Lucy Hicks

Antibiotic treatment while awaiting appendectomy does not lower risk for appendiceal perforation in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, according to a new study.

While the percentage of surgical site infections (SSIs) was small for both groups, patients who received antibiotics during the waiting period had lower rates of these infections.

The trial — titled PERFECT-Antibiotics — was a substudy embedded in a larger PERFECT clinical trial, which aimed to determine whether an in-hospital delay of appendectomy resulted in increased risk for appendiceal perforation when compared to emergent surgery.

The trial “concluded that appendectomy does not need to be performed promptly in acute uncomplicated appendicitis and can be scheduled within 24 hours without increasing complications,” senior author Panu Mentula, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues wrote in the study. “The next question is whether preoperatively started antibiotic treatment reduces the risk of appendiceal perforations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Surgery on May 14, 2025.

 

Trial Design

PERFECT-Antibiotics was an open-label, randomized trial conducted at two hospitals in Finland and one hospital in Norway. Researchers enrolled 1774 individuals diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, diagnosed clinically or via imaging. Patients were placed in one of two groups: The antibiotic group received intravenous (IV) cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours until surgery, while the nonantibiotic group waited for surgery without antibiotics.

All patients received one dose of IV cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis and secondary outcomes included complication rate and SSIs within 30 days of follow-up.

The median age of patients was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 28-46 years), and 55% of patients were men. Patients waited a median time of 9 hours (IQR, 4.3-15.5) from study randomization to undergoing surgery.

 

No Difference in Appendiceal Perforation

Of the 888 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group, 26.2% received one dose, 38.7% received two doses, 22.6% received three doses, and 11.8% received four or more doses of antibiotics, including the antibiotic dose given during anesthesia. A total of 74 patients (8.3%) in this group had a perforated appendix.

Of the 886 patients not given preoperative antibiotics, 79 (8.9%) had a perforated appendix, which met the predetermined noninferiority threshold.

The groups had similar complication rates over the 30-day follow-up, though SSIs were lower in the antibiotic group (1.6%) than the no antibiotic group (3.2%).

The researchers estimated that the number needed to treat for antibiotic therapy was 63 for SSIs, 83 for intra-abdominal SSI, and 125 for reintervention.

“Although longer preoperative antibiotic treatment resulted in slightly lower rate of postoperative infectious complications, the actual difference was very small and probably clinically not significant to justify longer preoperative antibiotic treatment,” Mentula and colleagues wrote.

 

Lower Infection Rates With Antibiotics

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Theodore Pappas, MD, professor of surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, placed greater importance on these secondary outcomes.

Intra-abdominal infections, a subset of SSIs, were more than twice as common in the no-antibiotic group (1.9%) than in the antibiotic group (0.7%; P = .02). Positive blood cultures were also more common in the no-antibiotic group than the antibiotic group (P = .02).

While the authors qualified these results, “the reality was it was better to use antibiotics,” he said.

There was also a “big overlap between the two groups,” he said, which may have muted differences between the two groups. For example, one fourth of patients in the antibiotic group received only one dose of antibiotics, the same treatment regimen as the no-antibiotic group.

“Although protocol required prophylaxis in all patients in the induction of anesthesia, some clinicians thought that it was unnecessary, because antibiotics had already been given only a couple of hours ago” in patients in the antibiotic group, Mentula told GI & Hepatology News. She did not think that would affect the study’s results.

The PERFECT trial and the antibiotics subtrial answer two important questions that have been asked for years, Pappas continued: Whether appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis needs to be performed emergently and if antibiotics administered while waiting for surgery improve outcomes.

“Basically, the study shows that you probably should keep them on antibiotics while you’re waiting,” he said.

The study was funded by Finnish Medical Foundation, the Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation, the Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and The Norwegian Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance and research funds from the Finnish government. Mentula received grants from the Finnish government during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Pappas reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibiotic treatment while awaiting appendectomy does not lower risk for appendiceal perforation in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, according to a new study.

While the percentage of surgical site infections (SSIs) was small for both groups, patients who received antibiotics during the waiting period had lower rates of these infections.

The trial — titled PERFECT-Antibiotics — was a substudy embedded in a larger PERFECT clinical trial, which aimed to determine whether an in-hospital delay of appendectomy resulted in increased risk for appendiceal perforation when compared to emergent surgery.

The trial “concluded that appendectomy does not need to be performed promptly in acute uncomplicated appendicitis and can be scheduled within 24 hours without increasing complications,” senior author Panu Mentula, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues wrote in the study. “The next question is whether preoperatively started antibiotic treatment reduces the risk of appendiceal perforations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Surgery on May 14, 2025.

 

Trial Design

PERFECT-Antibiotics was an open-label, randomized trial conducted at two hospitals in Finland and one hospital in Norway. Researchers enrolled 1774 individuals diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, diagnosed clinically or via imaging. Patients were placed in one of two groups: The antibiotic group received intravenous (IV) cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours until surgery, while the nonantibiotic group waited for surgery without antibiotics.

All patients received one dose of IV cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis and secondary outcomes included complication rate and SSIs within 30 days of follow-up.

The median age of patients was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 28-46 years), and 55% of patients were men. Patients waited a median time of 9 hours (IQR, 4.3-15.5) from study randomization to undergoing surgery.

 

No Difference in Appendiceal Perforation

Of the 888 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group, 26.2% received one dose, 38.7% received two doses, 22.6% received three doses, and 11.8% received four or more doses of antibiotics, including the antibiotic dose given during anesthesia. A total of 74 patients (8.3%) in this group had a perforated appendix.

Of the 886 patients not given preoperative antibiotics, 79 (8.9%) had a perforated appendix, which met the predetermined noninferiority threshold.

The groups had similar complication rates over the 30-day follow-up, though SSIs were lower in the antibiotic group (1.6%) than the no antibiotic group (3.2%).

The researchers estimated that the number needed to treat for antibiotic therapy was 63 for SSIs, 83 for intra-abdominal SSI, and 125 for reintervention.

“Although longer preoperative antibiotic treatment resulted in slightly lower rate of postoperative infectious complications, the actual difference was very small and probably clinically not significant to justify longer preoperative antibiotic treatment,” Mentula and colleagues wrote.

 

Lower Infection Rates With Antibiotics

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Theodore Pappas, MD, professor of surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, placed greater importance on these secondary outcomes.

Intra-abdominal infections, a subset of SSIs, were more than twice as common in the no-antibiotic group (1.9%) than in the antibiotic group (0.7%; P = .02). Positive blood cultures were also more common in the no-antibiotic group than the antibiotic group (P = .02).

While the authors qualified these results, “the reality was it was better to use antibiotics,” he said.

There was also a “big overlap between the two groups,” he said, which may have muted differences between the two groups. For example, one fourth of patients in the antibiotic group received only one dose of antibiotics, the same treatment regimen as the no-antibiotic group.

“Although protocol required prophylaxis in all patients in the induction of anesthesia, some clinicians thought that it was unnecessary, because antibiotics had already been given only a couple of hours ago” in patients in the antibiotic group, Mentula told GI & Hepatology News. She did not think that would affect the study’s results.

The PERFECT trial and the antibiotics subtrial answer two important questions that have been asked for years, Pappas continued: Whether appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis needs to be performed emergently and if antibiotics administered while waiting for surgery improve outcomes.

“Basically, the study shows that you probably should keep them on antibiotics while you’re waiting,” he said.

The study was funded by Finnish Medical Foundation, the Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation, the Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and The Norwegian Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance and research funds from the Finnish government. Mentula received grants from the Finnish government during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Pappas reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibiotic treatment while awaiting appendectomy does not lower risk for appendiceal perforation in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, according to a new study.

While the percentage of surgical site infections (SSIs) was small for both groups, patients who received antibiotics during the waiting period had lower rates of these infections.

The trial — titled PERFECT-Antibiotics — was a substudy embedded in a larger PERFECT clinical trial, which aimed to determine whether an in-hospital delay of appendectomy resulted in increased risk for appendiceal perforation when compared to emergent surgery.

The trial “concluded that appendectomy does not need to be performed promptly in acute uncomplicated appendicitis and can be scheduled within 24 hours without increasing complications,” senior author Panu Mentula, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues wrote in the study. “The next question is whether preoperatively started antibiotic treatment reduces the risk of appendiceal perforations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Surgery on May 14, 2025.

