TBD Meeting (3388-24)

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).

However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.

Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
 

Choice of Endpoint

“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.

DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.

cowespedriuejipethopejowifropupatresekeslothestolilopra

Proof of Concept

IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.

The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.

Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.

“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
 

Are ACPA Really Lowered?

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.

Emery_Paul_UK3_web.jpg

Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”

Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”

Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.

“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.

“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.

As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
 

Safety and Other Results

With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).

There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.

Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).

Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
 

Combination and Further Trials

Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.

In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.

The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).

However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.

Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
 

Choice of Endpoint

“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.

DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.

cowespedriuejipethopejowifropupatresekeslothestolilopra

Proof of Concept

IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.

The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.

Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.

“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
 

Are ACPA Really Lowered?

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.

Emery_Paul_UK3_web.jpg

Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”

Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”

Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.

“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.

“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.

As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
 

Safety and Other Results

With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).

There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.

Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).

Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
 

Combination and Further Trials

Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.

In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.

The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).

However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.

Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
 

Choice of Endpoint

“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.

DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.

cowespedriuejipethopejowifropupatresekeslothestolilopra

Proof of Concept

IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.

The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.

Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.

“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
 

Are ACPA Really Lowered?

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.

Emery_Paul_UK3_web.jpg

Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”

Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”

Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.

“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.

“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.

As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
 

Safety and Other Results

With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).

There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.

Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).

Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
 

Combination and Further Trials

Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.

In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.

The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

louewrushubujagawrisugelidrobathabrudeslujeshohujavufrupitriclunepotriwetruwragebaphuromephuthovumi

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Emery_Paul_UK3_web.jpg

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Taylor_Peter_OXFORD_web.jpg

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

panowucheslustenugucl

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

louewrushubujagawrisugelidrobathabrudeslujeshohujavufrupitriclunepotriwetruwragebaphuromephuthovumi

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Emery_Paul_UK3_web.jpg

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Taylor_Peter_OXFORD_web.jpg

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

panowucheslustenugucl

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

louewrushubujagawrisugelidrobathabrudeslujeshohujavufrupitriclunepotriwetruwragebaphuromephuthovumi

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Emery_Paul_UK3_web.jpg

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Taylor_Peter_OXFORD_web.jpg

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

panowucheslustenugucl

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents. 

“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

167930_Price_Elizabeth_web.jpg

What’s in a Name?

The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet. 

The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained. 

Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.

A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
 

Confirming the Diagnosis

The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies? 

The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion. 

In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
 

Lymphoma Worries

The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”

The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score. 

All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”

The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
 

‘Do the Little Things Well’

“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”

Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.

Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.

“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available. 

In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness. 

“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness. 

Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice. 

“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
 

Watch Out for Comorbidities

Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected. 

“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population. 

The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
 

Treatment Recommendations

As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data. 

The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms. 

Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely. 

Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.

In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
 

View on Updates

Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR. 

“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said. 

Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.” 

No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents. 

“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

167930_Price_Elizabeth_web.jpg

What’s in a Name?

The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet. 

The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained. 

Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.

A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
 

Confirming the Diagnosis

The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies? 

The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion. 

In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
 

Lymphoma Worries

The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”

The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score. 

All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”

The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
 

‘Do the Little Things Well’

“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”

Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.

Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.

“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available. 

In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness. 

“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness. 

Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice. 

“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
 

Watch Out for Comorbidities

Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected. 

“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population. 

The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
 

Treatment Recommendations

As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data. 

The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms. 

Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely. 

Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.

In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
 

View on Updates

Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR. 

“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said. 

Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.” 

No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents. 

“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

167930_Price_Elizabeth_web.jpg

What’s in a Name?

The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet. 

The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained. 

Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.

A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
 

Confirming the Diagnosis

The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies? 

The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion. 

In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
 

Lymphoma Worries

The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”

The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score. 

All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”

The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
 

‘Do the Little Things Well’

“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”

Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.

Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.

“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available. 

In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness. 

“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness. 

Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice. 

“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
 

Watch Out for Comorbidities

Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected. 

“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population. 

The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
 

Treatment Recommendations

As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data. 

The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms. 

Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely. 

Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.

In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
 

View on Updates

Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR. 

“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said. 

Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.” 

No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.

Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.

However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.

In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
 

RA and VTE Risk

The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.

“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.

“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.

He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”

To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.

One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.

For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
 

Observational Data Challenged

“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.

Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.

Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.

“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.

“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
 

Age, Sex, and Bodyweight

Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.

“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”

Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
 

Duration of RA

As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.

The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.

“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”

Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
 

Oral Contraceptives and HRT

Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.

“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.

The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.

Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
 

Assess and Monitor

Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.

“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.

The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.

The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).

In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame. 

Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment. 

“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation. 

“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.” 

Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
 

Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway

“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained. 

The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.

The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
 

Related Work on Gout Incidence

Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England. 

“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.

“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.

Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care. 
 

COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases

“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”

While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested. 

Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
 

ULT Treatment Rates Low

“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L. 

“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.

There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels. 

As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”

The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).

In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame. 

Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment. 

“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation. 

“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.” 

Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
 

Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway

“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained. 

The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.

The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
 

Related Work on Gout Incidence

Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England. 

“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.

“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.

Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care. 
 

COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases

“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”

While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested. 

Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
 

ULT Treatment Rates Low

“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L. 

“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.

There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels. 

As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”

The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).

In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame. 

Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment. 

“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation. 

“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.” 

Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
 

Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway

“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained. 

The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.

The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
 

Related Work on Gout Incidence

Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England. 

“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.

“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.

Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care. 
 

COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases

“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”

While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested. 

Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
 

ULT Treatment Rates Low

“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L. 

“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.

There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels. 

As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”

The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.