TBD Meeting (3521-23)

Systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) and adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) should be grouped into one disease, Still’s disease, according to new diagnosis and treatment recommendations presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations, made in collaboration with EULAR and the Pediatric Rheumatology European Society, emphasized that the ultimate treatment target for Still’s disease should be drug-free remission in all patients and that macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) should be identified and treated as soon as possible.

The task force focused on MAS because despite effective, innovative therapies, “we continued to see MAS,” said presenter Bruno Fautrel, MD, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Paris. “We have to be very concerned about this potential complication.”

Dr. Fautrel copresented the recommendations with Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology, Bambino Gesù Hospital, Rome.
 

Diagnosis

Dr. Fautrel noted that the cutoff age of 16 that differentiates sJIA and AOSD is “arbitrary.” There are some differences in age: The frequency of the disease is higher in young children, but it plateaus in young adults. Children under 18 months old are also far more likely to develop MAS.

To diagnose and treat Still’s disease, the recommendations state that clinicians should consider four criteria:

• A fever spiking at or above 39° C (102.2° F) for at least 7 days.
• A transient rash, preferentially on the trunk, that coincides with fever spikes, rash is typically erythematous but other rashes, like urticaria, can be consistent with the diagnosis.
• Some musculoskeletal involvement is common, involving arthralgia/myalgia.
• High levels of inflammation identified by neutrophilic leukocytosis, increased serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin.

Dr. Fautrel noted that, while arthritis can be present, it is not necessary to make a diagnosis. In pediatrics, “arthritis is likely to happen after a few weeks of the evolution of the disease,” and waiting for arthritis to develop can lead to diagnostic delay, “which is a problem.”

For individuals with suspected Still’s disease, NSAIDs can be used as a “bridging therapy” before the diagnosis is confirmed.
 

Treatment

The recommendations emphasized that treatment and therapeutic strategy “should be based on shared decision-making between the parents/patients and the treating team,” with the ultimate goal of drug-free remission.

To achieve this goal, the document outlines time-based targets for clinically inactive disease (CID). At 4 weeks, patients should have no fever, reduction of active or swollen joint count by more than 50%, a normal CRP level, and a rating of less than 20 on a visual analog scale of 0-100. At 3 months, patients should maintain clinically inactive disease with a glucocorticoid dose of less than 0.1 or 0.2 mg/kg per day. At 6 months, CID should be maintained without glucocorticoids.

While the authors of the recommendations noted that glucocorticoids are efficacious, their long-term use should be avoided because of safety issues. An interleukin-1 or IL-6 inhibitor should be prioritized and initiated as soon as possible after diagnosis.

Patients should maintain CID between 3 and 6 months before tapering off biologics.

The recommendations are congruent with the 2021 American College of Rheumatology’s guidelines for sJIA, noted Karen Onel, MD, pediatric rheumatologist, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and the principle investigator for the ACR guidelines. One main difference is that the EULAR recommendations included time lines for treatment targets, while the ACR’s did not.

“It’s great to have these time lines in there,” she said in an interview, though there are still some unknowns. “We don’t actually know what the tapering frequency should be,” she said, “but these are definitely goals that we need to explore and see how they evolve.”
 

MAS and lung complications

The EULAR recommendations also touched on two concerning complications, particularly in children: MAS and lung disease. According to the document, MAS should be considered in patients with Still’s disease with these symptoms: fever, splenomegaly, elevated serum ferritin, low cell counts, abnormal liver function tests, elevated serum triglycerides, and intravascular activation of coagulation. The MAS 2016 criteria can also be used to facilitate diagnosis.

“MAS treatment must include high-dose glucocorticoids,” the document states. “In addition, treatments including anakinra, ciclosporin, and/or interferon-gamma inhibitors should be considered as a part of initial therapy.”

The recommendations also addressed the risk for lung disease, “which is an emerging issue, particularly in children, that the physician should be very well aware of,” Dr. De Benedetti said. This complication can arise at any time point of the disease, he added.

The document advised actively screening for lung disease by searching for clinical symptoms such as digital clubbing, persistent cough, and shortness of breath. Pulmonary function tests like pulse oximetry and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide may also be used, but these standard lung function tests are very difficult to do in children under 6 years old, Dr. De Benedetti noted. The recommendations advise performing high-resolution CT in “any patients with clinical concerns.”

“We have lowered the threshold for CT scan because of the emerging features of this lung disease that may actually be lethal and therefore require prompt attention,” Dr. De Benedetti noted.

The recommendations for lung disease are “broad,” as there is still much to learn about the risk for lung disease in a small portion of sJIA patients, Dr. Onel said.

“There’s a lot that we are trying to work out about this; exactly how to screen, who to screen, what to do, who to treat, and how to treat really remains unclear,” she said. “We absolutely agree that this is a major, major issue that we need to come to some sort of agreement upon, but we’re just not there yet.”

Dr. De Benedetti, Dr. Fautrel, and Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) and adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) should be grouped into one disease, Still’s disease, according to new diagnosis and treatment recommendations presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations, made in collaboration with EULAR and the Pediatric Rheumatology European Society, emphasized that the ultimate treatment target for Still’s disease should be drug-free remission in all patients and that macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) should be identified and treated as soon as possible.

The task force focused on MAS because despite effective, innovative therapies, “we continued to see MAS,” said presenter Bruno Fautrel, MD, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Paris. “We have to be very concerned about this potential complication.”

Dr. Fautrel copresented the recommendations with Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology, Bambino Gesù Hospital, Rome.
 

Diagnosis

Dr. Fautrel noted that the cutoff age of 16 that differentiates sJIA and AOSD is “arbitrary.” There are some differences in age: The frequency of the disease is higher in young children, but it plateaus in young adults. Children under 18 months old are also far more likely to develop MAS.

To diagnose and treat Still’s disease, the recommendations state that clinicians should consider four criteria:

• A fever spiking at or above 39° C (102.2° F) for at least 7 days.
• A transient rash, preferentially on the trunk, that coincides with fever spikes, rash is typically erythematous but other rashes, like urticaria, can be consistent with the diagnosis.
• Some musculoskeletal involvement is common, involving arthralgia/myalgia.
• High levels of inflammation identified by neutrophilic leukocytosis, increased serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin.

Dr. Fautrel noted that, while arthritis can be present, it is not necessary to make a diagnosis. In pediatrics, “arthritis is likely to happen after a few weeks of the evolution of the disease,” and waiting for arthritis to develop can lead to diagnostic delay, “which is a problem.”