 

Trial Design

PERFECT-Antibiotics was an open-label, randomized trial conducted at two hospitals in Finland and one hospital in Norway. Researchers enrolled 1774 individuals diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, diagnosed clinically or via imaging. Patients were placed in one of two groups: The antibiotic group received intravenous (IV) cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours until surgery, while the nonantibiotic group waited for surgery without antibiotics.

All patients received one dose of IV cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis and secondary outcomes included complication rate and SSIs within 30 days of follow-up.

The median age of patients was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 28-46 years), and 55% of patients were men. Patients waited a median time of 9 hours (IQR, 4.3-15.5) from study randomization to undergoing surgery.

 

No Difference in Appendiceal Perforation

Of the 888 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group, 26.2% received one dose, 38.7% received two doses, 22.6% received three doses, and 11.8% received four or more doses of antibiotics, including the antibiotic dose given during anesthesia. A total of 74 patients (8.3%) in this group had a perforated appendix.

Of the 886 patients not given preoperative antibiotics, 79 (8.9%) had a perforated appendix, which met the predetermined noninferiority threshold.

The groups had similar complication rates over the 30-day follow-up, though SSIs were lower in the antibiotic group (1.6%) than the no antibiotic group (3.2%).

The researchers estimated that the number needed to treat for antibiotic therapy was 63 for SSIs, 83 for intra-abdominal SSI, and 125 for reintervention.

“Although longer preoperative antibiotic treatment resulted in slightly lower rate of postoperative infectious complications, the actual difference was very small and probably clinically not significant to justify longer preoperative antibiotic treatment,” Mentula and colleagues wrote.

 

Lower Infection Rates With Antibiotics

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Theodore Pappas, MD, professor of surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, placed greater importance on these secondary outcomes.

Intra-abdominal infections, a subset of SSIs, were more than twice as common in the no-antibiotic group (1.9%) than in the antibiotic group (0.7%; P = .02). Positive blood cultures were also more common in the no-antibiotic group than the antibiotic group (P = .02).

While the authors qualified these results, “the reality was it was better to use antibiotics,” he said.

There was also a “big overlap between the two groups,” he said, which may have muted differences between the two groups. For example, one fourth of patients in the antibiotic group received only one dose of antibiotics, the same treatment regimen as the no-antibiotic group.

“Although protocol required prophylaxis in all patients in the induction of anesthesia, some clinicians thought that it was unnecessary, because antibiotics had already been given only a couple of hours ago” in patients in the antibiotic group, Mentula told GI & Hepatology News. She did not think that would affect the study’s results.

The PERFECT trial and the antibiotics subtrial answer two important questions that have been asked for years, Pappas continued: Whether appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis needs to be performed emergently and if antibiotics administered while waiting for surgery improve outcomes.

“Basically, the study shows that you probably should keep them on antibiotics while you’re waiting,” he said.

The study was funded by Finnish Medical Foundation, the Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation, the Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and The Norwegian Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance and research funds from the Finnish government. Mentula received grants from the Finnish government during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Pappas reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

A new diagnostic test can accurately distinguish osteoarthritis (OA) from inflammatory arthritis using two synovial fluid biomarkers, according to research published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research on December 18, 2024.

However, experts question whether such a test would be useful.

“The need would seem to be fairly limited, mostly those with single joint involvement and a lack of other systemic features to specify a diagnosis, which is not that common, at least in rheumatology, where there are usually features in the history and physical that can clarify the diagnosis,” said Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She was not involved with the research.

The test uses an algorithm that incorporates concentrations of cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) and interleukin 8 (IL-8) in synovial fluid. The researchers hypothesized that a ratio of the two biomarkers could distinguish between primary OA and other inflammatory arthritic diagnoses.

“Primary OA is unlikely when either COMP concentration or COMP/IL‐8 ratio in the synovial fluid is low since these conditions indicate either lack of cartilage degradation or presence of high inflammation,” wrote Daniel Keter and coauthors at CD Diagnostics, Claymont, Delaware, and CD Laboratories, Towson, Maryland. “In contrast, a high COMP concentration result in combination with high COMP/IL‐8 ratio would be suggestive of low inflammation in the setting of cartilage deterioration, which is indicative of primary OA.”

In patients with OA, synovial fluid can be difficult to aspirate in sufficient amounts for testing, Nelson said.

“If synovial fluid is present and able to be aspirated, it is unclear if this test has any benefit over a simple, standard cell count and crystal assessment, which can also distinguish between osteoarthritis and more inflammatory arthritides,” she said.

 

Differentiating OA

To test this potential diagnostic algorithm, researchers obtained 171 knee synovial fluid samples from approved clinical remnant sample sources and a biovendor. All samples were annotated with an existing arthritic diagnosis, including 54 with primary OA, 57 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 30 with crystal arthritis (CA), and 30 with native septic arthritis (NSA).

Researchers assigned a CA diagnosis based on the presence of monosodium urate or calcium pyrophosphate dehydrate crystals in the synovial fluid, and NSA was determined via the Synovasure Alpha Defensin test. OA was confirmed via radiograph as Kellgren‐Lawrence grades 2‐4 with no other arthritic diagnoses. RA samples were purchased via a biovendor, and researchers were not provided with diagnosis‐confirming data.

All samples were randomized and blinded before testing, and researchers used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests for both COMP and IL-8 biomarkers.

Of the 54 OA samples, 47 tested positive for OA using the COMP + COMP/IL-8 ratio algorithm. Of the 117 samples with inflammatory arthritis, 13 tested positive for OA. Overall, the diagnostic algorithm demonstrated a clinical sensitivity of 87.0% and specificity of 88.9%. The positive predictive value was 78.3%, while the negative predictive value was 93.7%.

 

Unclear Clinical Need

Nelson noted that while this test aims to differentiate between arthritic diagnoses, patients can also have multiple conditions.

“Many individuals with rheumatoid arthritis will develop osteoarthritis, but they can have both, so a yes/no test is of unclear utility,” she said. OA and calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease can often occur together, “but the driver is really the OA, and the CPPD is present but not actively inflammatory,” she continued. “Septic arthritis should be readily distinguishable by cell count alone [and again, can coexist with any of the other conditions], and a thorough history and physical should be able to differentiate in most cases.”

While these results from this study are “reasonably impressive,” more clinical information is needed to interpret these results, added C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center and professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona.

Because the study is retrospective in nature and researchers obtained specimens from different sources, it was not clear if these patients were being treated when these samples were taken and if their various conditions were controlled or flaring.

“I would say this is a reasonable first step,” Kwoh said. “We would need prospective studies, more clinical characterization, and potentially longitudinal studies to understand when this test may be useful.”

This research was internally funded by Zimmer Biomet. All authors were employees of CD Diagnostics or CD Laboratories, both of which are subsidiaries of Zimmer Biomet. Kwoh reported receiving grants or contracts with AbbVie, Artiva, Eli Lilly and Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cumberland, Pfizer, GSK, and Galapagos, and consulting fees from TrialSpark/Formation Bio, Express Scripts, GSK, TLC BioSciences, and AposHealth. He participates on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Boards of Moebius Medical, Sun Pharma, Novartis, Xalud, and Kolon TissueGene. Nelson reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new diagnostic test can accurately distinguish osteoarthritis (OA) from inflammatory arthritis using two synovial fluid biomarkers, according to research published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research on December 18, 2024.

However, experts question whether such a test would be useful.

“The need would seem to be fairly limited, mostly those with single joint involvement and a lack of other systemic features to specify a diagnosis, which is not that common, at least in rheumatology, where there are usually features in the history and physical that can clarify the diagnosis,” said Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She was not involved with the research.

The test uses an algorithm that incorporates concentrations of cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) and interleukin 8 (IL-8) in synovial fluid. The researchers hypothesized that a ratio of the two biomarkers could distinguish between primary OA and other inflammatory arthritic diagnoses.

“Primary OA is unlikely when either COMP concentration or COMP/IL‐8 ratio in the synovial fluid is low since these conditions indicate either lack of cartilage degradation or presence of high inflammation,” wrote Daniel Keter and coauthors at CD Diagnostics, Claymont, Delaware, and CD Laboratories, Towson, Maryland. “In contrast, a high COMP concentration result in combination with high COMP/IL‐8 ratio would be suggestive of low inflammation in the setting of cartilage deterioration, which is indicative of primary OA.”

