linked in part to the anti-inflammatory effect from treatment and its favorable impact on cardiovascular disease events, Gerd R. Burmester, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The cut in overall mortality might also partially result from a “healthy cohort effect,” in which patients enrolled in trials pay more attention to their diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle, compared with the general population. But Dr. Burmester cited the recent results from the CANTOS trial that showed treatment with the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab (Ilaris) was linked with a significant 12% relative reduction in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (New Engl J Med. 2017 Sept 21;377[12]:1119-31).
“It may be that the anticytokine effect of TNFi works the same way as canakinumab,” Dr. Burmester said in an interview.
The results also confirmed previous reports, based on trial data from fewer numbers of TNFi-treated patients, of low rates of serious infections and malignancies, said Dr. Burmester, professor and director of the department of rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité Medical University in Berlin.
The data he presented came from both randomized trials and open-label studies of adalimumab (Humira) conducted in several countries worldwide through the end of 2016. The various studies enrolled a total of 29,987 patients treated with adalimumab for 56,951 patient-years who had any of 11 different diseases, including rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic diseases. The most common condition treated in the studies was rheumatoid arthritis (in 33 of the 78 studies), followed by psoriasis (13 studies), and Crohn’s disease (11 studies).
The studies included 9,363 patients treated for at least 2 years, and 4,003 patients treated for at least 5 years. The median duration of adalimumab exposure was 0.7 years and the maximum exposure was just over 12 years.
The overall rate of serious infections in treated patients was 3.7 per 100 patient-years. The most common serious infections were pneumonia, at a rate of 0.6 per 100 patient-years, followed by cellulitis, at a rate of 0.2 per 100 patient-years. Active tuberculosis infections also occurred at a rate of 0.2 per 100 patient-years. Malignancies occurred at a rate of 0.6 per 100 patient-years. These rates were similar to those reported by Dr. Burmester and his associates in 2013 using data from a small pool of patients – 23,458 – enrolled in 71 studies of adalimumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Apr;72[4]:517-24).
In the current study, Dr. Burmester and his coauthors analyzed the observed mortality rate of the adalimumab-treated patients against the mortality rates for the general populations in the various countries in which the studies were run, based on World Health Organization statistics for the period 1997-2006, and adjusted so that the age and sex of the comparison general populations matched the age and sex of the treated patients. This analysis showed an overall, statistically significant mortality reduction in patients receiving adalimumab of 35%, which was consistent in both the subgroups of men and women.
The observed mortality reduction linked with TNFi treatment is likely a class effect, Dr. Burmester said, although similar analyses have not been conducted using data from patients treated with other TNFis. So far, he has been unsuccessful in getting similar, large-scale trial data from manufacturers of other TNFis that he has approached, but Dr. Burmester said he hopes to eventually receive these data so that he can perform an even larger analysis.
The study was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Burmester has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of AbbVie, as well as for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merk, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.
SOURCE: Burmester GR et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):165. Abstract OP0233.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Major finding: Patients on a TNF inhibitor had 35% fewer deaths, compared with the age- and sex-matched general population.
Study details: Post-hoc analysis of data from 29,987 patients treated with adalimumab in 78 studies.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Burmester has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of AbbVie, as well as for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merk, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.
Source: Burmester GR et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):165. Abstract OP0233.
Low vitamin D linked with DVT in lupus patients
AMSTERDAM – Low blood levels of vitamin D were linked with a roughly doubled risk for deep vein thrombosis in a review of nearly 1,400 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus at one U.S. center.
Based on these findings, patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) should have their blood vitamin D monitored regularly, and if it’s less than 40 ng/mL – the level that was linked with this thrombotic risk – they should receive a vitamin D supplement, Michelle A. Petri, MD, said while presenting a poster at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
She recommended supplementation that provides 50,000 IU of vitamin D weekly, a treatment that appears safe to add to two other routine treatments she recommends for SLE patients – aspirin and hydroxychloroquine.
SLE patients should also have their vitamin D level rechecked on a regular basis, perhaps annually, to confirm that their level remains above 40 ng/mL, said Dr. Petri, professor of medicine and director of the Lupus Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She acknowledged that this level is above the target level often applied to the general population, but remains safe.
“It looks like vitamin D may be a useful treatment to add to aspirin and hydroxychloroquine in patients with SLE. It looks very simple and important, but this finding should be repeated and validated by other groups,” commented John D. Isaacs, MD, professor of clinical rheumatology at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
Dr. Petri and her associates reviewed records for 1,392 SLE patients enrolled in a Johns Hopkins registry. The patients averaged about 43 years old, 92% were women, and 27% had a history of a thrombotic event, either prior to or after their enrollment. The most common thrombotic event was deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in 14%, and also included stroke in 7%, myocardial infarction in 4%, and a smaller number with other types of arterial or venous thromboses. All these patients also had their blood vitamin D level checked at least once, at the time of enrollment, and 77% had a level below 40 ng/mL.
The first analysis looked at the link between any thrombotic event and vitamin D levels, and included adjustment for age, race, sex, and level of lupus anticoagulant. This showed a statistically significant 2.3-fold increased risk for DVT among patients with a vitamin D level of less than 40 ng/mL, compared with those with a higher level. The researchers did not find a significant association between low vitamin D levels and the rates of total thrombotic events or any arterial thrombotic event.
A second analysis censored out thrombotic events that occurred prior to enrollment and focused on incident thromboses after enrollment into the registry. This analysis showed a statistically significant 75% increased rate of new onset DVT episodes among patients with low vitamin D at entry after adjustment for age, race, and sex. The researchers found no significant associations between low vitamin D and the incidence of any other type of incident thrombosis.
Dr. Petri and Dr. Isaacs reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):388, Abstract THU0341.
AMSTERDAM – Low blood levels of vitamin D were linked with a roughly doubled risk for deep vein thrombosis in a review of nearly 1,400 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus at one U.S. center.
Based on these findings, patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) should have their blood vitamin D monitored regularly, and if it’s less than 40 ng/mL – the level that was linked with this thrombotic risk – they should receive a vitamin D supplement, Michelle A. Petri, MD, said while presenting a poster at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
She recommended supplementation that provides 50,000 IU of vitamin D weekly, a treatment that appears safe to add to two other routine treatments she recommends for SLE patients – aspirin and hydroxychloroquine.
SLE patients should also have their vitamin D level rechecked on a regular basis, perhaps annually, to confirm that their level remains above 40 ng/mL, said Dr. Petri, professor of medicine and director of the Lupus Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She acknowledged that this level is above the target level often applied to the general population, but remains safe.
“It looks like vitamin D may be a useful treatment to add to aspirin and hydroxychloroquine in patients with SLE. It looks very simple and important, but this finding should be repeated and validated by other groups,” commented John D. Isaacs, MD, professor of clinical rheumatology at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
Dr. Petri and her associates reviewed records for 1,392 SLE patients enrolled in a Johns Hopkins registry. The patients averaged about 43 years old, 92% were women, and 27% had a history of a thrombotic event, either prior to or after their enrollment. The most common thrombotic event was deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in 14%, and also included stroke in 7%, myocardial infarction in 4%, and a smaller number with other types of arterial or venous thromboses. All these patients also had their blood vitamin D level checked at least once, at the time of enrollment, and 77% had a level below 40 ng/mL.
The first analysis looked at the link between any thrombotic event and vitamin D levels, and included adjustment for age, race, sex, and level of lupus anticoagulant. This showed a statistically significant 2.3-fold increased risk for DVT among patients with a vitamin D level of less than 40 ng/mL, compared with those with a higher level. The researchers did not find a significant association between low vitamin D levels and the rates of total thrombotic events or any arterial thrombotic event.
A second analysis censored out thrombotic events that occurred prior to enrollment and focused on incident thromboses after enrollment into the registry. This analysis showed a statistically significant 75% increased rate of new onset DVT episodes among patients with low vitamin D at entry after adjustment for age, race, and sex. The researchers found no significant associations between low vitamin D and the incidence of any other type of incident thrombosis.
Dr. Petri and Dr. Isaacs reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):388, Abstract THU0341.
AMSTERDAM – Low blood levels of vitamin D were linked with a roughly doubled risk for deep vein thrombosis in a review of nearly 1,400 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus at one U.S. center.
Based on these findings, patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) should have their blood vitamin D monitored regularly, and if it’s less than 40 ng/mL – the level that was linked with this thrombotic risk – they should receive a vitamin D supplement, Michelle A. Petri, MD, said while presenting a poster at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
She recommended supplementation that provides 50,000 IU of vitamin D weekly, a treatment that appears safe to add to two other routine treatments she recommends for SLE patients – aspirin and hydroxychloroquine.
SLE patients should also have their vitamin D level rechecked on a regular basis, perhaps annually, to confirm that their level remains above 40 ng/mL, said Dr. Petri, professor of medicine and director of the Lupus Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. She acknowledged that this level is above the target level often applied to the general population, but remains safe.
“It looks like vitamin D may be a useful treatment to add to aspirin and hydroxychloroquine in patients with SLE. It looks very simple and important, but this finding should be repeated and validated by other groups,” commented John D. Isaacs, MD, professor of clinical rheumatology at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
Dr. Petri and her associates reviewed records for 1,392 SLE patients enrolled in a Johns Hopkins registry. The patients averaged about 43 years old, 92% were women, and 27% had a history of a thrombotic event, either prior to or after their enrollment. The most common thrombotic event was deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in 14%, and also included stroke in 7%, myocardial infarction in 4%, and a smaller number with other types of arterial or venous thromboses. All these patients also had their blood vitamin D level checked at least once, at the time of enrollment, and 77% had a level below 40 ng/mL.
The first analysis looked at the link between any thrombotic event and vitamin D levels, and included adjustment for age, race, sex, and level of lupus anticoagulant. This showed a statistically significant 2.3-fold increased risk for DVT among patients with a vitamin D level of less than 40 ng/mL, compared with those with a higher level. The researchers did not find a significant association between low vitamin D levels and the rates of total thrombotic events or any arterial thrombotic event.
A second analysis censored out thrombotic events that occurred prior to enrollment and focused on incident thromboses after enrollment into the registry. This analysis showed a statistically significant 75% increased rate of new onset DVT episodes among patients with low vitamin D at entry after adjustment for age, race, and sex. The researchers found no significant associations between low vitamin D and the incidence of any other type of incident thrombosis.