For individuals with suspected Still’s disease, NSAIDs can be used as a “bridging therapy” before the diagnosis is confirmed.
 

Treatment

The recommendations emphasized that treatment and therapeutic strategy “should be based on shared decision-making between the parents/patients and the treating team,” with the ultimate goal of drug-free remission.

To achieve this goal, the document outlines time-based targets for clinically inactive disease (CID). At 4 weeks, patients should have no fever, reduction of active or swollen joint count by more than 50%, a normal CRP level, and a rating of less than 20 on a visual analog scale of 0-100. At 3 months, patients should maintain clinically inactive disease with a glucocorticoid dose of less than 0.1 or 0.2 mg/kg per day. At 6 months, CID should be maintained without glucocorticoids.

While the authors of the recommendations noted that glucocorticoids are efficacious, their long-term use should be avoided because of safety issues. An interleukin-1 or IL-6 inhibitor should be prioritized and initiated as soon as possible after diagnosis.

Patients should maintain CID between 3 and 6 months before tapering off biologics.

The recommendations are congruent with the 2021 American College of Rheumatology’s guidelines for sJIA, noted Karen Onel, MD, pediatric rheumatologist, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and the principle investigator for the ACR guidelines. One main difference is that the EULAR recommendations included time lines for treatment targets, while the ACR’s did not.

“It’s great to have these time lines in there,” she said in an interview, though there are still some unknowns. “We don’t actually know what the tapering frequency should be,” she said, “but these are definitely goals that we need to explore and see how they evolve.”
 

MAS and lung complications

The EULAR recommendations also touched on two concerning complications, particularly in children: MAS and lung disease. According to the document, MAS should be considered in patients with Still’s disease with these symptoms: fever, splenomegaly, elevated serum ferritin, low cell counts, abnormal liver function tests, elevated serum triglycerides, and intravascular activation of coagulation. The MAS 2016 criteria can also be used to facilitate diagnosis.

“MAS treatment must include high-dose glucocorticoids,” the document states. “In addition, treatments including anakinra, ciclosporin, and/or interferon-gamma inhibitors should be considered as a part of initial therapy.”

The recommendations also addressed the risk for lung disease, “which is an emerging issue, particularly in children, that the physician should be very well aware of,” Dr. De Benedetti said. This complication can arise at any time point of the disease, he added.

The document advised actively screening for lung disease by searching for clinical symptoms such as digital clubbing, persistent cough, and shortness of breath. Pulmonary function tests like pulse oximetry and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide may also be used, but these standard lung function tests are very difficult to do in children under 6 years old, Dr. De Benedetti noted. The recommendations advise performing high-resolution CT in “any patients with clinical concerns.”

“We have lowered the threshold for CT scan because of the emerging features of this lung disease that may actually be lethal and therefore require prompt attention,” Dr. De Benedetti noted.

The recommendations for lung disease are “broad,” as there is still much to learn about the risk for lung disease in a small portion of sJIA patients, Dr. Onel said.

“There’s a lot that we are trying to work out about this; exactly how to screen, who to screen, what to do, who to treat, and how to treat really remains unclear,” she said. “We absolutely agree that this is a major, major issue that we need to come to some sort of agreement upon, but we’re just not there yet.”

Dr. De Benedetti, Dr. Fautrel, and Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) and adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) should be grouped into one disease, Still’s disease, according to new diagnosis and treatment recommendations presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The recommendations, made in collaboration with EULAR and the Pediatric Rheumatology European Society, emphasized that the ultimate treatment target for Still’s disease should be drug-free remission in all patients and that macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) should be identified and treated as soon as possible.

The task force focused on MAS because despite effective, innovative therapies, “we continued to see MAS,” said presenter Bruno Fautrel, MD, Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital, Paris. “We have to be very concerned about this potential complication.”

Dr. Fautrel copresented the recommendations with Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology, Bambino Gesù Hospital, Rome.
 

Diagnosis

Dr. Fautrel noted that the cutoff age of 16 that differentiates sJIA and AOSD is “arbitrary.” There are some differences in age: The frequency of the disease is higher in young children, but it plateaus in young adults. Children under 18 months old are also far more likely to develop MAS.

To diagnose and treat Still’s disease, the recommendations state that clinicians should consider four criteria:

• A fever spiking at or above 39° C (102.2° F) for at least 7 days.
• A transient rash, preferentially on the trunk, that coincides with fever spikes, rash is typically erythematous but other rashes, like urticaria, can be consistent with the diagnosis.
• Some musculoskeletal involvement is common, involving arthralgia/myalgia.
• High levels of inflammation identified by neutrophilic leukocytosis, increased serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin.

Dr. Fautrel noted that, while arthritis can be present, it is not necessary to make a diagnosis. In pediatrics, “arthritis is likely to happen after a few weeks of the evolution of the disease,” and waiting for arthritis to develop can lead to diagnostic delay, “which is a problem.”

For individuals with suspected Still’s disease, NSAIDs can be used as a “bridging therapy” before the diagnosis is confirmed.
 

Treatment

The recommendations emphasized that treatment and therapeutic strategy “should be based on shared decision-making between the parents/patients and the treating team,” with the ultimate goal of drug-free remission.

To achieve this goal, the document outlines time-based targets for clinically inactive disease (CID). At 4 weeks, patients should have no fever, reduction of active or swollen joint count by more than 50%, a normal CRP level, and a rating of less than 20 on a visual analog scale of 0-100. At 3 months, patients should maintain clinically inactive disease with a glucocorticoid dose of less than 0.1 or 0.2 mg/kg per day. At 6 months, CID should be maintained without glucocorticoids.

While the authors of the recommendations noted that glucocorticoids are efficacious, their long-term use should be avoided because of safety issues. An interleukin-1 or IL-6 inhibitor should be prioritized and initiated as soon as possible after diagnosis.

Patients should maintain CID between 3 and 6 months before tapering off biologics.

The recommendations are congruent with the 2021 American College of Rheumatology’s guidelines for sJIA, noted Karen Onel, MD, pediatric rheumatologist, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and the principle investigator for the ACR guidelines. One main difference is that the EULAR recommendations included time lines for treatment targets, while the ACR’s did not.

“It’s great to have these time lines in there,” she said in an interview, though there are still some unknowns. “We don’t actually know what the tapering frequency should be,” she said, “but these are definitely goals that we need to explore and see how they evolve.”
 