In patients with OA, synovial fluid can be difficult to aspirate in sufficient amounts for testing, Nelson said.

“If synovial fluid is present and able to be aspirated, it is unclear if this test has any benefit over a simple, standard cell count and crystal assessment, which can also distinguish between osteoarthritis and more inflammatory arthritides,” she said.

 

Differentiating OA

To test this potential diagnostic algorithm, researchers obtained 171 knee synovial fluid samples from approved clinical remnant sample sources and a biovendor. All samples were annotated with an existing arthritic diagnosis, including 54 with primary OA, 57 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 30 with crystal arthritis (CA), and 30 with native septic arthritis (NSA).

Researchers assigned a CA diagnosis based on the presence of monosodium urate or calcium pyrophosphate dehydrate crystals in the synovial fluid, and NSA was determined via the Synovasure Alpha Defensin test. OA was confirmed via radiograph as Kellgren‐Lawrence grades 2‐4 with no other arthritic diagnoses. RA samples were purchased via a biovendor, and researchers were not provided with diagnosis‐confirming data.

All samples were randomized and blinded before testing, and researchers used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests for both COMP and IL-8 biomarkers.

Of the 54 OA samples, 47 tested positive for OA using the COMP + COMP/IL-8 ratio algorithm. Of the 117 samples with inflammatory arthritis, 13 tested positive for OA. Overall, the diagnostic algorithm demonstrated a clinical sensitivity of 87.0% and specificity of 88.9%. The positive predictive value was 78.3%, while the negative predictive value was 93.7%.

 

Unclear Clinical Need

Nelson noted that while this test aims to differentiate between arthritic diagnoses, patients can also have multiple conditions.

“Many individuals with rheumatoid arthritis will develop osteoarthritis, but they can have both, so a yes/no test is of unclear utility,” she said. OA and calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease can often occur together, “but the driver is really the OA, and the CPPD is present but not actively inflammatory,” she continued. “Septic arthritis should be readily distinguishable by cell count alone [and again, can coexist with any of the other conditions], and a thorough history and physical should be able to differentiate in most cases.”

While these results from this study are “reasonably impressive,” more clinical information is needed to interpret these results, added C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center and professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona.

Because the study is retrospective in nature and researchers obtained specimens from different sources, it was not clear if these patients were being treated when these samples were taken and if their various conditions were controlled or flaring.

“I would say this is a reasonable first step,” Kwoh said. “We would need prospective studies, more clinical characterization, and potentially longitudinal studies to understand when this test may be useful.”

This research was internally funded by Zimmer Biomet. All authors were employees of CD Diagnostics or CD Laboratories, both of which are subsidiaries of Zimmer Biomet. Kwoh reported receiving grants or contracts with AbbVie, Artiva, Eli Lilly and Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cumberland, Pfizer, GSK, and Galapagos, and consulting fees from TrialSpark/Formation Bio, Express Scripts, GSK, TLC BioSciences, and AposHealth. He participates on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Boards of Moebius Medical, Sun Pharma, Novartis, Xalud, and Kolon TissueGene. Nelson reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new diagnostic test can accurately distinguish osteoarthritis (OA) from inflammatory arthritis using two synovial fluid biomarkers, according to research published in the Journal of Orthopaedic Research on December 18, 2024.

However, experts question whether such a test would be useful.

“The need would seem to be fairly limited, mostly those with single joint involvement and a lack of other systemic features to specify a diagnosis, which is not that common, at least in rheumatology, where there are usually features in the history and physical that can clarify the diagnosis,” said Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She was not involved with the research.

The test uses an algorithm that incorporates concentrations of cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) and interleukin 8 (IL-8) in synovial fluid. The researchers hypothesized that a ratio of the two biomarkers could distinguish between primary OA and other inflammatory arthritic diagnoses.

“Primary OA is unlikely when either COMP concentration or COMP/IL‐8 ratio in the synovial fluid is low since these conditions indicate either lack of cartilage degradation or presence of high inflammation,” wrote Daniel Keter and coauthors at CD Diagnostics, Claymont, Delaware, and CD Laboratories, Towson, Maryland. “In contrast, a high COMP concentration result in combination with high COMP/IL‐8 ratio would be suggestive of low inflammation in the setting of cartilage deterioration, which is indicative of primary OA.”

In patients with OA, synovial fluid can be difficult to aspirate in sufficient amounts for testing, Nelson said.

“If synovial fluid is present and able to be aspirated, it is unclear if this test has any benefit over a simple, standard cell count and crystal assessment, which can also distinguish between osteoarthritis and more inflammatory arthritides,” she said.

 

Differentiating OA

To test this potential diagnostic algorithm, researchers obtained 171 knee synovial fluid samples from approved clinical remnant sample sources and a biovendor. All samples were annotated with an existing arthritic diagnosis, including 54 with primary OA, 57 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 30 with crystal arthritis (CA), and 30 with native septic arthritis (NSA).

Researchers assigned a CA diagnosis based on the presence of monosodium urate or calcium pyrophosphate dehydrate crystals in the synovial fluid, and NSA was determined via the Synovasure Alpha Defensin test. OA was confirmed via radiograph as Kellgren‐Lawrence grades 2‐4 with no other arthritic diagnoses. RA samples were purchased via a biovendor, and researchers were not provided with diagnosis‐confirming data.

All samples were randomized and blinded before testing, and researchers used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests for both COMP and IL-8 biomarkers.

Of the 54 OA samples, 47 tested positive for OA using the COMP + COMP/IL-8 ratio algorithm. Of the 117 samples with inflammatory arthritis, 13 tested positive for OA. Overall, the diagnostic algorithm demonstrated a clinical sensitivity of 87.0% and specificity of 88.9%. The positive predictive value was 78.3%, while the negative predictive value was 93.7%.

 

Unclear Clinical Need

Nelson noted that while this test aims to differentiate between arthritic diagnoses, patients can also have multiple conditions.

“Many individuals with rheumatoid arthritis will develop osteoarthritis, but they can have both, so a yes/no test is of unclear utility,” she said. OA and calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease can often occur together, “but the driver is really the OA, and the CPPD is present but not actively inflammatory,” she continued. “Septic arthritis should be readily distinguishable by cell count alone [and again, can coexist with any of the other conditions], and a thorough history and physical should be able to differentiate in most cases.”

While these results from this study are “reasonably impressive,” more clinical information is needed to interpret these results, added C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center and professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona.

Because the study is retrospective in nature and researchers obtained specimens from different sources, it was not clear if these patients were being treated when these samples were taken and if their various conditions were controlled or flaring.

“I would say this is a reasonable first step,” Kwoh said. “We would need prospective studies, more clinical characterization, and potentially longitudinal studies to understand when this test may be useful.”

This research was internally funded by Zimmer Biomet. All authors were employees of CD Diagnostics or CD Laboratories, both of which are subsidiaries of Zimmer Biomet. Kwoh reported receiving grants or contracts with AbbVie, Artiva, Eli Lilly and Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cumberland, Pfizer, GSK, and Galapagos, and consulting fees from TrialSpark/Formation Bio, Express Scripts, GSK, TLC BioSciences, and AposHealth. He participates on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Boards of Moebius Medical, Sun Pharma, Novartis, Xalud, and Kolon TissueGene. Nelson reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.

Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position. 

The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year. 

In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.

This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.

“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”

Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33. 

“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.” 

This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate. 

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.

Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology. 

While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.

Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.

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

Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.

Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position. 

The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year. 

In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.

This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.

“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”

Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33. 

“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.” 

This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate. 

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.

Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology. 

While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.

Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.

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

Over half of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions went unfilled in 2024, according to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Comparatively, nearly all adult rheumatology positions were filled.

Across all 39 subspecialties in internal medicine and pediatrics, there was an 86% fill rate. In pediatric subspecialties, the fill rate was 78%. There were more than 10,200 applicants in this year’s medicine and pediatric specialties match — a 9% increase from 2023 — and 81% matched to a position. 

The NRMP reported that adult rheumatology filled 129 (97.7%) of 132 programs, with 284 (99%) out of 287 positions filled. In 2024, there were five new programs and 11 more fellowship positions available compared with the previous year. 