Dr. Petri and Dr. Isaacs reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):388, Abstract THU0341.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Lupus patients with a vitamin D level below 40 ng/mL had 2.3-fold more DVT events, compared with those with higher levels.
Study details: A review of 1,392 lupus patients at one U.S. center.
Disclosures: Dr. Petri and Dr. Isaacs reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Source: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):388. Abstract THU0341.
Ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis linked to self-harm attempts
AMSTERDAM – There is an increased relative risk of deliberate self-harm that results in emergency treatment among individuals newly diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, according to the results of a large, Canadian population-based study.
A diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis was associated with a 59% increased risk of deliberate self-harm, compared with no diagnosis (HR = 1.59, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). While the risk of deliberate self-harm in patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was initially elevated, the association was not significant after adjustment for confounding factors (HR = 1.08, 95% CI, 0.87-1.34).
These findings call for heightened awareness among clinicians, study investigator Nigil Haroon, MD, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. “Depression is generally well known to be increased in patients with chronic diseases, especially so with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. This may in turn be linked to increased cases of deliberate self-harm, but there have been few studies to determine if this is the case, he said, which may be because it is a relatively rare event in routine clinical practice.
Dr. Haroon, who runs a specialist clinic in ankylosing spondylitis in Toronto, has seen the long-term effects of chronic pain, lack of social support, and inability to sleep on patients’ mood first hand. This is what drove him and other colleagues at the University of Toronto and University Health Network to look at the possibility that this could be linked to an increased risk for depression and perhaps deliberate self-harm among newly diagnosed patients.
To try to estimate the risk, they obtained administrative data on more than 100,000 individuals diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis or RA in the province of Ontario, Canada, between 2002 and 2014. Excluding those with a history of mental illness or a prior self-harm attempt resulted in the creation of two cohorts of patients – 13,964 with ankylosing spondylitis and 53,240 with RA. Indviduals in these two cohorts were then matched, 4:1, to similar controls in the general population.
The average age of those diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis was 46 years and of those with RA was 57 years, with more males than females in the ankylosing spondylitis group (57% vs. 43%) and more females than males in the RA group (67% vs. 33%).
The main outcome assessed was the first episode of intentional self-injury or self-poisoning that required emergency treatment that occurred after the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis or RA.
Overall, there were 69 deliberate self-harm attempts recorded in the ankylosing spondylitis patient group, compared with 131 attempts in the non-ankylosing spondylitis group. In the RA patient group, there were 129 attempts, and 372 attempts in the non-RA group.
Poisoning was “by far the most common modality” used to intentionally self-harm, used by 67% of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and by 81% of those with RA, Dr. Haroon reported. Contact with a sharp object was the second most common method used to deliberately self-harm by 30% of ankylosing spondylitis patients and 16% of RA patients.
Most (70%) patients were discharged following emergency treatment for a deliberate self-harm attempt, with around 15% of ankylosing spondylitis and 22% of RA patients requiring hospital admission.
“For any chronic disease there is a potential for depression to settle, and we should identify [patients] early, even at the primary care levels itself and try to address it,” Dr. Haroon advised. It’s important to spend time and to develop a good rapport with your patients, he added, which can help them open up and talk about their mood.
The work was funded by the Division of Rheumatology Pfizer Research Chair, University of Toronto. Dr. Haroon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Kuriya B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):195. Abstract OP0296.
AMSTERDAM – There is an increased relative risk of deliberate self-harm that results in emergency treatment among individuals newly diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, according to the results of a large, Canadian population-based study.
A diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis was associated with a 59% increased risk of deliberate self-harm, compared with no diagnosis (HR = 1.59, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). While the risk of deliberate self-harm in patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was initially elevated, the association was not significant after adjustment for confounding factors (HR = 1.08, 95% CI, 0.87-1.34).
These findings call for heightened awareness among clinicians, study investigator Nigil Haroon, MD, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. “Depression is generally well known to be increased in patients with chronic diseases, especially so with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. This may in turn be linked to increased cases of deliberate self-harm, but there have been few studies to determine if this is the case, he said, which may be because it is a relatively rare event in routine clinical practice.
Dr. Haroon, who runs a specialist clinic in ankylosing spondylitis in Toronto, has seen the long-term effects of chronic pain, lack of social support, and inability to sleep on patients’ mood first hand. This is what drove him and other colleagues at the University of Toronto and University Health Network to look at the possibility that this could be linked to an increased risk for depression and perhaps deliberate self-harm among newly diagnosed patients.
To try to estimate the risk, they obtained administrative data on more than 100,000 individuals diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis or RA in the province of Ontario, Canada, between 2002 and 2014. Excluding those with a history of mental illness or a prior self-harm attempt resulted in the creation of two cohorts of patients – 13,964 with ankylosing spondylitis and 53,240 with RA. Indviduals in these two cohorts were then matched, 4:1, to similar controls in the general population.
The average age of those diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis was 46 years and of those with RA was 57 years, with more males than females in the ankylosing spondylitis group (57% vs. 43%) and more females than males in the RA group (67% vs. 33%).
The main outcome assessed was the first episode of intentional self-injury or self-poisoning that required emergency treatment that occurred after the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis or RA.
Overall, there were 69 deliberate self-harm attempts recorded in the ankylosing spondylitis patient group, compared with 131 attempts in the non-ankylosing spondylitis group. In the RA patient group, there were 129 attempts, and 372 attempts in the non-RA group.
Poisoning was “by far the most common modality” used to intentionally self-harm, used by 67% of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and by 81% of those with RA, Dr. Haroon reported. Contact with a sharp object was the second most common method used to deliberately self-harm by 30% of ankylosing spondylitis patients and 16% of RA patients.
Most (70%) patients were discharged following emergency treatment for a deliberate self-harm attempt, with around 15% of ankylosing spondylitis and 22% of RA patients requiring hospital admission.
“For any chronic disease there is a potential for depression to settle, and we should identify [patients] early, even at the primary care levels itself and try to address it,” Dr. Haroon advised. It’s important to spend time and to develop a good rapport with your patients, he added, which can help them open up and talk about their mood.
The work was funded by the Division of Rheumatology Pfizer Research Chair, University of Toronto. Dr. Haroon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Kuriya B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):195. Abstract OP0296.
AMSTERDAM – There is an increased relative risk of deliberate self-harm that results in emergency treatment among individuals newly diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, according to the results of a large, Canadian population-based study.
A diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis was associated with a 59% increased risk of deliberate self-harm, compared with no diagnosis (HR = 1.59, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). While the risk of deliberate self-harm in patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was initially elevated, the association was not significant after adjustment for confounding factors (HR = 1.08, 95% CI, 0.87-1.34).
These findings call for heightened awareness among clinicians, study investigator Nigil Haroon, MD, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. “Depression is generally well known to be increased in patients with chronic diseases, especially so with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. This may in turn be linked to increased cases of deliberate self-harm, but there have been few studies to determine if this is the case, he said, which may be because it is a relatively rare event in routine clinical practice.
Dr. Haroon, who runs a specialist clinic in ankylosing spondylitis in Toronto, has seen the long-term effects of chronic pain, lack of social support, and inability to sleep on patients’ mood first hand. This is what drove him and other colleagues at the University of Toronto and University Health Network to look at the possibility that this could be linked to an increased risk for depression and perhaps deliberate self-harm among newly diagnosed patients.
To try to estimate the risk, they obtained administrative data on more than 100,000 individuals diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis or RA in the province of Ontario, Canada, between 2002 and 2014. Excluding those with a history of mental illness or a prior self-harm attempt resulted in the creation of two cohorts of patients – 13,964 with ankylosing spondylitis and 53,240 with RA. Indviduals in these two cohorts were then matched, 4:1, to similar controls in the general population.
The average age of those diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis was 46 years and of those with RA was 57 years, with more males than females in the ankylosing spondylitis group (57% vs. 43%) and more females than males in the RA group (67% vs. 33%).
The main outcome assessed was the first episode of intentional self-injury or self-poisoning that required emergency treatment that occurred after the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis or RA.
Overall, there were 69 deliberate self-harm attempts recorded in the ankylosing spondylitis patient group, compared with 131 attempts in the non-ankylosing spondylitis group. In the RA patient group, there were 129 attempts, and 372 attempts in the non-RA group.
Poisoning was “by far the most common modality” used to intentionally self-harm, used by 67% of patients with ankylosing spondylitis and by 81% of those with RA, Dr. Haroon reported. Contact with a sharp object was the second most common method used to deliberately self-harm by 30% of ankylosing spondylitis patients and 16% of RA patients.
Most (70%) patients were discharged following emergency treatment for a deliberate self-harm attempt, with around 15% of ankylosing spondylitis and 22% of RA patients requiring hospital admission.
“For any chronic disease there is a potential for depression to settle, and we should identify [patients] early, even at the primary care levels itself and try to address it,” Dr. Haroon advised. It’s important to spend time and to develop a good rapport with your patients, he added, which can help them open up and talk about their mood.
The work was funded by the Division of Rheumatology Pfizer Research Chair, University of Toronto. Dr. Haroon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Kuriya B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):195. Abstract OP0296.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Major finding: Newly-diagnosed individuals with ankylosing spondylitis are more likely to attempt self harm than those without the diagnosis (HR = 1.59, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21).
Study details: Population-based study of 13,964 individuals with ankylosing spondylitis, 53,240 individuals with RA, and matched controls from the general population.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the Division of Rheumatology Pfizer Research Chair, University of Toronto. Dr. Haroon reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Source: Kuriya B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):195. Abstract OP0296.
Axial SpA diagnostic strategies need not be sex-specific
AMSTERDAM – Imaging and a positive HLA-B27 test are effective tools for early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis in both men and women, according to data from a study of 719 patients with chronic back pain reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Data from previous studies have shown greater severity of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in men, but gender differences at first presentation of the disease have not been well studied, noted Dr. Augusta Ortolan of the University of Padova (Italy) and her colleagues.
The researchers analyzed baseline data from 444 women and 275 men in the Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort, which included patients with chronic back pain that had lasted 3 months to 2 years. The patients were younger than 45 years at the onset of symptoms.
Overall, 53% of men and 35% of women were diagnosed with axSpA. The duration of symptoms was similar between genders, but the average age at diagnosis was significantly younger for men, compared with women (27 years vs. 30 years; P = .021). A positive HLA-B27 test was more common among men with axSpA than among women with axSpA (80% vs. 60%; P less than .001).