MAS and lung complications

The EULAR recommendations also touched on two concerning complications, particularly in children: MAS and lung disease. According to the document, MAS should be considered in patients with Still’s disease with these symptoms: fever, splenomegaly, elevated serum ferritin, low cell counts, abnormal liver function tests, elevated serum triglycerides, and intravascular activation of coagulation. The MAS 2016 criteria can also be used to facilitate diagnosis.

“MAS treatment must include high-dose glucocorticoids,” the document states. “In addition, treatments including anakinra, ciclosporin, and/or interferon-gamma inhibitors should be considered as a part of initial therapy.”

The recommendations also addressed the risk for lung disease, “which is an emerging issue, particularly in children, that the physician should be very well aware of,” Dr. De Benedetti said. This complication can arise at any time point of the disease, he added.

The document advised actively screening for lung disease by searching for clinical symptoms such as digital clubbing, persistent cough, and shortness of breath. Pulmonary function tests like pulse oximetry and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide may also be used, but these standard lung function tests are very difficult to do in children under 6 years old, Dr. De Benedetti noted. The recommendations advise performing high-resolution CT in “any patients with clinical concerns.”

“We have lowered the threshold for CT scan because of the emerging features of this lung disease that may actually be lethal and therefore require prompt attention,” Dr. De Benedetti noted.

The recommendations for lung disease are “broad,” as there is still much to learn about the risk for lung disease in a small portion of sJIA patients, Dr. Onel said.

“There’s a lot that we are trying to work out about this; exactly how to screen, who to screen, what to do, who to treat, and how to treat really remains unclear,” she said. “We absolutely agree that this is a major, major issue that we need to come to some sort of agreement upon, but we’re just not there yet.”

Dr. De Benedetti, Dr. Fautrel, and Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology task force has released new guidance on imaging of crystal-induced arthropathies (CiA). The document provides recommendations for using imaging for diagnosis and monitoring of these types of diseases.

“These are the first-ever EULAR recommendations on imaging in this group of diseases. In fact, we are not aware of any similar international recommendations which provide guidance on which imaging technique, when, and how [they] should be used for crystal-induced arthropathies,” lead author Peter Mandl, MD, PhD, of the division of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna, told this news organization. Dr. Mandl presented the new recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

While some rheumatologists very familiar with crystal-induced arthropathies already regularly use imaging with these patients, these formal recommendations could highlight to wider audiences that “these imaging modalities can be very sensitive and specific for CiA,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and head of crystal-induced arthritis diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She was not involved with the work.

The document included general recommendations for imaging in CiA as well as specific recommendations for gout, basic calcium phosphate deposition disease (BCPD), and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD). Across all disease types, performing imaging on symptomatic areas as well as disease-specific target sites should be considered, the recommendations state. This includes the first metatarsophalangeal joint in gout, the wrist and knee in CPPD, and the shoulder in BCPD.

Both ultrasound (US) and dual-energy CT (DECT) are the recommended imaging modalities in gout. If imaging reveals characteristic features of monosodium urate (MSU) crystal deposition, synovial fluid analysis is not necessary to confirm a gout diagnosis. The volume of MSU crystals on imaging can also be used to predict future disease flares.

Showing imaging and explaining imaging findings may help patients understand their condition and adhere to treatment regimens, the recommendations state. “I think it’s a very powerful way to counsel patients,” Dr. Tedeschi said in an interview.

Imaging is necessary in the diagnosis of BCPD, and clinicians should use either conventional radiography or US. These imagining modalities are recommended for CPPD, and clinicians can use CT if they suspect axial involvement. The document does not recommend serial imaging for either BCPD or CPPD unless there has been an “unsuspected change in clinical characteristics.”

These recommendations highlight how imaging can have a “powerful impact on patient counseling and diagnosis,” said Dr. Tedeschi. She emphasized the importance of US training in rheumatology fellowship programs.

During his presentation at EULAR 2023, Dr. Mandl also highlighted a robust research agenda to further investigate how imaging can aid in the diagnosis and treatment of CiA. “It would be great to have an imaging modality someday that would help us differentiate between various types of calcium crystal,” he said.

Dr. Mandl has financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.

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

A European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology task force has released new guidance on imaging of crystal-induced arthropathies (CiA). The document provides recommendations for using imaging for diagnosis and monitoring of these types of diseases.

“These are the first-ever EULAR recommendations on imaging in this group of diseases. In fact, we are not aware of any similar international recommendations which provide guidance on which imaging technique, when, and how [they] should be used for crystal-induced arthropathies,” lead author Peter Mandl, MD, PhD, of the division of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna, told this news organization. Dr. Mandl presented the new recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

While some rheumatologists very familiar with crystal-induced arthropathies already regularly use imaging with these patients, these formal recommendations could highlight to wider audiences that “these imaging modalities can be very sensitive and specific for CiA,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and head of crystal-induced arthritis diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She was not involved with the work.

The document included general recommendations for imaging in CiA as well as specific recommendations for gout, basic calcium phosphate deposition disease (BCPD), and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD). Across all disease types, performing imaging on symptomatic areas as well as disease-specific target sites should be considered, the recommendations state. This includes the first metatarsophalangeal joint in gout, the wrist and knee in CPPD, and the shoulder in BCPD.

Both ultrasound (US) and dual-energy CT (DECT) are the recommended imaging modalities in gout. If imaging reveals characteristic features of monosodium urate (MSU) crystal deposition, synovial fluid analysis is not necessary to confirm a gout diagnosis. The volume of MSU crystals on imaging can also be used to predict future disease flares.

Showing imaging and explaining imaging findings may help patients understand their condition and adhere to treatment regimens, the recommendations state. “I think it’s a very powerful way to counsel patients,” Dr. Tedeschi said in an interview.

Imaging is necessary in the diagnosis of BCPD, and clinicians should use either conventional radiography or US. These imagining modalities are recommended for CPPD, and clinicians can use CT if they suspect axial involvement. The document does not recommend serial imaging for either BCPD or CPPD unless there has been an “unsuspected change in clinical characteristics.”

These recommendations highlight how imaging can have a “powerful impact on patient counseling and diagnosis,” said Dr. Tedeschi. She emphasized the importance of US training in rheumatology fellowship programs.

During his presentation at EULAR 2023, Dr. Mandl also highlighted a robust research agenda to further investigate how imaging can aid in the diagnosis and treatment of CiA. “It would be great to have an imaging modality someday that would help us differentiate between various types of calcium crystal,” he said.

Dr. Mandl has financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.

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

A European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology task force has released new guidance on imaging of crystal-induced arthropathies (CiA). The document provides recommendations for using imaging for diagnosis and monitoring of these types of diseases.