In pediatric rheumatology, 16 (44%) of 36 programs were filled, with 27 (49%) of 55 positions filled. This is a notable decrease from 2023, where pediatric rheumatology filled 21 of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (62%) of 52 positions.

This year, 27 of 30 applicants preferring pediatric rheumatology matched to a program, while in 2023 all 32 applicants that preferred pediatric rheumatology matched.

“It’s a little disappointing that our overall number of applicants have not gone up,” Jay Mehta, MD, the program director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s pediatric rheumatology fellowship said in an interview with Medscape Medical News. “It’s an especially exciting time in pediatric rheumatology, with really fantastic breakthroughs in terms of treatments and diagnostics. Unfortunately, that excitement hasn’t necessarily translated into more interest in our field.”

Mehta noted that the number of applicants to pediatric rheumatology fellowships have remained relatively consistent. Since 2019, the number of applicants has ranged from 28 to 33. 

“Given the low number of overall positions/programs it is hard to read too much into year-to-year differences,” added Kristen Hayward, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s in Washington. “While this total number of applicants per year is steady, this number is insufficient to build an adequate workforce for our current needs, much less for the future.” 

This year, matched applicants to pediatric rheumatology included 13 MD graduates, eight DO graduates, five foreign applicants, and one US citizen international medical graduate. 

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 108 MD graduates, 97 foreign applicants, 41 DO graduates, and 38 US citizen international medical graduates. A total of 365 applicants preferred the specialty, and 76% matched to rheumatology. Seven applicants matched to another specialty, and the remaining 79 did not match to any program.

Rheumatology was one of several specialties offering at least 150 positions with a fill rate of over 98%. The other specialties included allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and hematology and oncology. 

While some pediatric subspecialties like critical care medicine and cardiology had fill rates over 90%, many “cognitive subspecialties” beyond pediatric rheumatology also struggled to fill spots, Hayward noted. Only 37% of pediatric nephrology positions and 48% of pediatric infectious disease positions were filled this year, in addition to a decline in filled pediatric-residency positions overall, she added.

Mehta had no relevant disclosures. Hayward previously owned stock/stock options for AbbVie/Abbott, Cigna/Express Scripts, Merck, and Teva and has received an educational grant from Pfizer.

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

Disparate views on managing incidental imaging findings made during clinical research — particularly for unclear results — signal a need for standardized guidance, according to recent survey results.

Respondents were split on whether it was the site primary investigator’s responsibility to decide which incidental findings should be reported back to the patient, and the most commonly cited challenges included adequately explaining these findings and the follow-up required. These issues were most present when dealing with nonspecific incidental findings or findings of unclear importance, said lead author Jane S. Kang, MD, a bioethicist and associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

 

“It can be difficult to have a clear approach” when it comes to these situations that are not black and white, and it is hard to get a clear answer, she said in an interview.

The survey included responses from investigators from the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT (TARGET) trial, conducted between 2015 and 2021. The 24-week trial included patients from 28 centers in the United States to investigate how different disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can reduce cardiovascular and joint inflammation, assessed via whole body FDG PET/CT. The survey was a planned substudy of the TARGET trial and is “the first study that examines researchers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT,” Kang and her coauthors wrote.

This news organization reported the main results of the TARGET trial in 2022.

Eighteen of the 28 site primary investigators (PIs) of the TARGET trial participated in the survey, which was published in Arthritis Care & Research in September 2024.

 

TARGET Trial Incidental Findings

The TARGET trial enrolled 159 patients, of whom 82% had at least one incidental finding and 62% had one or more FDG-avid incidental findings. There were 46 “clinically actionable findings” for 40 participants overall; the reading radiologists recommended additional imaging for 28 findings and specialist consultation or procedural evaluation for 15 findings.

Details on these incidental findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), held in Washington, DC.

The most common non–FDG-avid findings were pulmonary nodules, diverticulosis, cholelithiasis, sinus disease, and vascular calcifications. The most common FDG-avid findings were hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy, increased gastric/esophageal uptake, increased bowel uptake, and increased pharyngeal uptake.

In the related survey, 11 respondents (61%) said they returned any incidental findings to participants and 5 (28%) did not; the remaining 2 respondents did not know.

Across all study PIs, 22% felt that incidental findings were beneficial, 39% said they were potentially beneficial, and 11% said they were potentially detrimental. PIs that ranked incidental findings as potentially detrimental pointed to how these findings led to invasive additional testing.

“One of my subjects was found to have diverticulosis, which needed an invasive procedure to rule out malignancy,” one respondent wrote. “However, the subject had already had a colonoscopy months prior to the PET findings, which was still not deemed sufficient by the nuclear radiologist and GI consultant, so he had to have another colonoscopy, which was benign, but uncomfortable.” 

 

Obligation to Return Findings

All investigators agreed that incidental findings should be shared with patients if they revealed a high-risk medical condition that can be treated; had important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity; and their health could be improved with proven preventive or therapeutic interventions.

There was more disagreement on whether to share that the FDG PET/CT revealed no findings or if the test revealed a finding without clear medical importance of which the research participant may not be aware.

An example of a less-specific finding could be something like increased FDG uptake in a particular area, like the bowel, Kang explained.

“The question is: What does that mean?” she said. “How do you interpret that?”

While some PIs might feel obligated to share all results with patients, sharing ambiguous incidental findings will likely not be helpful to the patient, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Dealing in unknowns and uncertainties when you’re diagnosing doesn’t really do people very much good,” he said in an interview.

While most survey respondents said they were at least moderately obligated to disclose incidental research findings if a patient requests them, Caplan noted that it was ultimately the researchers’ decision.

“Patient preferences are something to take into account, but they’re not final. If the research team says, ‘we don’t know, it’s too uncertain, it’s too new,’ then I don’t think they have any obligation to return that [information],” he said. “You can’t tell somebody what you don’t understand.”

Conversely, the clearer the incidental finding, the stronger the obligation to share that information with research participants, he continued.

 

Need for a Standardized Approach 

The TARGET study, like many research studies, left the management of incidental imaging findings to individual research sites and investigators.

It’s possible that different sites responded to these ambiguous clinical findings in different ways, Kang noted.

“If there’s a situation that’s difficult to interpret as it is, you can imagine that the resulting actions that may result from that can vary, too,” she said, which highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

One way to approach this, Caplan noted, is establishing an agreed-upon approach for dealing with any incidental findings across all research sites before a study begins.

“If there is going to be a common study at many sites, then they should have a common response on what they are going to do,” he noted, and how they will share that information effectively with the research participants to ensure it’s understandable. However, in a lot of research studies, each site has its own approach.

“Right now, it’s all over the place and that shouldn’t be,” he said.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) could be one resource to help build detailed guidance on managing unclear incidental findings in future research, wrote Kang and coauthors.

“For incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT that are not clearly actionable or less straightforward, IRBs may consider requiring a certain level of follow-up for different categories or types of incidental findings or require that all incidental findings are reviewed by an independent group that would provide timely recommendations on the most appropriate return and management of those findings,” Kang and colleagues wrote. “With IRB guidance, very specific and detailed policies and procedures for returning and managing incidental findings should be established for every study, with consistency among the research sites of multicenter trials.”

The TARGET trial and survey were funded by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Kang reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Caplan serves as a contributing author for this news organization and served on an independent bioethics panel for compassionate drug use that was funded by Johnson & Johnson through the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

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

Disparate views on managing incidental imaging findings made during clinical research — particularly for unclear results — signal a need for standardized guidance, according to recent survey results.

Respondents were split on whether it was the site primary investigator’s responsibility to decide which incidental findings should be reported back to the patient, and the most commonly cited challenges included adequately explaining these findings and the follow-up required. These issues were most present when dealing with nonspecific incidental findings or findings of unclear importance, said lead author Jane S. Kang, MD, a bioethicist and associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

 

“It can be difficult to have a clear approach” when it comes to these situations that are not black and white, and it is hard to get a clear answer, she said in an interview.

The survey included responses from investigators from the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT (TARGET) trial, conducted between 2015 and 2021. The 24-week trial included patients from 28 centers in the United States to investigate how different disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can reduce cardiovascular and joint inflammation, assessed via whole body FDG PET/CT. The survey was a planned substudy of the TARGET trial and is “the first study that examines researchers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT,” Kang and her coauthors wrote.

This news organization reported the main results of the TARGET trial in 2022.