Similarly, the presence of axial spondyloarthritis features on imaging was greater among men with axSpA than women with axSpA (78% vs. 64%; P = .007).
Dr. Ortolan said in an interview that she was somewhat surprised by the findings. “I probably expected to see more differences between male and female patients,” she said. “Although it has been demonstrated that the proportion of men to women is more balanced in axial spondyloarthritis in general [nearly 1:1] as compared to the more advanced stages of the disease [known as ankylosing spondylitis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, where the male-to-female ratio is around 3:1], there is a tendency to believe that spondyloarthritis in females is rarer or at least more difficult to detect,” she said. “In fact, the study does not completely contradict this belief as we found that from our chronic back pain population, males are twice as likely to be diagnosed. However, all in all, they do not present so much differently than women,” she noted.
The take home message is for clinicians to examine all features that may lead to a diagnosis of axSpA in patients regardless of gender, Dr. Ortolan said. The study results showing that HLA-B27 and imaging are strongly associated with axSpA diagnosis in both genders in a multivariate analysis, which suggests that clinicians do not need to adopt different diagnostic strategies, she said.
The study findings were the result of a cross-sectional approach that was based on an examination of baseline data, Dr. Ortolan noted. “However, it would be really interesting to see what happens in the long term: Do these gender differences tend to increase? Does the disease have a different long-term impact in men and women? Should we treat them differently? These are open questions that need to be addressed in the future,” she said.
Dr. Ortolan and her colleagues had no relevant disclosures.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this story.
SOURCE: Ortolan A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):207-8. Abstract OP0323.
AMSTERDAM – Imaging and a positive HLA-B27 test are effective tools for early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis in both men and women, according to data from a study of 719 patients with chronic back pain reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Data from previous studies have shown greater severity of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in men, but gender differences at first presentation of the disease have not been well studied, noted Dr. Augusta Ortolan of the University of Padova (Italy) and her colleagues.
The researchers analyzed baseline data from 444 women and 275 men in the Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort, which included patients with chronic back pain that had lasted 3 months to 2 years. The patients were younger than 45 years at the onset of symptoms.
Overall, 53% of men and 35% of women were diagnosed with axSpA. The duration of symptoms was similar between genders, but the average age at diagnosis was significantly younger for men, compared with women (27 years vs. 30 years; P = .021). A positive HLA-B27 test was more common among men with axSpA than among women with axSpA (80% vs. 60%; P less than .001).
Similarly, the presence of axial spondyloarthritis features on imaging was greater among men with axSpA than women with axSpA (78% vs. 64%; P = .007).
Dr. Ortolan said in an interview that she was somewhat surprised by the findings. “I probably expected to see more differences between male and female patients,” she said. “Although it has been demonstrated that the proportion of men to women is more balanced in axial spondyloarthritis in general [nearly 1:1] as compared to the more advanced stages of the disease [known as ankylosing spondylitis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, where the male-to-female ratio is around 3:1], there is a tendency to believe that spondyloarthritis in females is rarer or at least more difficult to detect,” she said. “In fact, the study does not completely contradict this belief as we found that from our chronic back pain population, males are twice as likely to be diagnosed. However, all in all, they do not present so much differently than women,” she noted.
The take home message is for clinicians to examine all features that may lead to a diagnosis of axSpA in patients regardless of gender, Dr. Ortolan said. The study results showing that HLA-B27 and imaging are strongly associated with axSpA diagnosis in both genders in a multivariate analysis, which suggests that clinicians do not need to adopt different diagnostic strategies, she said.
The study findings were the result of a cross-sectional approach that was based on an examination of baseline data, Dr. Ortolan noted. “However, it would be really interesting to see what happens in the long term: Do these gender differences tend to increase? Does the disease have a different long-term impact in men and women? Should we treat them differently? These are open questions that need to be addressed in the future,” she said.
Dr. Ortolan and her colleagues had no relevant disclosures.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this story.
SOURCE: Ortolan A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):207-8. Abstract OP0323.
AMSTERDAM – Imaging and a positive HLA-B27 test are effective tools for early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis in both men and women, according to data from a study of 719 patients with chronic back pain reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Data from previous studies have shown greater severity of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in men, but gender differences at first presentation of the disease have not been well studied, noted Dr. Augusta Ortolan of the University of Padova (Italy) and her colleagues.
The researchers analyzed baseline data from 444 women and 275 men in the Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort, which included patients with chronic back pain that had lasted 3 months to 2 years. The patients were younger than 45 years at the onset of symptoms.
Overall, 53% of men and 35% of women were diagnosed with axSpA. The duration of symptoms was similar between genders, but the average age at diagnosis was significantly younger for men, compared with women (27 years vs. 30 years; P = .021). A positive HLA-B27 test was more common among men with axSpA than among women with axSpA (80% vs. 60%; P less than .001).
Similarly, the presence of axial spondyloarthritis features on imaging was greater among men with axSpA than women with axSpA (78% vs. 64%; P = .007).
Dr. Ortolan said in an interview that she was somewhat surprised by the findings. “I probably expected to see more differences between male and female patients,” she said. “Although it has been demonstrated that the proportion of men to women is more balanced in axial spondyloarthritis in general [nearly 1:1] as compared to the more advanced stages of the disease [known as ankylosing spondylitis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, where the male-to-female ratio is around 3:1], there is a tendency to believe that spondyloarthritis in females is rarer or at least more difficult to detect,” she said. “In fact, the study does not completely contradict this belief as we found that from our chronic back pain population, males are twice as likely to be diagnosed. However, all in all, they do not present so much differently than women,” she noted.
The take home message is for clinicians to examine all features that may lead to a diagnosis of axSpA in patients regardless of gender, Dr. Ortolan said. The study results showing that HLA-B27 and imaging are strongly associated with axSpA diagnosis in both genders in a multivariate analysis, which suggests that clinicians do not need to adopt different diagnostic strategies, she said.
The study findings were the result of a cross-sectional approach that was based on an examination of baseline data, Dr. Ortolan noted. “However, it would be really interesting to see what happens in the long term: Do these gender differences tend to increase? Does the disease have a different long-term impact in men and women? Should we treat them differently? These are open questions that need to be addressed in the future,” she said.
Dr. Ortolan and her colleagues had no relevant disclosures.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this story.
SOURCE: Ortolan A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):207-8. Abstract OP0323.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Although there are clear sex differences in early axSpA, HLA-B27 and imaging are key elements for a diagnosis of axSpA in both sexes.
Major finding: The presence of axSpA features on imaging was greater among men with axSpA than women with axSpA (78% vs. 64%; P = .007).
Study details: A cross-sectional study of baseline data from 444 women and 275 men in the Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort.
Disclosures: Dr. Ortolan and her colleagues had no relevant disclosures.
Source: Ortolan A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):207-8. Abstract OP0323.
FDA database reveals many rheumatic and musculoskeletal adverse events on immunotherapies
AMSTERDAM – Mining of the Food and Drug Administration adverse events database revealed a more substantial risk of rheumatic and musculoskeletal events on checkpoint inhibitor therapy than has been previously reported, according to Xerxes N. Pundole, PhD, an instructor in the research faculty at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In a video interview, Dr. Pundole summarized data he presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
So far, according to Dr. Pundole, there have been a relatively limited number of reports in the medical literature of inflammatory rheumatic or musculoskeletal events from checkpoint inhibitors. However, other inflammatory conditions, such as colitis and pneumonitis, are known to occur commonly with these agents. The FDA adverse event database provided an opportunity to evaluate how often rheumatic and musculoskeletal events are reported in the real world.
In this interview, Dr. Pundole explained that rheumatic and musculoskeletal events do occur at higher rates than would be expected in patients not treated with a checkpoint inhibitor. With data from more than 30,000 unique patients, the relative risks of some of these adverse events, such as polymyositis, were more than doubled, although the event rates were not evenly distributed.
Specifically, rheumatic and musculoskeletal adverse events were far less common with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) relative to programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, particularly nivolumab (Opdivo).
In another notable finding, a demographic stratification of the FDA database found elderly men to be overrepresented among patients developing adverse events related to musculoskeletal inflammation.
Overall, his data do support a relationship between checkpoint inhibitors and a greater risk of rheumatic and musculoskeletal adverse events than has been previously reported, but he noted that these data provide no specific guidance for those who already have RA or another inflammatory condition.
“Can you identify these adverse events early on to keep the patients on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and not have to stop their cancer treatment? That’s a question,” Dr. Pundole said. However, he suggested that the FDA data support clinician awareness of the problem and the studies that will establish strategies for preserving the benefit-to-risk ratio of checkpoint inhibitors in patients who are at greater risk of adverse events relative to immune function because of a preexisting inflammatory condition.
SOURCE: Pundole XN et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):147-148. Abstract OP0197.
AMSTERDAM – Mining of the Food and Drug Administration adverse events database revealed a more substantial risk of rheumatic and musculoskeletal events on checkpoint inhibitor therapy than has been previously reported, according to Xerxes N. Pundole, PhD, an instructor in the research faculty at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In a video interview, Dr. Pundole summarized data he presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
So far, according to Dr. Pundole, there have been a relatively limited number of reports in the medical literature of inflammatory rheumatic or musculoskeletal events from checkpoint inhibitors. However, other inflammatory conditions, such as colitis and pneumonitis, are known to occur commonly with these agents. The FDA adverse event database provided an opportunity to evaluate how often rheumatic and musculoskeletal events are reported in the real world.
In this interview, Dr. Pundole explained that rheumatic and musculoskeletal events do occur at higher rates than would be expected in patients not treated with a checkpoint inhibitor. With data from more than 30,000 unique patients, the relative risks of some of these adverse events, such as polymyositis, were more than doubled, although the event rates were not evenly distributed.
Specifically, rheumatic and musculoskeletal adverse events were far less common with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) relative to programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, particularly nivolumab (Opdivo).
In another notable finding, a demographic stratification of the FDA database found elderly men to be overrepresented among patients developing adverse events related to musculoskeletal inflammation.
Overall, his data do support a relationship between checkpoint inhibitors and a greater risk of rheumatic and musculoskeletal adverse events than has been previously reported, but he noted that these data provide no specific guidance for those who already have RA or another inflammatory condition.