“These are the first-ever EULAR recommendations on imaging in this group of diseases. In fact, we are not aware of any similar international recommendations which provide guidance on which imaging technique, when, and how [they] should be used for crystal-induced arthropathies,” lead author Peter Mandl, MD, PhD, of the division of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna, told this news organization. Dr. Mandl presented the new recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

While some rheumatologists very familiar with crystal-induced arthropathies already regularly use imaging with these patients, these formal recommendations could highlight to wider audiences that “these imaging modalities can be very sensitive and specific for CiA,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and head of crystal-induced arthritis diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She was not involved with the work.

The document included general recommendations for imaging in CiA as well as specific recommendations for gout, basic calcium phosphate deposition disease (BCPD), and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD). Across all disease types, performing imaging on symptomatic areas as well as disease-specific target sites should be considered, the recommendations state. This includes the first metatarsophalangeal joint in gout, the wrist and knee in CPPD, and the shoulder in BCPD.

Both ultrasound (US) and dual-energy CT (DECT) are the recommended imaging modalities in gout. If imaging reveals characteristic features of monosodium urate (MSU) crystal deposition, synovial fluid analysis is not necessary to confirm a gout diagnosis. The volume of MSU crystals on imaging can also be used to predict future disease flares.

Showing imaging and explaining imaging findings may help patients understand their condition and adhere to treatment regimens, the recommendations state. “I think it’s a very powerful way to counsel patients,” Dr. Tedeschi said in an interview.

Imaging is necessary in the diagnosis of BCPD, and clinicians should use either conventional radiography or US. These imagining modalities are recommended for CPPD, and clinicians can use CT if they suspect axial involvement. The document does not recommend serial imaging for either BCPD or CPPD unless there has been an “unsuspected change in clinical characteristics.”

These recommendations highlight how imaging can have a “powerful impact on patient counseling and diagnosis,” said Dr. Tedeschi. She emphasized the importance of US training in rheumatology fellowship programs.

During his presentation at EULAR 2023, Dr. Mandl also highlighted a robust research agenda to further investigate how imaging can aid in the diagnosis and treatment of CiA. “It would be great to have an imaging modality someday that would help us differentiate between various types of calcium crystal,” he said.

Dr. Mandl has financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

MILAN – Two independent efforts to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the development of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from patients with signs and symptoms not meeting full disease criteria showed good, near expert-level accuracy, according to findings from two studies presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In one study, researchers from Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands developed an AI-based method to automatically analyze MR scans of extremities in order to predict early rheumatoid arthritis. The second study involved a Japanese research team that used machine learning to create a model capable of predicting progression from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA. Both approaches would facilitate early diagnosis of RA, enabling timely treatment and improved clinical outcomes.

Dr. Lennart Jans

Lennart Jans, MD, PhD, who was not involved in either study but works with AI-assisted imaging analysis on a daily basis as head of clinics in musculoskeletal radiology at Ghent University Hospital and a professor of radiology at Ghent University in Belgium, said that integrating AI into health care poses several challenging aspects that need to be addressed. “There are three main challenges associated with the development and implementation of AI-based tools in clinical practice,” he said. “Firstly, obtaining heterogeneous datasets from different image hardware vendors, diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and various ages and genders is crucial for training and testing the AI algorithms. Secondly, AI algorithms need to achieve a predetermined performance level depending on the specific use case. Finally, a regulatory pathway must be followed to obtain the necessary FDA or MDR [medical devices regulation] certification before applying an AI use case in clinical practice.”
 

RA prediction

Yanli Li, the first author of the study and a member of the division of image processing at Leiden University Medical Center, explained the potential benefits of early RA prediction. “If we could determine whether a patient presenting with clinically suspected arthralgia (CSA) or early onset arthritis (EAC) is likely to develop RA in the near future, physicians could initiate treatment earlier, reducing the risk of disease progression.”

Currently, rheumatologists estimate the likelihood of developing RA by visually scoring MR scans using the RAMRIS scoring system. “We decided to explore the use of AI,” Dr. Li explained, “because it could save time, reduce costs and labor, eliminate the need for scoring training, and allow for hypothesis-free discoveries.”

The research team collected MR scans of the hands and feet from Leiden University Medical Center’s radiology department. The dataset consisted of images from 177 healthy individuals, 692 subjects with CSA (including 113 who developed RA), and 969 with EAC (including 447 who developed RA). The images underwent automated preprocessing to remove artifacts and standardize the input for the computer. Subsequently, a deep learning model was trained to predict RA development within a 2-year time frame.

The training process involved several steps. Initially, the researchers pretrained the model to learn anatomy by masking parts of the images and tasking the computer with reconstructing them. Subsequently, the AI was trained to differentiate between the groups (EAC vs. healthy and CSA vs. healthy), then between RA and other disorders. Finally, the AI model was trained to predict RA.

The accuracy of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). The model that was trained using MR scans of the hands (including the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints) achieved a mean AUROC of 0.84 for distinguishing EAC from healthy subjects and 0.83 for distinguishing CSA from healthy subjects. The model trained using MR scans of both the hands and feet achieved a mean AUROC of 0.71 for distinguishing RA from non-RA cases in EAC. The accuracy of the model in predicting RA using MR scans of the hands was 0.73, which closely matches the reported accuracy of visual scoring by human experts (0.74). Importantly, the generation and analysis of heat maps suggested that the deep learning model predicts RA based on known inflammatory signals.

“Automatic RA prediction using AI interpretation of MR scans is feasible,” Dr. Li said. “Incorporating additional clinical data will likely further enhance the AI prediction, and the heat maps may contribute to the discovery of new MRI biomarkers for RA development.”

“AI models and engines have achieved near-expertise levels for various use cases, including the early detection of RA on MRI scans of the hands,” said Dr. Jans, the Ghent University radiologist. “We are observing the same progress in AI detection of rheumatic diseases in other imaging modalities, such as radiography, CT, and ultrasound. However, it is important to note that the reported performances often apply to selected cohorts with standardized imaging protocols. The next challenge [for Dr. Li and colleagues, and others] will be to train and test these algorithms using more heterogeneous datasets to make them applicable in real-world settings.”
 

A ‘transitional phase’ of applying AI techniques

“In a medical setting, as computer scientists, we face unique challenges,” pointed out Berend C. Stoel, MSc, PhD, the senior author of the Leiden study. “Our team consists of approximately 30-35 researchers, primarily electrical engineers or computer scientists, situated within the radiology department of Leiden University Medical Center. Our focus is on image processing, seeking AI-based solutions for image analysis, particularly utilizing deep learning techniques.”

