Debating the Toxicity Threshold
Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.
Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.
Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”
Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News
Dr. Joan Merrill
Dr. Merrill, who cares for patients with lupus, said physicians can keep lupus in check for years, using constant, low-dose GCs. “The one thing we know is that steroids work.” But over many years, damage may still occur, she cautioned.
But even a low dose could present health problems to patients. The GLORIA trial of patients with RA, which showed promising results on disease control with 5 mg/d, found an association between GCs and increased risk for infection and osteoporosis. There was a higher overall risk for adverse events related to skin, infections, and bone mineral density changes. Bone mineral density loss and fractures were more common in the GC group, Adami noted.
Surprisingly, some of the trial’s authors said patients could handle such adverse events. But what is your threshold of “acceptable?” Dr. Adami asked.
Other studies have found associations between low-dose GC regimens and adverse events. Researchers of a 2023 study reported bone mineral density loss in patients with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases on a 2.5-mg/d regimen. Another decade-long analysis of Medicare and Optum data found a link between serious infection and low-dose GCs in patients receiving stable DMARD therapy. Investigators reported risk even at daily doses of ≤ 5 mg.
Dr. Adami acknowledged that these studies may have “confounding by indication,” a channeling bias in which people with severe RA are more likely to be treated with GCs. For this reason, it’s a challenge to disentangle the independent role of GCs from the disease activity itself, he said.
The big question is: Why don’t these observational studies show an increased risk for adverse events with biologic drugs that are given to more severe patients? “That confirms the hypothesis that confounding by indication for GCs is minimal, and most of the risk is driven by GCs,” he said.
Tapering Options Across Diseases
Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.
In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.
For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.
However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”
All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.
A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.
For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.
Hospital for Special Surgery
Dr. Robert F. Spiera
“I usually challenge patients with a more rapid taper, hoping to get them off GCs in 6 or even 4 months in some patients, recognizing that many will flare, and we will have to bump up their GC dose,” Dr. Spiera said.
For patients with lupus, GCs remain the most effective treatment, Dr. Merrill said. “The toxicities are unacceptable for long-term use. So we try to get in fast when we need them and get out as soon as possible after that, tapering down as fast as the patient can tolerate it.”
Unfortunately, that’s not always as fast as the clinician or patient hopes for, she said.
“New treatments are being developed that may help us avoid the constant use of steroids. However, it would be wonderful to see how these new safer types of steroids work in lupus,” she said.
Minimizing GCs is an important goal that should be considered and aimed for in every single patient, Dr. Sattui said. “Risk of GC toxicity should be considered in all patients, assessing [them] for cardiometabolic comorbidities, bone metabolic diseases, risk of infection, among many others.” Sticking to one specific GC-tapering protocol might not be achievable for every patient, however, based on disease characteristics, response, and other factors, he added.
Monitoring for GC toxicity is important and should occur during and after every single clinical visit, he emphasized. Patient education is critical. “Different tools have been developed and employed in clinical trials, both patient- and physician-facing instruments. Implementation to clinical practice of some of these should be the next step in order to achieve a more systematic approach.”