“Can you identify these adverse events early on to keep the patients on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and not have to stop their cancer treatment? That’s a question,” Dr. Pundole said. However, he suggested that the FDA data support clinician awareness of the problem and the studies that will establish strategies for preserving the benefit-to-risk ratio of checkpoint inhibitors in patients who are at greater risk of adverse events relative to immune function because of a preexisting inflammatory condition.
SOURCE: Pundole XN et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):147-148. Abstract OP0197.
AMSTERDAM – Mining of the Food and Drug Administration adverse events database revealed a more substantial risk of rheumatic and musculoskeletal events on checkpoint inhibitor therapy than has been previously reported, according to Xerxes N. Pundole, PhD, an instructor in the research faculty at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
In a video interview, Dr. Pundole summarized data he presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
So far, according to Dr. Pundole, there have been a relatively limited number of reports in the medical literature of inflammatory rheumatic or musculoskeletal events from checkpoint inhibitors. However, other inflammatory conditions, such as colitis and pneumonitis, are known to occur commonly with these agents. The FDA adverse event database provided an opportunity to evaluate how often rheumatic and musculoskeletal events are reported in the real world.
In this interview, Dr. Pundole explained that rheumatic and musculoskeletal events do occur at higher rates than would be expected in patients not treated with a checkpoint inhibitor. With data from more than 30,000 unique patients, the relative risks of some of these adverse events, such as polymyositis, were more than doubled, although the event rates were not evenly distributed.
Specifically, rheumatic and musculoskeletal adverse events were far less common with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) relative to programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, particularly nivolumab (Opdivo).
In another notable finding, a demographic stratification of the FDA database found elderly men to be overrepresented among patients developing adverse events related to musculoskeletal inflammation.
Overall, his data do support a relationship between checkpoint inhibitors and a greater risk of rheumatic and musculoskeletal adverse events than has been previously reported, but he noted that these data provide no specific guidance for those who already have RA or another inflammatory condition.
“Can you identify these adverse events early on to keep the patients on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and not have to stop their cancer treatment? That’s a question,” Dr. Pundole said. However, he suggested that the FDA data support clinician awareness of the problem and the studies that will establish strategies for preserving the benefit-to-risk ratio of checkpoint inhibitors in patients who are at greater risk of adverse events relative to immune function because of a preexisting inflammatory condition.
SOURCE: Pundole XN et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):147-148. Abstract OP0197.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
LLDAS shows potential as routine lupus treatment target
AMSTERDAM – The Lupus Low Disease Activity State measure of treatment response offers clinicians an attainable target for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus that correlates with a substantially reduced rate of organ damage, based on a retrospective assessment of data collected from more than 2,000 lupus patients at a single U.S. center.
The analysis showed that when patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) met the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) criteria at least half the time while on treatment, their overall rate of organ damage was reduced by 52%, compared with patients who never achieved LLDAS, Michelle A. Petri, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“LLDAS is something that anyone can use in practice,” and has the advantage of including a low steroid dose – no more than 7.5 mg prednisolone/day or an equivalent steroid – as one of its criteria, “a major bad actor” for SLE patients, Dr. Petri said in an interview. LLDAS “is absolutely ready for routine use,” although until now few clinicians have used it to monitor SLE patients, she noted.
“The LLDAS can be a useful target,” commented Ian N. Bruce, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), adding that the steroid dosage an SLE patient receives “is an important parameter to measure when assessing an SLE patient.
“It’s not far from being ready for routine use, but I’d like to see more evidence” that it’s a meaningful measure of an SLE patient’s disease status, he said in an interview.
To examine the clinical relevance of the LLDAS criteria, a five-point assessment for SLE first introduced in a 2016 report (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Sept;75[9]:1615-21), Dr. Petri and her associates applied it retrospectively to their records for 2,026 SLE patients in a Johns Hopkins registry. Clinicians at Johns Hopkins routinely assessed their SLE patients every 3 months and followed the patients for a median of about 10 years, and so had data from more than 81,000 patient encounters. The researchers used the longitudinal follow-up records to calculate an area under the curve for each patient that tracked their LLDAS state over time. This showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more time an SLE patient spent in LLDAS, the less organ damage they had. Patients who remained in LLDAS at least 75% of the time had a 60% reduction in cumulative organ damage, compared with patients who never achieved LLDAS, Dr. Petri said. The analysis also showed that LLDAS was substantially easier for patients to achieve than the Definitions of Remission in SLE (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 March;76[3]:554-61). The Johns Hopkins cohort met the LLDAS definition about three times more often than they met the Definitions of Remission in SLE criteria, Dr. Petri said.
The new analysis also showed that LLDAS was especially effective in correlating with statistically significant reductions in future strokes, MI, and end-stage renal disease, though it did not significantly correlate with subsequent reductions in the incidence of cognitive impairment, deep vein thrombosis, malignancy, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, or cataract development. But the strong correlation of time in LLDAS and the future rate of stroke, MI, or end-stage renal disease was very meaningful because those are the most important types of damage associated with SLE, Dr. Petri said. “LLDAS is a good treatment target as a surrogate” for future risk of SLE complications.
The study had no commercial funding, and Dr. Petri had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bruce has been a consultant to and speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, and he has received research support from Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Roche, and UCB.
SOURCE: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):111. Abstract OP0122.
AMSTERDAM – The Lupus Low Disease Activity State measure of treatment response offers clinicians an attainable target for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus that correlates with a substantially reduced rate of organ damage, based on a retrospective assessment of data collected from more than 2,000 lupus patients at a single U.S. center.
The analysis showed that when patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) met the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) criteria at least half the time while on treatment, their overall rate of organ damage was reduced by 52%, compared with patients who never achieved LLDAS, Michelle A. Petri, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“LLDAS is something that anyone can use in practice,” and has the advantage of including a low steroid dose – no more than 7.5 mg prednisolone/day or an equivalent steroid – as one of its criteria, “a major bad actor” for SLE patients, Dr. Petri said in an interview. LLDAS “is absolutely ready for routine use,” although until now few clinicians have used it to monitor SLE patients, she noted.
“The LLDAS can be a useful target,” commented Ian N. Bruce, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), adding that the steroid dosage an SLE patient receives “is an important parameter to measure when assessing an SLE patient.
“It’s not far from being ready for routine use, but I’d like to see more evidence” that it’s a meaningful measure of an SLE patient’s disease status, he said in an interview.
To examine the clinical relevance of the LLDAS criteria, a five-point assessment for SLE first introduced in a 2016 report (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Sept;75[9]:1615-21), Dr. Petri and her associates applied it retrospectively to their records for 2,026 SLE patients in a Johns Hopkins registry. Clinicians at Johns Hopkins routinely assessed their SLE patients every 3 months and followed the patients for a median of about 10 years, and so had data from more than 81,000 patient encounters. The researchers used the longitudinal follow-up records to calculate an area under the curve for each patient that tracked their LLDAS state over time. This showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more time an SLE patient spent in LLDAS, the less organ damage they had. Patients who remained in LLDAS at least 75% of the time had a 60% reduction in cumulative organ damage, compared with patients who never achieved LLDAS, Dr. Petri said. The analysis also showed that LLDAS was substantially easier for patients to achieve than the Definitions of Remission in SLE (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 March;76[3]:554-61). The Johns Hopkins cohort met the LLDAS definition about three times more often than they met the Definitions of Remission in SLE criteria, Dr. Petri said.
The new analysis also showed that LLDAS was especially effective in correlating with statistically significant reductions in future strokes, MI, and end-stage renal disease, though it did not significantly correlate with subsequent reductions in the incidence of cognitive impairment, deep vein thrombosis, malignancy, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, or cataract development. But the strong correlation of time in LLDAS and the future rate of stroke, MI, or end-stage renal disease was very meaningful because those are the most important types of damage associated with SLE, Dr. Petri said. “LLDAS is a good treatment target as a surrogate” for future risk of SLE complications.
The study had no commercial funding, and Dr. Petri had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bruce has been a consultant to and speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, and he has received research support from Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Roche, and UCB.
SOURCE: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):111. Abstract OP0122.
AMSTERDAM – The Lupus Low Disease Activity State measure of treatment response offers clinicians an attainable target for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus that correlates with a substantially reduced rate of organ damage, based on a retrospective assessment of data collected from more than 2,000 lupus patients at a single U.S. center.
The analysis showed that when patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) met the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) criteria at least half the time while on treatment, their overall rate of organ damage was reduced by 52%, compared with patients who never achieved LLDAS, Michelle A. Petri, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“LLDAS is something that anyone can use in practice,” and has the advantage of including a low steroid dose – no more than 7.5 mg prednisolone/day or an equivalent steroid – as one of its criteria, “a major bad actor” for SLE patients, Dr. Petri said in an interview. LLDAS “is absolutely ready for routine use,” although until now few clinicians have used it to monitor SLE patients, she noted.
“The LLDAS can be a useful target,” commented Ian N. Bruce, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), adding that the steroid dosage an SLE patient receives “is an important parameter to measure when assessing an SLE patient.
“It’s not far from being ready for routine use, but I’d like to see more evidence” that it’s a meaningful measure of an SLE patient’s disease status, he said in an interview.
To examine the clinical relevance of the LLDAS criteria, a five-point assessment for SLE first introduced in a 2016 report (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Sept;75[9]:1615-21), Dr. Petri and her associates applied it retrospectively to their records for 2,026 SLE patients in a Johns Hopkins registry. Clinicians at Johns Hopkins routinely assessed their SLE patients every 3 months and followed the patients for a median of about 10 years, and so had data from more than 81,000 patient encounters. The researchers used the longitudinal follow-up records to calculate an area under the curve for each patient that tracked their LLDAS state over time. This showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more time an SLE patient spent in LLDAS, the less organ damage they had. Patients who remained in LLDAS at least 75% of the time had a 60% reduction in cumulative organ damage, compared with patients who never achieved LLDAS, Dr. Petri said. The analysis also showed that LLDAS was substantially easier for patients to achieve than the Definitions of Remission in SLE (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 March;76[3]:554-61). The Johns Hopkins cohort met the LLDAS definition about three times more often than they met the Definitions of Remission in SLE criteria, Dr. Petri said.
The new analysis also showed that LLDAS was especially effective in correlating with statistically significant reductions in future strokes, MI, and end-stage renal disease, though it did not significantly correlate with subsequent reductions in the incidence of cognitive impairment, deep vein thrombosis, malignancy, pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, or cataract development. But the strong correlation of time in LLDAS and the future rate of stroke, MI, or end-stage renal disease was very meaningful because those are the most important types of damage associated with SLE, Dr. Petri said. “LLDAS is a good treatment target as a surrogate” for future risk of SLE complications.