Their objective is to validate this method more broadly, and to achieve that, they require collaboration with other hospitals. Up until now, they have primarily worked with a specific type of MR images, extremity MR scans. These scans are conducted in only a few centers equipped with extremity MR scanners, which can accommodate only hands or feet.

“We are currently in a transitional phase, aiming to apply our methods to standard MR scans, which are more widely available,” Dr. Stoel informed this news organization. “We are engaged in various projects. One project, nearing completion, involves the scoring of early RA, where we train the computer to imitate the actions of rheumatologists or radiologists. We started with a relatively straightforward approach, but AI offers a multitude of possibilities. In the project presented at EULAR, we manipulated the images in a different manner, attempting to predict future events. We also have a parallel project where we employ AI to detect inflammatory changes over time by analyzing sequences of images (MR scans). Furthermore, we have developed AI models to distinguish between treatment and placebo groups. Once the neural network has been trained for this task, we can inquire about the location and timing of changes, thereby gaining insights into the therapy’s response.

“When considering the history of AI, it has experienced both ups and downs. We are currently in a promising phase, but if certain projects fail, expectations might diminish. My hope is that we will indeed revolutionize and enhance disease diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction. Additionally, AI may provide us with additional information that we, as humans, may not be able to extract from these images. However, it is difficult to predict where we will stand in 5-10 years,” he concluded.
 

Predicting disease progression

The second study, which explored the application of AI in predicting the progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA, was presented by Takayuki Fujii, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of advanced medicine for rheumatic diseases at Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. “Predicting the progression of RA from UA remains an unmet medical need,” he reminded the audience.

Dr. Takayuki Fujii

Dr. Fujii’s team used data from the KURAMA cohort, a large observational RA cohort from a single center, to develop a machine learning model. The study included a total of 322 patients initially diagnosed with UA. The deep neural network (DNN) model was trained using 24 clinical features that are easily obtainable in routine clinical practice, such as age, sex, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and disease activity score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). The DNN model achieved a prediction accuracy of 85.1% in the training cohort. When the model was applied to validation data from an external dataset consisting of 88 patients from the ANSWER cohort, a large multicenter observational RA cohort, the prediction accuracy was 80%.

“We have developed a machine learning model that can predict the progression of RA from UA using clinical parameters,” Dr. Fujii concluded. “This model has the potential to assist rheumatologists in providing appropriate care and timely intervention for patients with UA.”

“Dr. Fujii presented a fascinating study,” Dr. Jans said. “They achieved an accuracy of 80% when applying a DNN model to predict progression from UA to RA. This level of accuracy is relatively high and certainly promising. However, it is important to consider that a pre-test probability of 30% [for progressing from UA to RA]  is also relatively high, which partially explains the high accuracy. Nonetheless, this study represents a significant step forward in the clinical management of patients with UA, as it helps identify those who may benefit the most from regular clinical follow-up.”

Dr. Li and Dr. Stoel report no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Fujii has received speaking fees from Asahi Kasei, AbbVie, Chugai, and Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma. Dr. Jans has received speaking fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, and Novartis; he is cofounder of RheumaFinder. The Leiden study was funded by the Dutch Research Council and the China Scholarship Council. The study by Dr. Fujii and colleagues had no outside funding.

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

MILAN – Two independent efforts to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the development of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from patients with signs and symptoms not meeting full disease criteria showed good, near expert-level accuracy, according to findings from two studies presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In one study, researchers from Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands developed an AI-based method to automatically analyze MR scans of extremities in order to predict early rheumatoid arthritis. The second study involved a Japanese research team that used machine learning to create a model capable of predicting progression from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA. Both approaches would facilitate early diagnosis of RA, enabling timely treatment and improved clinical outcomes.

Dr. Lennart Jans

Lennart Jans, MD, PhD, who was not involved in either study but works with AI-assisted imaging analysis on a daily basis as head of clinics in musculoskeletal radiology at Ghent University Hospital and a professor of radiology at Ghent University in Belgium, said that integrating AI into health care poses several challenging aspects that need to be addressed. “There are three main challenges associated with the development and implementation of AI-based tools in clinical practice,” he said. “Firstly, obtaining heterogeneous datasets from different image hardware vendors, diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and various ages and genders is crucial for training and testing the AI algorithms. Secondly, AI algorithms need to achieve a predetermined performance level depending on the specific use case. Finally, a regulatory pathway must be followed to obtain the necessary FDA or MDR [medical devices regulation] certification before applying an AI use case in clinical practice.”
 

RA prediction

Yanli Li, the first author of the study and a member of the division of image processing at Leiden University Medical Center, explained the potential benefits of early RA prediction. “If we could determine whether a patient presenting with clinically suspected arthralgia (CSA) or early onset arthritis (EAC) is likely to develop RA in the near future, physicians could initiate treatment earlier, reducing the risk of disease progression.”

Currently, rheumatologists estimate the likelihood of developing RA by visually scoring MR scans using the RAMRIS scoring system. “We decided to explore the use of AI,” Dr. Li explained, “because it could save time, reduce costs and labor, eliminate the need for scoring training, and allow for hypothesis-free discoveries.”

The research team collected MR scans of the hands and feet from Leiden University Medical Center’s radiology department. The dataset consisted of images from 177 healthy individuals, 692 subjects with CSA (including 113 who developed RA), and 969 with EAC (including 447 who developed RA). The images underwent automated preprocessing to remove artifacts and standardize the input for the computer. Subsequently, a deep learning model was trained to predict RA development within a 2-year time frame.

The training process involved several steps. Initially, the researchers pretrained the model to learn anatomy by masking parts of the images and tasking the computer with reconstructing them. Subsequently, the AI was trained to differentiate between the groups (EAC vs. healthy and CSA vs. healthy), then between RA and other disorders. Finally, the AI model was trained to predict RA.

The accuracy of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). The model that was trained using MR scans of the hands (including the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints) achieved a mean AUROC of 0.84 for distinguishing EAC from healthy subjects and 0.83 for distinguishing CSA from healthy subjects. The model trained using MR scans of both the hands and feet achieved a mean AUROC of 0.71 for distinguishing RA from non-RA cases in EAC. The accuracy of the model in predicting RA using MR scans of the hands was 0.73, which closely matches the reported accuracy of visual scoring by human experts (0.74). Importantly, the generation and analysis of heat maps suggested that the deep learning model predicts RA based on known inflammatory signals.