Eighteen of the 28 site primary investigators (PIs) of the TARGET trial participated in the survey, which was published in Arthritis Care & Research in September 2024.

 

TARGET Trial Incidental Findings

The TARGET trial enrolled 159 patients, of whom 82% had at least one incidental finding and 62% had one or more FDG-avid incidental findings. There were 46 “clinically actionable findings” for 40 participants overall; the reading radiologists recommended additional imaging for 28 findings and specialist consultation or procedural evaluation for 15 findings.

Details on these incidental findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), held in Washington, DC.

The most common non–FDG-avid findings were pulmonary nodules, diverticulosis, cholelithiasis, sinus disease, and vascular calcifications. The most common FDG-avid findings were hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy, increased gastric/esophageal uptake, increased bowel uptake, and increased pharyngeal uptake.

In the related survey, 11 respondents (61%) said they returned any incidental findings to participants and 5 (28%) did not; the remaining 2 respondents did not know.

Across all study PIs, 22% felt that incidental findings were beneficial, 39% said they were potentially beneficial, and 11% said they were potentially detrimental. PIs that ranked incidental findings as potentially detrimental pointed to how these findings led to invasive additional testing.

“One of my subjects was found to have diverticulosis, which needed an invasive procedure to rule out malignancy,” one respondent wrote. “However, the subject had already had a colonoscopy months prior to the PET findings, which was still not deemed sufficient by the nuclear radiologist and GI consultant, so he had to have another colonoscopy, which was benign, but uncomfortable.” 

 

Obligation to Return Findings

All investigators agreed that incidental findings should be shared with patients if they revealed a high-risk medical condition that can be treated; had important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity; and their health could be improved with proven preventive or therapeutic interventions.

There was more disagreement on whether to share that the FDG PET/CT revealed no findings or if the test revealed a finding without clear medical importance of which the research participant may not be aware.

An example of a less-specific finding could be something like increased FDG uptake in a particular area, like the bowel, Kang explained.

“The question is: What does that mean?” she said. “How do you interpret that?”

While some PIs might feel obligated to share all results with patients, sharing ambiguous incidental findings will likely not be helpful to the patient, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Dealing in unknowns and uncertainties when you’re diagnosing doesn’t really do people very much good,” he said in an interview.

While most survey respondents said they were at least moderately obligated to disclose incidental research findings if a patient requests them, Caplan noted that it was ultimately the researchers’ decision.

“Patient preferences are something to take into account, but they’re not final. If the research team says, ‘we don’t know, it’s too uncertain, it’s too new,’ then I don’t think they have any obligation to return that [information],” he said. “You can’t tell somebody what you don’t understand.”

Conversely, the clearer the incidental finding, the stronger the obligation to share that information with research participants, he continued.

 

Need for a Standardized Approach 

The TARGET study, like many research studies, left the management of incidental imaging findings to individual research sites and investigators.

It’s possible that different sites responded to these ambiguous clinical findings in different ways, Kang noted.

“If there’s a situation that’s difficult to interpret as it is, you can imagine that the resulting actions that may result from that can vary, too,” she said, which highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

One way to approach this, Caplan noted, is establishing an agreed-upon approach for dealing with any incidental findings across all research sites before a study begins.

“If there is going to be a common study at many sites, then they should have a common response on what they are going to do,” he noted, and how they will share that information effectively with the research participants to ensure it’s understandable. However, in a lot of research studies, each site has its own approach.

“Right now, it’s all over the place and that shouldn’t be,” he said.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) could be one resource to help build detailed guidance on managing unclear incidental findings in future research, wrote Kang and coauthors.

“For incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT that are not clearly actionable or less straightforward, IRBs may consider requiring a certain level of follow-up for different categories or types of incidental findings or require that all incidental findings are reviewed by an independent group that would provide timely recommendations on the most appropriate return and management of those findings,” Kang and colleagues wrote. “With IRB guidance, very specific and detailed policies and procedures for returning and managing incidental findings should be established for every study, with consistency among the research sites of multicenter trials.”

The TARGET trial and survey were funded by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Kang reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Caplan serves as a contributing author for this news organization and served on an independent bioethics panel for compassionate drug use that was funded by Johnson & Johnson through the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

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

Disparate views on managing incidental imaging findings made during clinical research — particularly for unclear results — signal a need for standardized guidance, according to recent survey results.

Respondents were split on whether it was the site primary investigator’s responsibility to decide which incidental findings should be reported back to the patient, and the most commonly cited challenges included adequately explaining these findings and the follow-up required. These issues were most present when dealing with nonspecific incidental findings or findings of unclear importance, said lead author Jane S. Kang, MD, a bioethicist and associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

 

“It can be difficult to have a clear approach” when it comes to these situations that are not black and white, and it is hard to get a clear answer, she said in an interview.

The survey included responses from investigators from the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT (TARGET) trial, conducted between 2015 and 2021. The 24-week trial included patients from 28 centers in the United States to investigate how different disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can reduce cardiovascular and joint inflammation, assessed via whole body FDG PET/CT. The survey was a planned substudy of the TARGET trial and is “the first study that examines researchers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT,” Kang and her coauthors wrote.

This news organization reported the main results of the TARGET trial in 2022.

Eighteen of the 28 site primary investigators (PIs) of the TARGET trial participated in the survey, which was published in Arthritis Care & Research in September 2024.

 

TARGET Trial Incidental Findings

The TARGET trial enrolled 159 patients, of whom 82% had at least one incidental finding and 62% had one or more FDG-avid incidental findings. There were 46 “clinically actionable findings” for 40 participants overall; the reading radiologists recommended additional imaging for 28 findings and specialist consultation or procedural evaluation for 15 findings.

Details on these incidental findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), held in Washington, DC.

The most common non–FDG-avid findings were pulmonary nodules, diverticulosis, cholelithiasis, sinus disease, and vascular calcifications. The most common FDG-avid findings were hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy, increased gastric/esophageal uptake, increased bowel uptake, and increased pharyngeal uptake.

In the related survey, 11 respondents (61%) said they returned any incidental findings to participants and 5 (28%) did not; the remaining 2 respondents did not know.

Across all study PIs, 22% felt that incidental findings were beneficial, 39% said they were potentially beneficial, and 11% said they were potentially detrimental. PIs that ranked incidental findings as potentially detrimental pointed to how these findings led to invasive additional testing.

“One of my subjects was found to have diverticulosis, which needed an invasive procedure to rule out malignancy,” one respondent wrote. “However, the subject had already had a colonoscopy months prior to the PET findings, which was still not deemed sufficient by the nuclear radiologist and GI consultant, so he had to have another colonoscopy, which was benign, but uncomfortable.” 

 

Obligation to Return Findings

All investigators agreed that incidental findings should be shared with patients if they revealed a high-risk medical condition that can be treated; had important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity; and their health could be improved with proven preventive or therapeutic interventions.

There was more disagreement on whether to share that the FDG PET/CT revealed no findings or if the test revealed a finding without clear medical importance of which the research participant may not be aware.

An example of a less-specific finding could be something like increased FDG uptake in a particular area, like the bowel, Kang explained.

“The question is: What does that mean?” she said. “How do you interpret that?”

While some PIs might feel obligated to share all results with patients, sharing ambiguous incidental findings will likely not be helpful to the patient, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Dealing in unknowns and uncertainties when you’re diagnosing doesn’t really do people very much good,” he said in an interview.

While most survey respondents said they were at least moderately obligated to disclose incidental research findings if a patient requests them, Caplan noted that it was ultimately the researchers’ decision.

“Patient preferences are something to take into account, but they’re not final. If the research team says, ‘we don’t know, it’s too uncertain, it’s too new,’ then I don’t think they have any obligation to return that [information],” he said. “You can’t tell somebody what you don’t understand.”

Conversely, the clearer the incidental finding, the stronger the obligation to share that information with research participants, he continued.

 

Need for a Standardized Approach 

The TARGET study, like many research studies, left the management of incidental imaging findings to individual research sites and investigators.

It’s possible that different sites responded to these ambiguous clinical findings in different ways, Kang noted.

“If there’s a situation that’s difficult to interpret as it is, you can imagine that the resulting actions that may result from that can vary, too,” she said, which highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

One way to approach this, Caplan noted, is establishing an agreed-upon approach for dealing with any incidental findings across all research sites before a study begins.