The study had no commercial funding, and Dr. Petri had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bruce has been a consultant to and speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, and he has received research support from Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Roche, and UCB.
SOURCE: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):111. Abstract OP0122.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: The Lupus Low Disease Activity State is a good treatment target for systemic lupus erythematosus patients.
Major finding: Patients who achieved LLDAS at least half the time had 52% less organ damage than patients who never achieved LLDAS.
Study details: A review of case records from 2,026 SLE patients followed regularly at one U.S. center.
Disclosures: The study had no commercial funding, and Dr. Petri had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bruce has been a consultant to and speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, and he has received research support from Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Roche, and UCB.
Source: Petri MA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):111. Abstract OP0122.
Baricitinib shows potential as lupus treatment
AMSTERDAM – A significantly higher proportion of patients with lupus experienced improvements in joint and skin symptoms if they were treated with baricitinib (Olumiant) than if they received placebo in a phase 2 trial.
The primary endpoint of arthritis or rash resolution as measured by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) was met by approximately 67% of patients who were treated with 4 mg baricitinib once daily and by around 53% of patients given a matching placebo (P less than .05).
With no new safety concerns, these findings suggest that baricitinib could be of benefit in patients with SLE and further study is warranted in a phase 3 trial, said the presenting study investigator Daniel J. Wallace, MD, at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Dr. Wallace is the associate director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Baricitinib is already approved for use as a treatment for RA in more than 40 countries. On June 1, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had given the green light for its use in RA in the United States, but only at a dose of 2 mg once daily, whereas a 2-mg and 4-mg once-daily dose is approved in most other countries.
Data from the phase 2 trial presented by Dr. Wallace did include a 2-mg dose arm, but the difference in treatment response rates versus placebo was not statistically significant.
“I think the placebo response is mainly inflated by the use of corticosteroids,” said Dr. Dörner, professor of medicine at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin. “If one would have applied a steroid tapering regimen, I would have expected a larger effect size, and possibly also the 2-mg [dose] be more effective as compared to placebo.” This is something to consider when moving into a phase 3 trial, he suggested.
For inclusion in the phase 2 trial, patients had to meet the following criteria: Be positive for antinuclear antibodies and/or a positive anti-dsDNA test, have a SLEDAI-2K clinical score of 4 or more, and have active SLEDAI arthritis and/or rash. Patients with severe active lupus nephritis or CNS involvement were excluded.
The mean age of patients was around 44 years, and as might be expected, the study population was predominantly female (99%). Around two-thirds of patients were white, 19% were of Asian descent, and the rest were designated as “other”. The average time to SLE onset was 9.7 years in the placebo group and just over 11 years in the baricitinib arms, with similar SLEDAI-2K scores of about 8-9, about 7-8 tender joints, and about five swollen joints at baseline.
A number of other secondary endpoints were also met by the 4 mg baricitinib group, Dr. Wallace reported. This included the relatively new Lupus Low Disease Activity State, he said, which was met by 38% (n = 27) of patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib, 33% (n = 35) treated with 2 mg baricitinib, and 26% (n = 27) of those given placebo (P less than .05 for the 4-mg dose vs. placebo). There were also numerically fewer SLE flares, including fewer severe flares.
“Some of the other outcomes demonstrated statistical significance: Physician Global Assessment, tender joint count, worst joint pain, and worst pain on a numeric rating scale,” Dr. Wallace said. A trend towards improvement was seen in the swollen joint count, with modest improvement in fatigue.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in around 71%-73% of patients given baricitinib and 65% of patients given placebo. Most were mild or moderate in nature, but serious adverse events did occur in approximately 10% of patients who received baricitinib and in 4% of those who received placebo.
What’s noteworthy, Dr. Dörner said during a press briefing, is the very low rate of venous thromboembolism seen in the trial. “We’d have expected to see more deep vein thrombosis,” he said. Only one case occurred, in a patent taking the 4-mg dose, but this patient had preexisting antiphospholipid antibodies.
Additionally, although the percentage of patients with serious infections was slightly higher in the 2 and 4 mg baricitinib arms than for placebo (1.9% and 5.8% vs. 1%, respectively) “this is what we expect for lupus patients,” Dr. Dörner said. Furthermore, herpes zoster infection, which is very often reactivated in lupus because of the disease or its treatment, was only reported in one patient in the placebo group and in one patient in the 4 mg group.
“I think there is a very promising outlook, at least for the 4-mg dose of baricitinib,” Dr. Dörner said. “There have been no new safety or tolerability issues when compared to the RA population, and we’re looking forward to seeing subsequent studies in this [SLE] patient population where we have a need for more efficacious therapies.”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dörner was part of the trial’s steering committee and has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly. He has also received grant or research support from Roche/Chugai, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulted for AbbVie, Celgene, Roche, UCB, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer/Hospira, and Novartis; and he is part of the speakers bureaus for Amgen, Celgene, and Biogen. Dr. Wallace has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly, as well as EMD Serono, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Wallace DJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):59. Abstract OP0019.
AMSTERDAM – A significantly higher proportion of patients with lupus experienced improvements in joint and skin symptoms if they were treated with baricitinib (Olumiant) than if they received placebo in a phase 2 trial.
The primary endpoint of arthritis or rash resolution as measured by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) was met by approximately 67% of patients who were treated with 4 mg baricitinib once daily and by around 53% of patients given a matching placebo (P less than .05).
With no new safety concerns, these findings suggest that baricitinib could be of benefit in patients with SLE and further study is warranted in a phase 3 trial, said the presenting study investigator Daniel J. Wallace, MD, at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Dr. Wallace is the associate director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Baricitinib is already approved for use as a treatment for RA in more than 40 countries. On June 1, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had given the green light for its use in RA in the United States, but only at a dose of 2 mg once daily, whereas a 2-mg and 4-mg once-daily dose is approved in most other countries.
Data from the phase 2 trial presented by Dr. Wallace did include a 2-mg dose arm, but the difference in treatment response rates versus placebo was not statistically significant.
“I think the placebo response is mainly inflated by the use of corticosteroids,” said Dr. Dörner, professor of medicine at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin. “If one would have applied a steroid tapering regimen, I would have expected a larger effect size, and possibly also the 2-mg [dose] be more effective as compared to placebo.” This is something to consider when moving into a phase 3 trial, he suggested.
For inclusion in the phase 2 trial, patients had to meet the following criteria: Be positive for antinuclear antibodies and/or a positive anti-dsDNA test, have a SLEDAI-2K clinical score of 4 or more, and have active SLEDAI arthritis and/or rash. Patients with severe active lupus nephritis or CNS involvement were excluded.
The mean age of patients was around 44 years, and as might be expected, the study population was predominantly female (99%). Around two-thirds of patients were white, 19% were of Asian descent, and the rest were designated as “other”. The average time to SLE onset was 9.7 years in the placebo group and just over 11 years in the baricitinib arms, with similar SLEDAI-2K scores of about 8-9, about 7-8 tender joints, and about five swollen joints at baseline.
A number of other secondary endpoints were also met by the 4 mg baricitinib group, Dr. Wallace reported. This included the relatively new Lupus Low Disease Activity State, he said, which was met by 38% (n = 27) of patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib, 33% (n = 35) treated with 2 mg baricitinib, and 26% (n = 27) of those given placebo (P less than .05 for the 4-mg dose vs. placebo). There were also numerically fewer SLE flares, including fewer severe flares.
“Some of the other outcomes demonstrated statistical significance: Physician Global Assessment, tender joint count, worst joint pain, and worst pain on a numeric rating scale,” Dr. Wallace said. A trend towards improvement was seen in the swollen joint count, with modest improvement in fatigue.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in around 71%-73% of patients given baricitinib and 65% of patients given placebo. Most were mild or moderate in nature, but serious adverse events did occur in approximately 10% of patients who received baricitinib and in 4% of those who received placebo.
What’s noteworthy, Dr. Dörner said during a press briefing, is the very low rate of venous thromboembolism seen in the trial. “We’d have expected to see more deep vein thrombosis,” he said. Only one case occurred, in a patent taking the 4-mg dose, but this patient had preexisting antiphospholipid antibodies.
Additionally, although the percentage of patients with serious infections was slightly higher in the 2 and 4 mg baricitinib arms than for placebo (1.9% and 5.8% vs. 1%, respectively) “this is what we expect for lupus patients,” Dr. Dörner said. Furthermore, herpes zoster infection, which is very often reactivated in lupus because of the disease or its treatment, was only reported in one patient in the placebo group and in one patient in the 4 mg group.
“I think there is a very promising outlook, at least for the 4-mg dose of baricitinib,” Dr. Dörner said. “There have been no new safety or tolerability issues when compared to the RA population, and we’re looking forward to seeing subsequent studies in this [SLE] patient population where we have a need for more efficacious therapies.”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dörner was part of the trial’s steering committee and has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly. He has also received grant or research support from Roche/Chugai, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulted for AbbVie, Celgene, Roche, UCB, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer/Hospira, and Novartis; and he is part of the speakers bureaus for Amgen, Celgene, and Biogen. Dr. Wallace has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly, as well as EMD Serono, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Wallace DJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):59. Abstract OP0019.
AMSTERDAM – A significantly higher proportion of patients with lupus experienced improvements in joint and skin symptoms if they were treated with baricitinib (Olumiant) than if they received placebo in a phase 2 trial.
The primary endpoint of arthritis or rash resolution as measured by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) was met by approximately 67% of patients who were treated with 4 mg baricitinib once daily and by around 53% of patients given a matching placebo (P less than .05).
With no new safety concerns, these findings suggest that baricitinib could be of benefit in patients with SLE and further study is warranted in a phase 3 trial, said the presenting study investigator Daniel J. Wallace, MD, at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Dr. Wallace is the associate director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Baricitinib is already approved for use as a treatment for RA in more than 40 countries. On June 1, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had given the green light for its use in RA in the United States, but only at a dose of 2 mg once daily, whereas a 2-mg and 4-mg once-daily dose is approved in most other countries.
Data from the phase 2 trial presented by Dr. Wallace did include a 2-mg dose arm, but the difference in treatment response rates versus placebo was not statistically significant.