“Automatic RA prediction using AI interpretation of MR scans is feasible,” Dr. Li said. “Incorporating additional clinical data will likely further enhance the AI prediction, and the heat maps may contribute to the discovery of new MRI biomarkers for RA development.”

“AI models and engines have achieved near-expertise levels for various use cases, including the early detection of RA on MRI scans of the hands,” said Dr. Jans, the Ghent University radiologist. “We are observing the same progress in AI detection of rheumatic diseases in other imaging modalities, such as radiography, CT, and ultrasound. However, it is important to note that the reported performances often apply to selected cohorts with standardized imaging protocols. The next challenge [for Dr. Li and colleagues, and others] will be to train and test these algorithms using more heterogeneous datasets to make them applicable in real-world settings.”
 

A ‘transitional phase’ of applying AI techniques

“In a medical setting, as computer scientists, we face unique challenges,” pointed out Berend C. Stoel, MSc, PhD, the senior author of the Leiden study. “Our team consists of approximately 30-35 researchers, primarily electrical engineers or computer scientists, situated within the radiology department of Leiden University Medical Center. Our focus is on image processing, seeking AI-based solutions for image analysis, particularly utilizing deep learning techniques.”

Their objective is to validate this method more broadly, and to achieve that, they require collaboration with other hospitals. Up until now, they have primarily worked with a specific type of MR images, extremity MR scans. These scans are conducted in only a few centers equipped with extremity MR scanners, which can accommodate only hands or feet.

“We are currently in a transitional phase, aiming to apply our methods to standard MR scans, which are more widely available,” Dr. Stoel informed this news organization. “We are engaged in various projects. One project, nearing completion, involves the scoring of early RA, where we train the computer to imitate the actions of rheumatologists or radiologists. We started with a relatively straightforward approach, but AI offers a multitude of possibilities. In the project presented at EULAR, we manipulated the images in a different manner, attempting to predict future events. We also have a parallel project where we employ AI to detect inflammatory changes over time by analyzing sequences of images (MR scans). Furthermore, we have developed AI models to distinguish between treatment and placebo groups. Once the neural network has been trained for this task, we can inquire about the location and timing of changes, thereby gaining insights into the therapy’s response.

“When considering the history of AI, it has experienced both ups and downs. We are currently in a promising phase, but if certain projects fail, expectations might diminish. My hope is that we will indeed revolutionize and enhance disease diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction. Additionally, AI may provide us with additional information that we, as humans, may not be able to extract from these images. However, it is difficult to predict where we will stand in 5-10 years,” he concluded.
 

Predicting disease progression

The second study, which explored the application of AI in predicting the progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA, was presented by Takayuki Fujii, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of advanced medicine for rheumatic diseases at Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. “Predicting the progression of RA from UA remains an unmet medical need,” he reminded the audience.

Dr. Takayuki Fujii

Dr. Fujii’s team used data from the KURAMA cohort, a large observational RA cohort from a single center, to develop a machine learning model. The study included a total of 322 patients initially diagnosed with UA. The deep neural network (DNN) model was trained using 24 clinical features that are easily obtainable in routine clinical practice, such as age, sex, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and disease activity score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). The DNN model achieved a prediction accuracy of 85.1% in the training cohort. When the model was applied to validation data from an external dataset consisting of 88 patients from the ANSWER cohort, a large multicenter observational RA cohort, the prediction accuracy was 80%.

“We have developed a machine learning model that can predict the progression of RA from UA using clinical parameters,” Dr. Fujii concluded. “This model has the potential to assist rheumatologists in providing appropriate care and timely intervention for patients with UA.”

“Dr. Fujii presented a fascinating study,” Dr. Jans said. “They achieved an accuracy of 80% when applying a DNN model to predict progression from UA to RA. This level of accuracy is relatively high and certainly promising. However, it is important to consider that a pre-test probability of 30% [for progressing from UA to RA]  is also relatively high, which partially explains the high accuracy. Nonetheless, this study represents a significant step forward in the clinical management of patients with UA, as it helps identify those who may benefit the most from regular clinical follow-up.”

Dr. Li and Dr. Stoel report no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Fujii has received speaking fees from Asahi Kasei, AbbVie, Chugai, and Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma. Dr. Jans has received speaking fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, and Novartis; he is cofounder of RheumaFinder. The Leiden study was funded by the Dutch Research Council and the China Scholarship Council. The study by Dr. Fujii and colleagues had no outside funding.

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

MILAN – Two independent efforts to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the development of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from patients with signs and symptoms not meeting full disease criteria showed good, near expert-level accuracy, according to findings from two studies presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In one study, researchers from Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands developed an AI-based method to automatically analyze MR scans of extremities in order to predict early rheumatoid arthritis. The second study involved a Japanese research team that used machine learning to create a model capable of predicting progression from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA. Both approaches would facilitate early diagnosis of RA, enabling timely treatment and improved clinical outcomes.

Dr. Lennart Jans

Lennart Jans, MD, PhD, who was not involved in either study but works with AI-assisted imaging analysis on a daily basis as head of clinics in musculoskeletal radiology at Ghent University Hospital and a professor of radiology at Ghent University in Belgium, said that integrating AI into health care poses several challenging aspects that need to be addressed. “There are three main challenges associated with the development and implementation of AI-based tools in clinical practice,” he said. “Firstly, obtaining heterogeneous datasets from different image hardware vendors, diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and various ages and genders is crucial for training and testing the AI algorithms. Secondly, AI algorithms need to achieve a predetermined performance level depending on the specific use case. Finally, a regulatory pathway must be followed to obtain the necessary FDA or MDR [medical devices regulation] certification before applying an AI use case in clinical practice.”
 

RA prediction

Yanli Li, the first author of the study and a member of the division of image processing at Leiden University Medical Center, explained the potential benefits of early RA prediction. “If we could determine whether a patient presenting with clinically suspected arthralgia (CSA) or early onset arthritis (EAC) is likely to develop RA in the near future, physicians could initiate treatment earlier, reducing the risk of disease progression.”

Currently, rheumatologists estimate the likelihood of developing RA by visually scoring MR scans using the RAMRIS scoring system. “We decided to explore the use of AI,” Dr. Li explained, “because it could save time, reduce costs and labor, eliminate the need for scoring training, and allow for hypothesis-free discoveries.”

The research team collected MR scans of the hands and feet from Leiden University Medical Center’s radiology department. The dataset consisted of images from 177 healthy individuals, 692 subjects with CSA (including 113 who developed RA), and 969 with EAC (including 447 who developed RA). The images underwent automated preprocessing to remove artifacts and standardize the input for the computer. Subsequently, a deep learning model was trained to predict RA development within a 2-year time frame.