“If there is going to be a common study at many sites, then they should have a common response on what they are going to do,” he noted, and how they will share that information effectively with the research participants to ensure it’s understandable. However, in a lot of research studies, each site has its own approach.

“Right now, it’s all over the place and that shouldn’t be,” he said.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) could be one resource to help build detailed guidance on managing unclear incidental findings in future research, wrote Kang and coauthors.

“For incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT that are not clearly actionable or less straightforward, IRBs may consider requiring a certain level of follow-up for different categories or types of incidental findings or require that all incidental findings are reviewed by an independent group that would provide timely recommendations on the most appropriate return and management of those findings,” Kang and colleagues wrote. “With IRB guidance, very specific and detailed policies and procedures for returning and managing incidental findings should be established for every study, with consistency among the research sites of multicenter trials.”

The TARGET trial and survey were funded by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Kang reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Caplan serves as a contributing author for this news organization and served on an independent bioethics panel for compassionate drug use that was funded by Johnson & Johnson through the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

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

WASHINGTON — The investigational anti-CD40 ligand agent dapirolizumab pegol (DZP) outperformed placebo in improving disease activity and reducing high-dose corticosteroid use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 PHOENYCS GO trial.

“We really think that dapirolizumab pegol may represent a novel treatment for lupus, particularly given its broad immune modulatory effects,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She presented the study in a late-breaking poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

There is a “huge unmet need” for drugs for lupus, Clowse told this news organization. Patients with SLE continue to have high disease burden, including ongoing symptoms often driven by inflammation. Corticosteroids are often the best medications to control disease activity, she said, but they can result in long-term toxicity.

 

What Makes DZP Unique?

Through CD40 ligand signaling, DZP has been shown to reduce B- and T-cell activation and to downregulate interferon pathways. Previous antibodies targeting the CD40 ligand have been associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, DZP lacks the Fc portion of the antibody, which can bind to platelets and cause clotting. Data from phase 1, 2, and 3 trials thus far do not show an elevated risk for these events, Clowse explained. In fact, safety signals were strong enough that patients with antiphospholipid antibodies — a key driver for blood clots in patients with SLE — were included in the trial.

In PHOENYCS GO, investigators enrolled 321 patients with moderate to severe SLE with persistently active or frequently flaring/relapsing-remitting disease activity despite stable standard of care (SOC) medications such as antimalarials, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous DZP (24 mg/kg) plus SOC or intravenous placebo plus SOC every 4 weeks, with patients and investigators blinded to treatment assignments.

Patients taking a corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg/day began a mandatory steroid taper by week 8 of the trial, with the goal of reducing that to < 7.5 mg/day. The tapering regimen was at the discretion of providers and was adapted to each patient’s individual disease activity.

The primary endpoint was British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 48.

Patients in the DZP and placebo groups were on average 43.5 and 41.5 years old, respectively. More than 90% of patients were women, all on concomitant SLE medications. About half of the participants took a daily corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg.

At 48 weeks, half of the DZP group (49.5%) achieved BICLA response compared with 34.6% in the placebo group (P = .0110). A higher proportion of patients taking DZP achieved SLE Responder Index-4 response than those taking placebo (60.1% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = .0014), and the rate of severe British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flares in the DZP group was half that of the placebo group (11.6% vs 23.4%; P = .0257). In the subgroup of patients who underwent corticosteroid tapering, 72.4% receiving DZP and 52.9% taking placebo reduced their dose to < 7.5 mg/day by 48 weeks (P = .0404).

DZP was generally well tolerated. Over 48 weeks, 82.6% of the DZP group and 75% of the placebo group reported treatment-emergent adverse events, but serious occurrences were more common in the placebo group (14.8%) than in the DZP group (9.9%). Herpes viral infections were higher in the placebo group, although there were three ophthalmic herpes cases in the DZP group. There was one case of acute myocardial infarction and one death linked to gangrene-related sepsis in patients receiving DZP.

 

A ‘Mild to Moderate’ Response

Although these are definitely positive results, they show a “mild to moderate response” to DZP, commented Gregory Gardner, MD, an emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s annual meeting planning committee. He moderated the session where the research was presented. Although DZP showed efficacy among some patients, he noted, “there were still 51% patients that it didn’t work for.” 

The drug uses an alternative pathway to current lupus drugs, Gardner added, and more research is needed to understand how best to use this medication in practice.

Clowse noted that DZP could be particularly beneficial for patients with SLE who want to get pregnant. Many drugs used to treat the disease are teratogenic; however, “because of the lack of Fc portion on this drug, it very likely does not cross the placenta in any kind of significant amount,” she said. Although there are not yet any reproductive safety data on DZP, she added, “that is a great potential niche.”

Biogen and UCB, which are jointly developing DZP, aim to start a second phase 3 trial of DZP in patients with SLE, called PHOENYCS FLY, in 2024.

The trial was sponsored by UCB. Clowse is a consultant and has received grant/research support from GSK and UCB. Gardner had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — The investigational anti-CD40 ligand agent dapirolizumab pegol (DZP) outperformed placebo in improving disease activity and reducing high-dose corticosteroid use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 PHOENYCS GO trial.

“We really think that dapirolizumab pegol may represent a novel treatment for lupus, particularly given its broad immune modulatory effects,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She presented the study in a late-breaking poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

There is a “huge unmet need” for drugs for lupus, Clowse told this news organization. Patients with SLE continue to have high disease burden, including ongoing symptoms often driven by inflammation. Corticosteroids are often the best medications to control disease activity, she said, but they can result in long-term toxicity.

 

What Makes DZP Unique?

Through CD40 ligand signaling, DZP has been shown to reduce B- and T-cell activation and to downregulate interferon pathways. Previous antibodies targeting the CD40 ligand have been associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, DZP lacks the Fc portion of the antibody, which can bind to platelets and cause clotting. Data from phase 1, 2, and 3 trials thus far do not show an elevated risk for these events, Clowse explained. In fact, safety signals were strong enough that patients with antiphospholipid antibodies — a key driver for blood clots in patients with SLE — were included in the trial.

In PHOENYCS GO, investigators enrolled 321 patients with moderate to severe SLE with persistently active or frequently flaring/relapsing-remitting disease activity despite stable standard of care (SOC) medications such as antimalarials, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous DZP (24 mg/kg) plus SOC or intravenous placebo plus SOC every 4 weeks, with patients and investigators blinded to treatment assignments.

Patients taking a corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg/day began a mandatory steroid taper by week 8 of the trial, with the goal of reducing that to < 7.5 mg/day. The tapering regimen was at the discretion of providers and was adapted to each patient’s individual disease activity.

The primary endpoint was British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 48.

Patients in the DZP and placebo groups were on average 43.5 and 41.5 years old, respectively. More than 90% of patients were women, all on concomitant SLE medications. About half of the participants took a daily corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg.

At 48 weeks, half of the DZP group (49.5%) achieved BICLA response compared with 34.6% in the placebo group (P = .0110). A higher proportion of patients taking DZP achieved SLE Responder Index-4 response than those taking placebo (60.1% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = .0014), and the rate of severe British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flares in the DZP group was half that of the placebo group (11.6% vs 23.4%; P = .0257). In the subgroup of patients who underwent corticosteroid tapering, 72.4% receiving DZP and 52.9% taking placebo reduced their dose to < 7.5 mg/day by 48 weeks (P = .0404).

DZP was generally well tolerated. Over 48 weeks, 82.6% of the DZP group and 75% of the placebo group reported treatment-emergent adverse events, but serious occurrences were more common in the placebo group (14.8%) than in the DZP group (9.9%). Herpes viral infections were higher in the placebo group, although there were three ophthalmic herpes cases in the DZP group. There was one case of acute myocardial infarction and one death linked to gangrene-related sepsis in patients receiving DZP.

 

A ‘Mild to Moderate’ Response

Although these are definitely positive results, they show a “mild to moderate response” to DZP, commented Gregory Gardner, MD, an emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s annual meeting planning committee. He moderated the session where the research was presented. Although DZP showed efficacy among some patients, he noted, “there were still 51% patients that it didn’t work for.” 

The drug uses an alternative pathway to current lupus drugs, Gardner added, and more research is needed to understand how best to use this medication in practice.