“I think the placebo response is mainly inflated by the use of corticosteroids,” said Dr. Dörner, professor of medicine at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin. “If one would have applied a steroid tapering regimen, I would have expected a larger effect size, and possibly also the 2-mg [dose] be more effective as compared to placebo.” This is something to consider when moving into a phase 3 trial, he suggested.
For inclusion in the phase 2 trial, patients had to meet the following criteria: Be positive for antinuclear antibodies and/or a positive anti-dsDNA test, have a SLEDAI-2K clinical score of 4 or more, and have active SLEDAI arthritis and/or rash. Patients with severe active lupus nephritis or CNS involvement were excluded.
The mean age of patients was around 44 years, and as might be expected, the study population was predominantly female (99%). Around two-thirds of patients were white, 19% were of Asian descent, and the rest were designated as “other”. The average time to SLE onset was 9.7 years in the placebo group and just over 11 years in the baricitinib arms, with similar SLEDAI-2K scores of about 8-9, about 7-8 tender joints, and about five swollen joints at baseline.
A number of other secondary endpoints were also met by the 4 mg baricitinib group, Dr. Wallace reported. This included the relatively new Lupus Low Disease Activity State, he said, which was met by 38% (n = 27) of patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib, 33% (n = 35) treated with 2 mg baricitinib, and 26% (n = 27) of those given placebo (P less than .05 for the 4-mg dose vs. placebo). There were also numerically fewer SLE flares, including fewer severe flares.
“Some of the other outcomes demonstrated statistical significance: Physician Global Assessment, tender joint count, worst joint pain, and worst pain on a numeric rating scale,” Dr. Wallace said. A trend towards improvement was seen in the swollen joint count, with modest improvement in fatigue.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were seen in around 71%-73% of patients given baricitinib and 65% of patients given placebo. Most were mild or moderate in nature, but serious adverse events did occur in approximately 10% of patients who received baricitinib and in 4% of those who received placebo.
What’s noteworthy, Dr. Dörner said during a press briefing, is the very low rate of venous thromboembolism seen in the trial. “We’d have expected to see more deep vein thrombosis,” he said. Only one case occurred, in a patent taking the 4-mg dose, but this patient had preexisting antiphospholipid antibodies.
Additionally, although the percentage of patients with serious infections was slightly higher in the 2 and 4 mg baricitinib arms than for placebo (1.9% and 5.8% vs. 1%, respectively) “this is what we expect for lupus patients,” Dr. Dörner said. Furthermore, herpes zoster infection, which is very often reactivated in lupus because of the disease or its treatment, was only reported in one patient in the placebo group and in one patient in the 4 mg group.
“I think there is a very promising outlook, at least for the 4-mg dose of baricitinib,” Dr. Dörner said. “There have been no new safety or tolerability issues when compared to the RA population, and we’re looking forward to seeing subsequent studies in this [SLE] patient population where we have a need for more efficacious therapies.”
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dörner was part of the trial’s steering committee and has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly. He has also received grant or research support from Roche/Chugai, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulted for AbbVie, Celgene, Roche, UCB, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer/Hospira, and Novartis; and he is part of the speakers bureaus for Amgen, Celgene, and Biogen. Dr. Wallace has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly, as well as EMD Serono, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SOURCE: Wallace DJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):59. Abstract OP0019.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Baricitinib at 4 mg was associated with significant clinical improvements versus placebo and had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile.
Major finding: A higher percentage of patients receiving 4 mg of baricitinib than those receiving placebo achieved the primary endpoint of arthritis and/or rash remission as defined by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 at week 24 (P less than .05).
Study details: A phase 2, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of once-daily, oral baricitinib (2 mg and 4 mg) in 314 patients with SLE receiving standard therapy.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Dörner was part of the trial’s steering committee and has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly. He has also received grant or research support from Roche/Chugai, Janssen, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulted for AbbVie, Celgene, Roche, UCB, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer/Hospira, and Novartis; and he is part of the speakers bureaus for Amgen, Celgene, and Biogen. Dr. Wallace has acted as a consultant for Eli Lilly, as well as EMD Serono, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.
Source: Wallace DJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):59. Abstract OP0019.
Functional disability prevails despite rheumatoid arthritis treatment
AMSTERDAM – Functional disability remains a significant problem for people with rheumatoid arthritis, with the prevalence remaining at least 15% higher over time than in individuals without the disease.
“We found a higher prevalence of functional disability in patients with RA versus non-RA,” the presenting study investigator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Dr. Myasoedova, who is a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., added that the increase in prevalence over time was significantly higher in subjects with RA than in those without RA (P = .003), but that there was no difference in the pace of this increase with adjustment for the duration of RA disease (P = .51).
There was also no difference in functional disability between the two groups of patients by about the 8th or 9th decade.
RA remains one of the most common conditions associated with functional disability, Dr. Myasoedova said, with several risk factors for physical impairment identified, including being female, of older age, smoking, and the use of certain medications (glucocorticoids and antidepressants), as well as sociodemographic factors.
A discrepancy between improved RA disease control and persistent impairment in physical function has been noted in prior studies, but there are few data on how this might change over time. Dr. Myasoedova and her associates investigated this by analyzing data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which collects medical data on individuals living in Olmsted County, Minnesota. They identified two populations of adults aged 18 and older: one diagnosed with RA according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria between 1999 and 2013, and one without RA but who were of a similar age and sex and enrolled in the project around the same time.
As part of the project, participants completed an annual questionnaire asking about their health and ability to perform six activities of daily living (ADL). These include the ability to wash, dress, feed, and toilet oneself without assistance, as well as perform normal household chores and walk unaided. Over the course of study, 7,466 questionnaires have been completed by the participants and functional disability was defined as having difficulty with at least one of these six ADLs, Dr. Myasoedova explained.
At baseline, subjects with and without RA were aged a mean of 55 and 56 years, respectively, and 70% in both groups were female. Similar percentages were current (about 15%), former (about 30%), or never smokers (about 55%), and about 40% were obese.
Just under two-thirds (64.4%) of patients in the RA cohort were positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies. While there was a similar prevalence of functional disability in RA patients who were or were not RF or CCP positive (both 25%, P = .67), there was an increasing prevalence noted in those who were positive versus those who were negative over time (P = .027).
Although the investigators did not conduct an objective assessment for functional disability, these findings highlight the need for vigilant management of patients with RA, Dr. Myasoedova proposed.
“Early and aggressive treatment regimens aimed at tight inflammation control can help prevent the disabling effects of high disease activity and joint damage, thereby lowering functional disability,” she said in an interview ahead of the congress.
Future work, she observed, should look at how the pattern of functional disability changes and the use of transition modeling to understand the bidirectional pattern of potential change and accumulation of functional disability in RA. The investigators also plan to look at risk factors for persistent and worsening functional disability and how treatment – including “treat to target” and biologics – might affect this.
The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases supported the study. Dr. Myasoedova had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Myasoedova E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):54. Abstract OP0009.
AMSTERDAM – Functional disability remains a significant problem for people with rheumatoid arthritis, with the prevalence remaining at least 15% higher over time than in individuals without the disease.
“We found a higher prevalence of functional disability in patients with RA versus non-RA,” the presenting study investigator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Dr. Myasoedova, who is a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., added that the increase in prevalence over time was significantly higher in subjects with RA than in those without RA (P = .003), but that there was no difference in the pace of this increase with adjustment for the duration of RA disease (P = .51).
There was also no difference in functional disability between the two groups of patients by about the 8th or 9th decade.
RA remains one of the most common conditions associated with functional disability, Dr. Myasoedova said, with several risk factors for physical impairment identified, including being female, of older age, smoking, and the use of certain medications (glucocorticoids and antidepressants), as well as sociodemographic factors.
A discrepancy between improved RA disease control and persistent impairment in physical function has been noted in prior studies, but there are few data on how this might change over time. Dr. Myasoedova and her associates investigated this by analyzing data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which collects medical data on individuals living in Olmsted County, Minnesota. They identified two populations of adults aged 18 and older: one diagnosed with RA according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria between 1999 and 2013, and one without RA but who were of a similar age and sex and enrolled in the project around the same time.
As part of the project, participants completed an annual questionnaire asking about their health and ability to perform six activities of daily living (ADL). These include the ability to wash, dress, feed, and toilet oneself without assistance, as well as perform normal household chores and walk unaided. Over the course of study, 7,466 questionnaires have been completed by the participants and functional disability was defined as having difficulty with at least one of these six ADLs, Dr. Myasoedova explained.
At baseline, subjects with and without RA were aged a mean of 55 and 56 years, respectively, and 70% in both groups were female. Similar percentages were current (about 15%), former (about 30%), or never smokers (about 55%), and about 40% were obese.
Just under two-thirds (64.4%) of patients in the RA cohort were positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies. While there was a similar prevalence of functional disability in RA patients who were or were not RF or CCP positive (both 25%, P = .67), there was an increasing prevalence noted in those who were positive versus those who were negative over time (P = .027).
Although the investigators did not conduct an objective assessment for functional disability, these findings highlight the need for vigilant management of patients with RA, Dr. Myasoedova proposed.
“Early and aggressive treatment regimens aimed at tight inflammation control can help prevent the disabling effects of high disease activity and joint damage, thereby lowering functional disability,” she said in an interview ahead of the congress.
Future work, she observed, should look at how the pattern of functional disability changes and the use of transition modeling to understand the bidirectional pattern of potential change and accumulation of functional disability in RA. The investigators also plan to look at risk factors for persistent and worsening functional disability and how treatment – including “treat to target” and biologics – might affect this.
The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases supported the study. Dr. Myasoedova had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Myasoedova E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):54. Abstract OP0009.
AMSTERDAM – Functional disability remains a significant problem for people with rheumatoid arthritis, with the prevalence remaining at least 15% higher over time than in individuals without the disease.
“We found a higher prevalence of functional disability in patients with RA versus non-RA,” the presenting study investigator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Dr. Myasoedova, who is a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., added that the increase in prevalence over time was significantly higher in subjects with RA than in those without RA (P = .003), but that there was no difference in the pace of this increase with adjustment for the duration of RA disease (P = .51).
There was also no difference in functional disability between the two groups of patients by about the 8th or 9th decade.