The training process involved several steps. Initially, the researchers pretrained the model to learn anatomy by masking parts of the images and tasking the computer with reconstructing them. Subsequently, the AI was trained to differentiate between the groups (EAC vs. healthy and CSA vs. healthy), then between RA and other disorders. Finally, the AI model was trained to predict RA.

The accuracy of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). The model that was trained using MR scans of the hands (including the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints) achieved a mean AUROC of 0.84 for distinguishing EAC from healthy subjects and 0.83 for distinguishing CSA from healthy subjects. The model trained using MR scans of both the hands and feet achieved a mean AUROC of 0.71 for distinguishing RA from non-RA cases in EAC. The accuracy of the model in predicting RA using MR scans of the hands was 0.73, which closely matches the reported accuracy of visual scoring by human experts (0.74). Importantly, the generation and analysis of heat maps suggested that the deep learning model predicts RA based on known inflammatory signals.

“Automatic RA prediction using AI interpretation of MR scans is feasible,” Dr. Li said. “Incorporating additional clinical data will likely further enhance the AI prediction, and the heat maps may contribute to the discovery of new MRI biomarkers for RA development.”

“AI models and engines have achieved near-expertise levels for various use cases, including the early detection of RA on MRI scans of the hands,” said Dr. Jans, the Ghent University radiologist. “We are observing the same progress in AI detection of rheumatic diseases in other imaging modalities, such as radiography, CT, and ultrasound. However, it is important to note that the reported performances often apply to selected cohorts with standardized imaging protocols. The next challenge [for Dr. Li and colleagues, and others] will be to train and test these algorithms using more heterogeneous datasets to make them applicable in real-world settings.”
 

A ‘transitional phase’ of applying AI techniques

“In a medical setting, as computer scientists, we face unique challenges,” pointed out Berend C. Stoel, MSc, PhD, the senior author of the Leiden study. “Our team consists of approximately 30-35 researchers, primarily electrical engineers or computer scientists, situated within the radiology department of Leiden University Medical Center. Our focus is on image processing, seeking AI-based solutions for image analysis, particularly utilizing deep learning techniques.”

Their objective is to validate this method more broadly, and to achieve that, they require collaboration with other hospitals. Up until now, they have primarily worked with a specific type of MR images, extremity MR scans. These scans are conducted in only a few centers equipped with extremity MR scanners, which can accommodate only hands or feet.

“We are currently in a transitional phase, aiming to apply our methods to standard MR scans, which are more widely available,” Dr. Stoel informed this news organization. “We are engaged in various projects. One project, nearing completion, involves the scoring of early RA, where we train the computer to imitate the actions of rheumatologists or radiologists. We started with a relatively straightforward approach, but AI offers a multitude of possibilities. In the project presented at EULAR, we manipulated the images in a different manner, attempting to predict future events. We also have a parallel project where we employ AI to detect inflammatory changes over time by analyzing sequences of images (MR scans). Furthermore, we have developed AI models to distinguish between treatment and placebo groups. Once the neural network has been trained for this task, we can inquire about the location and timing of changes, thereby gaining insights into the therapy’s response.

“When considering the history of AI, it has experienced both ups and downs. We are currently in a promising phase, but if certain projects fail, expectations might diminish. My hope is that we will indeed revolutionize and enhance disease diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction. Additionally, AI may provide us with additional information that we, as humans, may not be able to extract from these images. However, it is difficult to predict where we will stand in 5-10 years,” he concluded.
 

Predicting disease progression

The second study, which explored the application of AI in predicting the progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA, was presented by Takayuki Fujii, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of advanced medicine for rheumatic diseases at Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. “Predicting the progression of RA from UA remains an unmet medical need,” he reminded the audience.

Dr. Takayuki Fujii

Dr. Fujii’s team used data from the KURAMA cohort, a large observational RA cohort from a single center, to develop a machine learning model. The study included a total of 322 patients initially diagnosed with UA. The deep neural network (DNN) model was trained using 24 clinical features that are easily obtainable in routine clinical practice, such as age, sex, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and disease activity score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). The DNN model achieved a prediction accuracy of 85.1% in the training cohort. When the model was applied to validation data from an external dataset consisting of 88 patients from the ANSWER cohort, a large multicenter observational RA cohort, the prediction accuracy was 80%.

“We have developed a machine learning model that can predict the progression of RA from UA using clinical parameters,” Dr. Fujii concluded. “This model has the potential to assist rheumatologists in providing appropriate care and timely intervention for patients with UA.”

“Dr. Fujii presented a fascinating study,” Dr. Jans said. “They achieved an accuracy of 80% when applying a DNN model to predict progression from UA to RA. This level of accuracy is relatively high and certainly promising. However, it is important to consider that a pre-test probability of 30% [for progressing from UA to RA]  is also relatively high, which partially explains the high accuracy. Nonetheless, this study represents a significant step forward in the clinical management of patients with UA, as it helps identify those who may benefit the most from regular clinical follow-up.”

Dr. Li and Dr. Stoel report no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Fujii has received speaking fees from Asahi Kasei, AbbVie, Chugai, and Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma. Dr. Jans has received speaking fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, and Novartis; he is cofounder of RheumaFinder. The Leiden study was funded by the Dutch Research Council and the China Scholarship Council. The study by Dr. Fujii and colleagues had no outside funding.

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

MILAN – Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) does not appear to demonstrate a consistent and significant risk for demyelinating disease, according to a systematic literature review presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The review was conducted by Isabel Castrejon, MD, of the rheumatology department at Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, and colleagues. “In male RA patients, a marginal and slight increase in risk was found. The low number of events provides reassurance regarding the use of these drugs. However, careful consideration is recommended for individuals at the highest risk of demyelinating diseases,” Dr. Castrejon said in an interview. “Health care providers should evaluate the potential benefits and risks of TNFi treatment on a case-by-case basis and closely monitor patients for any signs or symptoms of demyelinating events.”

The researchers performed the review because early data from biologic registries did not provide sufficient clarity, and the association between TNFi exposure and inflammatory central nervous system events remains poorly understood.
 

Key findings from the analyzed data

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues’ review considered 368 studies that included patients with RA, treatment with any biologic including TNFi and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and demyelinating event.

The studies focused on assessing the risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics, particularly TNFi. Some studies included only patients with RA, while others examined mixed forms of arthritis. In cases involving mixed populations, patients with RA were analyzed separately. Additionally, certain studies solely considered multiple sclerosis, while others encompassed various types of demyelinating events. Dr. Castrejon said that a meta-analysis of the studies could not be performed because of their heterogeneity.