Clowse noted that DZP could be particularly beneficial for patients with SLE who want to get pregnant. Many drugs used to treat the disease are teratogenic; however, “because of the lack of Fc portion on this drug, it very likely does not cross the placenta in any kind of significant amount,” she said. Although there are not yet any reproductive safety data on DZP, she added, “that is a great potential niche.”

Biogen and UCB, which are jointly developing DZP, aim to start a second phase 3 trial of DZP in patients with SLE, called PHOENYCS FLY, in 2024.

The trial was sponsored by UCB. Clowse is a consultant and has received grant/research support from GSK and UCB. Gardner had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — The investigational anti-CD40 ligand agent dapirolizumab pegol (DZP) outperformed placebo in improving disease activity and reducing high-dose corticosteroid use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 PHOENYCS GO trial.

“We really think that dapirolizumab pegol may represent a novel treatment for lupus, particularly given its broad immune modulatory effects,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She presented the study in a late-breaking poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

There is a “huge unmet need” for drugs for lupus, Clowse told this news organization. Patients with SLE continue to have high disease burden, including ongoing symptoms often driven by inflammation. Corticosteroids are often the best medications to control disease activity, she said, but they can result in long-term toxicity.

 

What Makes DZP Unique?

Through CD40 ligand signaling, DZP has been shown to reduce B- and T-cell activation and to downregulate interferon pathways. Previous antibodies targeting the CD40 ligand have been associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, DZP lacks the Fc portion of the antibody, which can bind to platelets and cause clotting. Data from phase 1, 2, and 3 trials thus far do not show an elevated risk for these events, Clowse explained. In fact, safety signals were strong enough that patients with antiphospholipid antibodies — a key driver for blood clots in patients with SLE — were included in the trial.

In PHOENYCS GO, investigators enrolled 321 patients with moderate to severe SLE with persistently active or frequently flaring/relapsing-remitting disease activity despite stable standard of care (SOC) medications such as antimalarials, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous DZP (24 mg/kg) plus SOC or intravenous placebo plus SOC every 4 weeks, with patients and investigators blinded to treatment assignments.

Patients taking a corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg/day began a mandatory steroid taper by week 8 of the trial, with the goal of reducing that to < 7.5 mg/day. The tapering regimen was at the discretion of providers and was adapted to each patient’s individual disease activity.

The primary endpoint was British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 48.

Patients in the DZP and placebo groups were on average 43.5 and 41.5 years old, respectively. More than 90% of patients were women, all on concomitant SLE medications. About half of the participants took a daily corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg.

At 48 weeks, half of the DZP group (49.5%) achieved BICLA response compared with 34.6% in the placebo group (P = .0110). A higher proportion of patients taking DZP achieved SLE Responder Index-4 response than those taking placebo (60.1% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = .0014), and the rate of severe British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flares in the DZP group was half that of the placebo group (11.6% vs 23.4%; P = .0257). In the subgroup of patients who underwent corticosteroid tapering, 72.4% receiving DZP and 52.9% taking placebo reduced their dose to < 7.5 mg/day by 48 weeks (P = .0404).

DZP was generally well tolerated. Over 48 weeks, 82.6% of the DZP group and 75% of the placebo group reported treatment-emergent adverse events, but serious occurrences were more common in the placebo group (14.8%) than in the DZP group (9.9%). Herpes viral infections were higher in the placebo group, although there were three ophthalmic herpes cases in the DZP group. There was one case of acute myocardial infarction and one death linked to gangrene-related sepsis in patients receiving DZP.

 

A ‘Mild to Moderate’ Response

Although these are definitely positive results, they show a “mild to moderate response” to DZP, commented Gregory Gardner, MD, an emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s annual meeting planning committee. He moderated the session where the research was presented. Although DZP showed efficacy among some patients, he noted, “there were still 51% patients that it didn’t work for.” 

The drug uses an alternative pathway to current lupus drugs, Gardner added, and more research is needed to understand how best to use this medication in practice.

Clowse noted that DZP could be particularly beneficial for patients with SLE who want to get pregnant. Many drugs used to treat the disease are teratogenic; however, “because of the lack of Fc portion on this drug, it very likely does not cross the placenta in any kind of significant amount,” she said. Although there are not yet any reproductive safety data on DZP, she added, “that is a great potential niche.”

Biogen and UCB, which are jointly developing DZP, aim to start a second phase 3 trial of DZP in patients with SLE, called PHOENYCS FLY, in 2024.

The trial was sponsored by UCB. Clowse is a consultant and has received grant/research support from GSK and UCB. Gardner had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience improved fertility when treated using a treat-to-target (T2T) approach aimed at remission, according to a new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the study, more than half the women following this T2T approach were able to conceive within 3 months, which is “nearly equal to the general population,” said presenter and senior author Radboud Dolhain, MD, PhD, who heads the Department of Rheumatology at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Compared with 10%-15% of the general population, as many as 42% of patients with RA are not able to get pregnant within 1 year of unprotected intercourse.

“For people who are thinking about pregnancy or want to plan for pregnancy, talking with them about the importance of making sure their RA is well-treated is an essential aspect,” said Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, director of the Women’s and Reproductive Health Rheumatology Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. She was not involved with the research.

“This is a nice, relatively large study that’s demonstrating [that] if you actually treat the patient and treat them effectively, their time to pregnancy is lower,” she said.

 

Study Details

The analysis compared time to pregnancy between two cohorts of women with RA who aimed to become pregnant. Women were, on average, around 32 years old in both groups, and nearly 60% had not been pregnant before.

The first cohort was part of the Pregnancy-Induced Amelioration of RA (PARA) study, conducted by Erasmus University Medical Center from 2002 to 2010, in which patients were treated by their own rheumatologists with standard of care at the time. Of the 245 women included, 36% were on no medication, and one fourth were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). One third of patients were prescribed sulfasalazine, 6% were on hydroxychloroquine, and 4% were prescribed a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Of the PARA patients prescribed prednisone, about half used a dose > 7.5 mg/d.

The second cohort was part of the Preconception Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, conducted at Erasmus University Medical Center from 2012 to 2023. PreCARA patients were treated with the T2T approach aimed at remission/low disease activity and avoiding use of NSAIDs and high-dose prednisone (> 7.5 mg/d). Of the 215 women in the cohort, 69% were on sulfasalazine, 65% were on hydroxychloroquine, 53% were taking a TNF inhibitor, 45% took prednisone, and 13% took NSAIDs. For patients prescribed prednisone, 75% used a daily dose ≤ 7.5 mg/d. Only six patients were not taking any medication.

In the preconception period, the median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 2.33 in the PreCARA cohort and 3.84 in the PARA cohort.

The median time to pregnancy was 84 days in the PreCARA cohort, compared with 196 days in the PARA cohort. Compared with 42% of women in the PARA cohort, less than a quarter of women in the PreCARA cohort did not conceive within 1 year of trying. There was no difference between the two groups in the use of assisted reproductive techniques.

In an additional analysis, Dolhain and colleagues found that time to pregnancy in the PreCARA cohort was most associated with maternal age and nulliparity.

“You also will find [this association] in every cohort in time to pregnancy, and it underscores the robustness of our data,” Dolhain said. “We didn’t find any association [with time to pregnancy] anymore with disease activity, the use of NSAIDs, and the use of prednisone.”

 

Study ‘Will Make Patients Feel More Confident in Their Decisions’

Discussions about continuing medication before and during pregnancy can be a “tension point” for some patients, Talabi said, and these types of studies provide further evidence to reassure patients that this approach can help them reach their reproductive goals.

The study is “very clinically translatable, where you can show [patients] the benefit of continuing their medications” in the preconception period and during pregnancy, added Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina, who is focused on reproductive rheumatology and preventive health.

“What we try to drive home is that the health of the mother directly translates to the health of the pregnancy and that includes medications, and that is okay because now we have shown that pregnancies are safe while taking these medications,” she said. “I think [this study] will make patients feel more confident in their decisions, which is a big, important piece of it.”

Sims is a consultant for Amgen and conducted research funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dolhain and Talabi had no relevant disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) completely tapered off prednisone have a more than fourfold risk of relapse by 6 months, compared with those tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone; however, this benefit was only seen in patients not on rituximab, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“For patients treated with rituximab, fully tapering off glucocorticoids is reasonable to consider as the first approach,” said Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, during his presentation of the findings.