RA remains one of the most common conditions associated with functional disability, Dr. Myasoedova said, with several risk factors for physical impairment identified, including being female, of older age, smoking, and the use of certain medications (glucocorticoids and antidepressants), as well as sociodemographic factors.
A discrepancy between improved RA disease control and persistent impairment in physical function has been noted in prior studies, but there are few data on how this might change over time. Dr. Myasoedova and her associates investigated this by analyzing data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which collects medical data on individuals living in Olmsted County, Minnesota. They identified two populations of adults aged 18 and older: one diagnosed with RA according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria between 1999 and 2013, and one without RA but who were of a similar age and sex and enrolled in the project around the same time.
As part of the project, participants completed an annual questionnaire asking about their health and ability to perform six activities of daily living (ADL). These include the ability to wash, dress, feed, and toilet oneself without assistance, as well as perform normal household chores and walk unaided. Over the course of study, 7,466 questionnaires have been completed by the participants and functional disability was defined as having difficulty with at least one of these six ADLs, Dr. Myasoedova explained.
At baseline, subjects with and without RA were aged a mean of 55 and 56 years, respectively, and 70% in both groups were female. Similar percentages were current (about 15%), former (about 30%), or never smokers (about 55%), and about 40% were obese.
Just under two-thirds (64.4%) of patients in the RA cohort were positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies. While there was a similar prevalence of functional disability in RA patients who were or were not RF or CCP positive (both 25%, P = .67), there was an increasing prevalence noted in those who were positive versus those who were negative over time (P = .027).
Although the investigators did not conduct an objective assessment for functional disability, these findings highlight the need for vigilant management of patients with RA, Dr. Myasoedova proposed.
“Early and aggressive treatment regimens aimed at tight inflammation control can help prevent the disabling effects of high disease activity and joint damage, thereby lowering functional disability,” she said in an interview ahead of the congress.
Future work, she observed, should look at how the pattern of functional disability changes and the use of transition modeling to understand the bidirectional pattern of potential change and accumulation of functional disability in RA. The investigators also plan to look at risk factors for persistent and worsening functional disability and how treatment – including “treat to target” and biologics – might affect this.
The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases supported the study. Dr. Myasoedova had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Myasoedova E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):54. Abstract OP0009.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Functional disability remains higher over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, compared with people without the disease.
Major finding: The prevalence of functional disability was 26% vs. 11% at baseline, a 15% difference that persisted over more than 18 years of follow-up.
Study details: Retrospective, longitudinal, population-based cohort study of 586 individuals with RA, and 531 without.
Disclosures: The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases supported the study. Dr. Myasoedova had no conflicts of interest.
Source: Myasoedova E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):54. Abstract OP0009.
Malignancy risk of tocilizumab and TNF inhibitors found similar
AMSTERDAM – , according to an analysis of three large databases presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“When we combined the databases, the incidence of any malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer was 13.09 per 1,000 patient years in the tocilizumab group and 13.46 in the TNF-inhibitor group,” reported Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology & pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was conducted with data from 10,393 adult RA patients treated with tocilizumab and 26,357 patients treated with TNFi in the Medicare, QuintilesIMS PharMetrics Plus, and Truven Health MarketScan databases. All patients were new starts on tocilizumab or the TNFi on which they were evaluated, but all were required to have been exposed to at least one different biologic prior to starting the treatment. A diagnosis of RA at least 365 days prior to inclusion in this analysis was required to rule out prevalent cancers, which was an exclusion criterion.
More than 60 covariates were employed in the analysis to minimize the risk of confounders. These included demographics, RA characteristics, comorbidities, and other medications.
There also was no difference in the rates of the 12 most common cancer types when those exposed to tocilizumab were compared with those exposed to TNFi in a secondary analysis of these data, according to Dr. Kim. When expressed as hazard ratios, there were some numerical differences in relative risk among these cancers on both as-treated and intention-to-treat analyses, but confidence intervals were large, and none approached significance.
RA itself has been associated with an increased risk of some malignancies, such as lung cancer, but the relationship between the proinflammatory state of RA, its treatments, and the risk of cancer has been unclear, according to Dr. Kim. She said, “There is some concern relative to use of TNFi or other biologics in regard to developing malignancy, but studies have been inconsistent.”
Dr. Kim conceded that a lack of data on patients’ disease duration or activity is one limitation of this analysis. Another is that residual confounding can never be ruled out from a retrospective analysis. However, she said that, because the two biologics were compared for the same indication in patients exposed to at least one previous biologic, the confounding may be less than it would be if tocilizumab was compared with a conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), such as methotrexate. Again, there also was a requirement for exposure to at least one prior biologic, and this also is reassuring for the final conclusion.
“In other words, even among RA patients who were exposed to more than one biologic, the risk of cancer was similar between tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitor initiators,” Dr. Kim reported.
Roche provided funding for the study. Dr. Kim reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche.
AMSTERDAM – , according to an analysis of three large databases presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“When we combined the databases, the incidence of any malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer was 13.09 per 1,000 patient years in the tocilizumab group and 13.46 in the TNF-inhibitor group,” reported Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology & pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was conducted with data from 10,393 adult RA patients treated with tocilizumab and 26,357 patients treated with TNFi in the Medicare, QuintilesIMS PharMetrics Plus, and Truven Health MarketScan databases. All patients were new starts on tocilizumab or the TNFi on which they were evaluated, but all were required to have been exposed to at least one different biologic prior to starting the treatment. A diagnosis of RA at least 365 days prior to inclusion in this analysis was required to rule out prevalent cancers, which was an exclusion criterion.
More than 60 covariates were employed in the analysis to minimize the risk of confounders. These included demographics, RA characteristics, comorbidities, and other medications.
There also was no difference in the rates of the 12 most common cancer types when those exposed to tocilizumab were compared with those exposed to TNFi in a secondary analysis of these data, according to Dr. Kim. When expressed as hazard ratios, there were some numerical differences in relative risk among these cancers on both as-treated and intention-to-treat analyses, but confidence intervals were large, and none approached significance.
RA itself has been associated with an increased risk of some malignancies, such as lung cancer, but the relationship between the proinflammatory state of RA, its treatments, and the risk of cancer has been unclear, according to Dr. Kim. She said, “There is some concern relative to use of TNFi or other biologics in regard to developing malignancy, but studies have been inconsistent.”
Dr. Kim conceded that a lack of data on patients’ disease duration or activity is one limitation of this analysis. Another is that residual confounding can never be ruled out from a retrospective analysis. However, she said that, because the two biologics were compared for the same indication in patients exposed to at least one previous biologic, the confounding may be less than it would be if tocilizumab was compared with a conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), such as methotrexate. Again, there also was a requirement for exposure to at least one prior biologic, and this also is reassuring for the final conclusion.
“In other words, even among RA patients who were exposed to more than one biologic, the risk of cancer was similar between tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitor initiators,” Dr. Kim reported.
Roche provided funding for the study. Dr. Kim reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche.
AMSTERDAM – , according to an analysis of three large databases presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“When we combined the databases, the incidence of any malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer was 13.09 per 1,000 patient years in the tocilizumab group and 13.46 in the TNF-inhibitor group,” reported Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of the division of pharmacoepidemiology & pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was conducted with data from 10,393 adult RA patients treated with tocilizumab and 26,357 patients treated with TNFi in the Medicare, QuintilesIMS PharMetrics Plus, and Truven Health MarketScan databases. All patients were new starts on tocilizumab or the TNFi on which they were evaluated, but all were required to have been exposed to at least one different biologic prior to starting the treatment. A diagnosis of RA at least 365 days prior to inclusion in this analysis was required to rule out prevalent cancers, which was an exclusion criterion.
More than 60 covariates were employed in the analysis to minimize the risk of confounders. These included demographics, RA characteristics, comorbidities, and other medications.
There also was no difference in the rates of the 12 most common cancer types when those exposed to tocilizumab were compared with those exposed to TNFi in a secondary analysis of these data, according to Dr. Kim. When expressed as hazard ratios, there were some numerical differences in relative risk among these cancers on both as-treated and intention-to-treat analyses, but confidence intervals were large, and none approached significance.
RA itself has been associated with an increased risk of some malignancies, such as lung cancer, but the relationship between the proinflammatory state of RA, its treatments, and the risk of cancer has been unclear, according to Dr. Kim. She said, “There is some concern relative to use of TNFi or other biologics in regard to developing malignancy, but studies have been inconsistent.”
Dr. Kim conceded that a lack of data on patients’ disease duration or activity is one limitation of this analysis. Another is that residual confounding can never be ruled out from a retrospective analysis. However, she said that, because the two biologics were compared for the same indication in patients exposed to at least one previous biologic, the confounding may be less than it would be if tocilizumab was compared with a conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), such as methotrexate. Again, there also was a requirement for exposure to at least one prior biologic, and this also is reassuring for the final conclusion.
“In other words, even among RA patients who were exposed to more than one biologic, the risk of cancer was similar between tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitor initiators,” Dr. Kim reported.
Roche provided funding for the study. Dr. Kim reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Tocilizumab was not associated with a higher cancer risk in rheumatoid arthritis than TNFi treatment in a cohort study.
Major finding: Relative to TNFI, the hazard ratio for malignancy was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19) for tocilizumab relative to TNFi.
Study details: Cohort study with propensity matching with data from 10,393 adult RA patients treated with tocilizumab and 26,357 patients treated with TNFi.
Disclosures: Roche provided funding for the study. Dr. Kim reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche.
Bisphosphonate ‘holidays’ exceeding 2 years linked to increased fractures
AMSTERDAM – Older women on bisphosphonate treatment for at least 3 years who then stopped taking the drug showed a 40% increased risk for hip fracture after they were off the bisphosphonate for more than 2 years, compared with women who never stopped using the drug, according to an analysis of more than 150,000 women in a Medicare database.
The implication of this observational-data finding is that drug holidays from a bisphosphonate regimen “may not be appropriate for all patients,” Kenneth G. Saag, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The finding seems to dispute a recent recommendation from the American College of Physicians (Ann Intern Med. 2017 June 6;166[11]:818-39) that drug treatment to prevent bone fractures in osteoporotic women should stop after 5 years, noted Dr. Saag, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. The median duration of bisphosphonate treatment in the studied cohort before the drug use stopped was 5.5 years.