Among the 368 studies, four observational cohort studies and three nested case-control studies reported a risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics. Two nested case-control studies indicated an increased risk in mixed populations but did not separately analyze the subgroup of patients with RA. Two observational cohort studies revealed a marginally increased risk in men with RA who undergo TNFi treatment. In the first study, the incidence was 19.7/100,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.3) with a standardized incidence ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96-1.92), a definite case risk ratio of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.51-1.26), and an RR for male patients of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.31-5.06). The second study had an SIR of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.63-1.93), a RR for patients with RA of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.24-1.72), and male RR of 3.48 (95% CI, 1.45-8.37).

An unresolved question is whether demyelinating events are attributable to the underlying disease itself, which may not have been recognized at the time of diagnosis, or whether they are caused by DMARDs. Additionally, the articles that the reviewers analyzed did not consider patient characteristics that could interact with other factors, such as comorbidities or smoking, that might influence their susceptibility to the development of demyelinating events.

How should clinicians manage patients with RA who are at high risk of developing demyelinating diseases? “Typically, we initiate treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying methotrexate and then progress to other drugs,” Maya H. Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England), said in an interview. “For patients in high-risk groups, there are alternative treatment strategies, especially in comparison to TNFi, where there may be a rationale for their use.” Dr. Buch was not involved in the review.

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) does not appear to demonstrate a consistent and significant risk for demyelinating disease, according to a systematic literature review presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The review was conducted by Isabel Castrejon, MD, of the rheumatology department at Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, and colleagues. “In male RA patients, a marginal and slight increase in risk was found. The low number of events provides reassurance regarding the use of these drugs. However, careful consideration is recommended for individuals at the highest risk of demyelinating diseases,” Dr. Castrejon said in an interview. “Health care providers should evaluate the potential benefits and risks of TNFi treatment on a case-by-case basis and closely monitor patients for any signs or symptoms of demyelinating events.”

The researchers performed the review because early data from biologic registries did not provide sufficient clarity, and the association between TNFi exposure and inflammatory central nervous system events remains poorly understood.
 

Key findings from the analyzed data

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues’ review considered 368 studies that included patients with RA, treatment with any biologic including TNFi and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and demyelinating event.

The studies focused on assessing the risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics, particularly TNFi. Some studies included only patients with RA, while others examined mixed forms of arthritis. In cases involving mixed populations, patients with RA were analyzed separately. Additionally, certain studies solely considered multiple sclerosis, while others encompassed various types of demyelinating events. Dr. Castrejon said that a meta-analysis of the studies could not be performed because of their heterogeneity.

Among the 368 studies, four observational cohort studies and three nested case-control studies reported a risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics. Two nested case-control studies indicated an increased risk in mixed populations but did not separately analyze the subgroup of patients with RA. Two observational cohort studies revealed a marginally increased risk in men with RA who undergo TNFi treatment. In the first study, the incidence was 19.7/100,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.3) with a standardized incidence ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96-1.92), a definite case risk ratio of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.51-1.26), and an RR for male patients of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.31-5.06). The second study had an SIR of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.63-1.93), a RR for patients with RA of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.24-1.72), and male RR of 3.48 (95% CI, 1.45-8.37).

An unresolved question is whether demyelinating events are attributable to the underlying disease itself, which may not have been recognized at the time of diagnosis, or whether they are caused by DMARDs. Additionally, the articles that the reviewers analyzed did not consider patient characteristics that could interact with other factors, such as comorbidities or smoking, that might influence their susceptibility to the development of demyelinating events.

How should clinicians manage patients with RA who are at high risk of developing demyelinating diseases? “Typically, we initiate treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying methotrexate and then progress to other drugs,” Maya H. Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England), said in an interview. “For patients in high-risk groups, there are alternative treatment strategies, especially in comparison to TNFi, where there may be a rationale for their use.” Dr. Buch was not involved in the review.

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) does not appear to demonstrate a consistent and significant risk for demyelinating disease, according to a systematic literature review presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The review was conducted by Isabel Castrejon, MD, of the rheumatology department at Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, and colleagues. “In male RA patients, a marginal and slight increase in risk was found. The low number of events provides reassurance regarding the use of these drugs. However, careful consideration is recommended for individuals at the highest risk of demyelinating diseases,” Dr. Castrejon said in an interview. “Health care providers should evaluate the potential benefits and risks of TNFi treatment on a case-by-case basis and closely monitor patients for any signs or symptoms of demyelinating events.”

The researchers performed the review because early data from biologic registries did not provide sufficient clarity, and the association between TNFi exposure and inflammatory central nervous system events remains poorly understood.
 

Key findings from the analyzed data

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues’ review considered 368 studies that included patients with RA, treatment with any biologic including TNFi and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and demyelinating event.

The studies focused on assessing the risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics, particularly TNFi. Some studies included only patients with RA, while others examined mixed forms of arthritis. In cases involving mixed populations, patients with RA were analyzed separately. Additionally, certain studies solely considered multiple sclerosis, while others encompassed various types of demyelinating events. Dr. Castrejon said that a meta-analysis of the studies could not be performed because of their heterogeneity.

Among the 368 studies, four observational cohort studies and three nested case-control studies reported a risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics. Two nested case-control studies indicated an increased risk in mixed populations but did not separately analyze the subgroup of patients with RA. Two observational cohort studies revealed a marginally increased risk in men with RA who undergo TNFi treatment. In the first study, the incidence was 19.7/100,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.3) with a standardized incidence ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96-1.92), a definite case risk ratio of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.51-1.26), and an RR for male patients of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.31-5.06). The second study had an SIR of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.63-1.93), a RR for patients with RA of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.24-1.72), and male RR of 3.48 (95% CI, 1.45-8.37).

An unresolved question is whether demyelinating events are attributable to the underlying disease itself, which may not have been recognized at the time of diagnosis, or whether they are caused by DMARDs. Additionally, the articles that the reviewers analyzed did not consider patient characteristics that could interact with other factors, such as comorbidities or smoking, that might influence their susceptibility to the development of demyelinating events.

How should clinicians manage patients with RA who are at high risk of developing demyelinating diseases? “Typically, we initiate treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying methotrexate and then progress to other drugs,” Maya H. Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England), said in an interview. “For patients in high-risk groups, there are alternative treatment strategies, especially in comparison to TNFi, where there may be a rationale for their use.” Dr. Buch was not involved in the review.

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

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

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

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

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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