“Drug holidays [from a bisphosphonate] have become increasingly common” because of concerns about potential adverse effects from prolonged, continuous bisphosphonate treatment, especially the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures, he said. These bisphosphonate stoppages are sometimes permanent and sometimes temporary, Dr. Saag noted. Ideally, assessment of the risks and benefits from a bisphosphonate drug holiday should occur in a randomized study, but in current U.S. practice such a trial would be “impossible because there is not equipoise around the decision of whether or not to stop,” he said.
To try to gain insight into the impact of halting bisphosphonate treatment with observational data, Dr. Saag and his associates used records collected by Medicare on 153,236 women who started a new course of bisphosphonate treatment and remained on it for at least 3 years during 2006 to 2014. When selecting these women, the researchers also focused on those with at least 80% adherence to their bisphosphonate regimen, based on prescription coverage data. The analysis censored women who also received other treatments that can affect bone density, such as estrogen or denosumab (Prolia, Xgeva). The average age of the women was 79 years; two-thirds were aged 75 years or older. The median duration of follow-up information after bisphosphonate stoppage was 2.1 years. Forty percent of the women stopped their bisphosphonate treatment for at least 6 months, and 13% of the women who stopped treatment subsequently restarted a bisphosphonate drug. The most commonly used bisphosphonate was alendronate (Fosamax, Binosto), used by 72%, followed by zoledronic acid (Reclast, Zometa), used by 16%.
The analysis divided women who stopped their bisphosphonate treatment into subgroups based on the duration of stoppage, and showed that the rate of hip fracture was 40% higher among women who stopped treatment for more than 2 years but not more than 3 years, compared with the women who never interrupted their bisphosphonate treatment, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Saag said. In contrast, among women who halted bisphosphonate treatment for more than 1 year but not more than 2 years, the hip fracture risk was 20% higher than that of nonstoppers, also a statistically significant difference. These and all the other analyses the researchers ran adjusted for the possible impact from baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.
Dr. Saag cautioned that while the relatively increased risk for hip fracture from a prolonged halt to bisphosphonate treatment was 40%, the absolute increase in risk was “relatively modest,” representing an increased fracture rate of 0.5-1 additional fractures during every 100 patient years of follow-up.
For the endpoint of major osteoporotic fracture at any location, the risk was 10% higher among women who stopped treatment for more than 2 years but not for longer than 3 years, compared with nonstoppers.
The researchers also focused on two key subgroups. Among women who only took alendronate, a drug holiday of more than 2 years was linked with a statistically significant 20% rise in hip fractures, compared with women who never stopped the drug. And among the 4% of studied women who had a history of a bone fracture because of bone fragility, stoppage of their bisphosphonate treatment for more than 2 years doubled their hip fracture rate, compared with similar women who did not stop their treatment.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Saag has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Lilly, and Radius.
SOURCE: Curtis J et al. EULAR 2018 Congress, abstract OP0017.
AMSTERDAM – Older women on bisphosphonate treatment for at least 3 years who then stopped taking the drug showed a 40% increased risk for hip fracture after they were off the bisphosphonate for more than 2 years, compared with women who never stopped using the drug, according to an analysis of more than 150,000 women in a Medicare database.
The implication of this observational-data finding is that drug holidays from a bisphosphonate regimen “may not be appropriate for all patients,” Kenneth G. Saag, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The finding seems to dispute a recent recommendation from the American College of Physicians (Ann Intern Med. 2017 June 6;166[11]:818-39) that drug treatment to prevent bone fractures in osteoporotic women should stop after 5 years, noted Dr. Saag, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. The median duration of bisphosphonate treatment in the studied cohort before the drug use stopped was 5.5 years.
“Drug holidays [from a bisphosphonate] have become increasingly common” because of concerns about potential adverse effects from prolonged, continuous bisphosphonate treatment, especially the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures, he said. These bisphosphonate stoppages are sometimes permanent and sometimes temporary, Dr. Saag noted. Ideally, assessment of the risks and benefits from a bisphosphonate drug holiday should occur in a randomized study, but in current U.S. practice such a trial would be “impossible because there is not equipoise around the decision of whether or not to stop,” he said.
To try to gain insight into the impact of halting bisphosphonate treatment with observational data, Dr. Saag and his associates used records collected by Medicare on 153,236 women who started a new course of bisphosphonate treatment and remained on it for at least 3 years during 2006 to 2014. When selecting these women, the researchers also focused on those with at least 80% adherence to their bisphosphonate regimen, based on prescription coverage data. The analysis censored women who also received other treatments that can affect bone density, such as estrogen or denosumab (Prolia, Xgeva). The average age of the women was 79 years; two-thirds were aged 75 years or older. The median duration of follow-up information after bisphosphonate stoppage was 2.1 years. Forty percent of the women stopped their bisphosphonate treatment for at least 6 months, and 13% of the women who stopped treatment subsequently restarted a bisphosphonate drug. The most commonly used bisphosphonate was alendronate (Fosamax, Binosto), used by 72%, followed by zoledronic acid (Reclast, Zometa), used by 16%.
The analysis divided women who stopped their bisphosphonate treatment into subgroups based on the duration of stoppage, and showed that the rate of hip fracture was 40% higher among women who stopped treatment for more than 2 years but not more than 3 years, compared with the women who never interrupted their bisphosphonate treatment, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Saag said. In contrast, among women who halted bisphosphonate treatment for more than 1 year but not more than 2 years, the hip fracture risk was 20% higher than that of nonstoppers, also a statistically significant difference. These and all the other analyses the researchers ran adjusted for the possible impact from baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.
Dr. Saag cautioned that while the relatively increased risk for hip fracture from a prolonged halt to bisphosphonate treatment was 40%, the absolute increase in risk was “relatively modest,” representing an increased fracture rate of 0.5-1 additional fractures during every 100 patient years of follow-up.
For the endpoint of major osteoporotic fracture at any location, the risk was 10% higher among women who stopped treatment for more than 2 years but not for longer than 3 years, compared with nonstoppers.
The researchers also focused on two key subgroups. Among women who only took alendronate, a drug holiday of more than 2 years was linked with a statistically significant 20% rise in hip fractures, compared with women who never stopped the drug. And among the 4% of studied women who had a history of a bone fracture because of bone fragility, stoppage of their bisphosphonate treatment for more than 2 years doubled their hip fracture rate, compared with similar women who did not stop their treatment.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Saag has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Lilly, and Radius.
SOURCE: Curtis J et al. EULAR 2018 Congress, abstract OP0017.
AMSTERDAM – Older women on bisphosphonate treatment for at least 3 years who then stopped taking the drug showed a 40% increased risk for hip fracture after they were off the bisphosphonate for more than 2 years, compared with women who never stopped using the drug, according to an analysis of more than 150,000 women in a Medicare database.
The implication of this observational-data finding is that drug holidays from a bisphosphonate regimen “may not be appropriate for all patients,” Kenneth G. Saag, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The finding seems to dispute a recent recommendation from the American College of Physicians (Ann Intern Med. 2017 June 6;166[11]:818-39) that drug treatment to prevent bone fractures in osteoporotic women should stop after 5 years, noted Dr. Saag, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. The median duration of bisphosphonate treatment in the studied cohort before the drug use stopped was 5.5 years.
“Drug holidays [from a bisphosphonate] have become increasingly common” because of concerns about potential adverse effects from prolonged, continuous bisphosphonate treatment, especially the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures, he said. These bisphosphonate stoppages are sometimes permanent and sometimes temporary, Dr. Saag noted. Ideally, assessment of the risks and benefits from a bisphosphonate drug holiday should occur in a randomized study, but in current U.S. practice such a trial would be “impossible because there is not equipoise around the decision of whether or not to stop,” he said.
To try to gain insight into the impact of halting bisphosphonate treatment with observational data, Dr. Saag and his associates used records collected by Medicare on 153,236 women who started a new course of bisphosphonate treatment and remained on it for at least 3 years during 2006 to 2014. When selecting these women, the researchers also focused on those with at least 80% adherence to their bisphosphonate regimen, based on prescription coverage data. The analysis censored women who also received other treatments that can affect bone density, such as estrogen or denosumab (Prolia, Xgeva). The average age of the women was 79 years; two-thirds were aged 75 years or older. The median duration of follow-up information after bisphosphonate stoppage was 2.1 years. Forty percent of the women stopped their bisphosphonate treatment for at least 6 months, and 13% of the women who stopped treatment subsequently restarted a bisphosphonate drug. The most commonly used bisphosphonate was alendronate (Fosamax, Binosto), used by 72%, followed by zoledronic acid (Reclast, Zometa), used by 16%.
The analysis divided women who stopped their bisphosphonate treatment into subgroups based on the duration of stoppage, and showed that the rate of hip fracture was 40% higher among women who stopped treatment for more than 2 years but not more than 3 years, compared with the women who never interrupted their bisphosphonate treatment, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Saag said. In contrast, among women who halted bisphosphonate treatment for more than 1 year but not more than 2 years, the hip fracture risk was 20% higher than that of nonstoppers, also a statistically significant difference. These and all the other analyses the researchers ran adjusted for the possible impact from baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.
Dr. Saag cautioned that while the relatively increased risk for hip fracture from a prolonged halt to bisphosphonate treatment was 40%, the absolute increase in risk was “relatively modest,” representing an increased fracture rate of 0.5-1 additional fractures during every 100 patient years of follow-up.
For the endpoint of major osteoporotic fracture at any location, the risk was 10% higher among women who stopped treatment for more than 2 years but not for longer than 3 years, compared with nonstoppers.
The researchers also focused on two key subgroups. Among women who only took alendronate, a drug holiday of more than 2 years was linked with a statistically significant 20% rise in hip fractures, compared with women who never stopped the drug. And among the 4% of studied women who had a history of a bone fracture because of bone fragility, stoppage of their bisphosphonate treatment for more than 2 years doubled their hip fracture rate, compared with similar women who did not stop their treatment.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Saag has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Lilly, and Radius.
SOURCE: Curtis J et al. EULAR 2018 Congress, abstract OP0017.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Stopping a bisphosphonate for more than 2 years boosts hip fracture risk.
Major finding: Women stopping bisphosphonate use for more than 2 years had a 40% higher rate of hip fractures compared with women who didn’t stop the drug.
Study details: Review of data collected by Medicare for 153,236 women treated with a bisphosphonate drug.
Disclosures: The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Saag has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Lilly, and Radius.
Source: Curtis J et al. EULAR 2018 Congress, abstract OP0017.