Although a low dose of glucocorticoids can prevent some minor relapses in patients on other treatment regimens such as methotrexate or azathioprine, “fully tapering off prednisone presents relatively little risk of major relapse, and that major relapse can be treated rather quickly,” Merkel added.

The Assessment of Prednisone in Remission (TAPIR) trial enrolled 143 patients with GPA who were in remission (defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis [BVAS/WG] of 0) within 1 year of treatment to induce remission for active disease and who were taking 5-10 mg of prednisone per day. After all patients tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone, 71 patients completely tapered off prednisone over 4 weeks and remained off glucocorticoids until month 6. The remaining patients maintained a 5-mg/day dose over the study period. Placement in either treatment group was randomized, and patients continued other immunosuppressive therapy during the study.

Researchers evaluated the rate of relapse by 6 months, defined as a physician’s decision to increase the dose of glucocorticoids to treat GPA, in both groups.

Across all participants, the median age was 58 years, and 52% of patients were male. Most patients were White, and 47% of all patients were prescribed rituximab. 

At 6 months, 15.5% of participants who completely tapered off prednisone experienced a relapse of GPA, compared with 4.2% of those taking low-dose prednisone. Time to relapse was also shorter in the 0-mg prednisone group (P = .026), and relapses occurred continually over 6 months, Merkel said.

When stratified by rituximab use, relapse rates at 6 months between the 5-mg and 0-mg prednisone groups in patients taking rituximab showed no difference. Among patients not taking rituximab, those who completely stopped prednisone were nine and a half times as likely to experience relapse as those in the low-dose group. 

Despite these differences in relapse rates, “surprisingly, there were no differences in patient-reported outcomes [such as pain interference, physical function, and fatigue],” Merkel said. 

Across all patients, all but one relapse was characterized as minor. There were five serious adverse events and 10 infections in the 0-mg group versus one adverse event and 4 infections in the 5-mg group, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

In patients who relapsed, musculoskeletal and ear, nose, and throat manifestations of GPA were most common, and these are “the kind of stuff we see that is helped by low-dose glucocorticoids,” Merkel said.

It’s a good sign that for patients who were completely weaned off glucocorticoids, nearly all relapses were minor, Galina Marder, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the research. 

The study “can reinforce the message [of] trying to get them off steroids completely [when possible],” she said.

The findings also provide insight for future clinical trials, Merkel noted. For patients taking non–rituximab-based regimens, completely tapering off glucocorticoids or maintaining a low dose can affect study outcomes.

“[These data are] even more important for clinical trials because they are [reinforcing] the fact that you can have a diminishing signal if you allow some patients to stay on 5 mg prednisone” when GPA flares are the primary outcome, Marder added.

The Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium received funding for this research through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Merkel has disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, Eicos, Electra, EMD Serono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GSK, HI-Bio, Inmagene, InflaRx, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Neutrolis, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sparrow, Takeda, Talaris, UpToDate, and Visterra. Marder consults for Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

WASHINGTON — Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) completely tapered off prednisone have a more than fourfold risk of relapse by 6 months, compared with those tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone; however, this benefit was only seen in patients not on rituximab, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“For patients treated with rituximab, fully tapering off glucocorticoids is reasonable to consider as the first approach,” said Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, during his presentation of the findings.

Although a low dose of glucocorticoids can prevent some minor relapses in patients on other treatment regimens such as methotrexate or azathioprine, “fully tapering off prednisone presents relatively little risk of major relapse, and that major relapse can be treated rather quickly,” Merkel added.

The Assessment of Prednisone in Remission (TAPIR) trial enrolled 143 patients with GPA who were in remission (defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis [BVAS/WG] of 0) within 1 year of treatment to induce remission for active disease and who were taking 5-10 mg of prednisone per day. After all patients tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone, 71 patients completely tapered off prednisone over 4 weeks and remained off glucocorticoids until month 6. The remaining patients maintained a 5-mg/day dose over the study period. Placement in either treatment group was randomized, and patients continued other immunosuppressive therapy during the study.

Researchers evaluated the rate of relapse by 6 months, defined as a physician’s decision to increase the dose of glucocorticoids to treat GPA, in both groups.

Across all participants, the median age was 58 years, and 52% of patients were male. Most patients were White, and 47% of all patients were prescribed rituximab. 

At 6 months, 15.5% of participants who completely tapered off prednisone experienced a relapse of GPA, compared with 4.2% of those taking low-dose prednisone. Time to relapse was also shorter in the 0-mg prednisone group (P = .026), and relapses occurred continually over 6 months, Merkel said.

When stratified by rituximab use, relapse rates at 6 months between the 5-mg and 0-mg prednisone groups in patients taking rituximab showed no difference. Among patients not taking rituximab, those who completely stopped prednisone were nine and a half times as likely to experience relapse as those in the low-dose group. 

Despite these differences in relapse rates, “surprisingly, there were no differences in patient-reported outcomes [such as pain interference, physical function, and fatigue],” Merkel said. 

Across all patients, all but one relapse was characterized as minor. There were five serious adverse events and 10 infections in the 0-mg group versus one adverse event and 4 infections in the 5-mg group, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

In patients who relapsed, musculoskeletal and ear, nose, and throat manifestations of GPA were most common, and these are “the kind of stuff we see that is helped by low-dose glucocorticoids,” Merkel said.

It’s a good sign that for patients who were completely weaned off glucocorticoids, nearly all relapses were minor, Galina Marder, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the research. 

The study “can reinforce the message [of] trying to get them off steroids completely [when possible],” she said.

The findings also provide insight for future clinical trials, Merkel noted. For patients taking non–rituximab-based regimens, completely tapering off glucocorticoids or maintaining a low dose can affect study outcomes.

“[These data are] even more important for clinical trials because they are [reinforcing] the fact that you can have a diminishing signal if you allow some patients to stay on 5 mg prednisone” when GPA flares are the primary outcome, Marder added.

The Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium received funding for this research through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Merkel has disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, Eicos, Electra, EMD Serono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GSK, HI-Bio, Inmagene, InflaRx, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Neutrolis, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sparrow, Takeda, Talaris, UpToDate, and Visterra. Marder consults for Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

WASHINGTON — Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) completely tapered off prednisone have a more than fourfold risk of relapse by 6 months, compared with those tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone; however, this benefit was only seen in patients not on rituximab, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“For patients treated with rituximab, fully tapering off glucocorticoids is reasonable to consider as the first approach,” said Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, during his presentation of the findings.

Although a low dose of glucocorticoids can prevent some minor relapses in patients on other treatment regimens such as methotrexate or azathioprine, “fully tapering off prednisone presents relatively little risk of major relapse, and that major relapse can be treated rather quickly,” Merkel added.

The Assessment of Prednisone in Remission (TAPIR) trial enrolled 143 patients with GPA who were in remission (defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis [BVAS/WG] of 0) within 1 year of treatment to induce remission for active disease and who were taking 5-10 mg of prednisone per day. After all patients tapered to 5 mg/day of prednisone, 71 patients completely tapered off prednisone over 4 weeks and remained off glucocorticoids until month 6. The remaining patients maintained a 5-mg/day dose over the study period. Placement in either treatment group was randomized, and patients continued other immunosuppressive therapy during the study.

Researchers evaluated the rate of relapse by 6 months, defined as a physician’s decision to increase the dose of glucocorticoids to treat GPA, in both groups.

Across all participants, the median age was 58 years, and 52% of patients were male. Most patients were White, and 47% of all patients were prescribed rituximab. 

At 6 months, 15.5% of participants who completely tapered off prednisone experienced a relapse of GPA, compared with 4.2% of those taking low-dose prednisone. Time to relapse was also shorter in the 0-mg prednisone group (P = .026), and relapses occurred continually over 6 months, Merkel said.

When stratified by rituximab use, relapse rates at 6 months between the 5-mg and 0-mg prednisone groups in patients taking rituximab showed no difference. Among patients not taking rituximab, those who completely stopped prednisone were nine and a half times as likely to experience relapse as those in the low-dose group. 

Despite these differences in relapse rates, “surprisingly, there were no differences in patient-reported outcomes [such as pain interference, physical function, and fatigue],” Merkel said. 

Across all patients, all but one relapse was characterized as minor. There were five serious adverse events and 10 infections in the 0-mg group versus one adverse event and 4 infections in the 5-mg group, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

In patients who relapsed, musculoskeletal and ear, nose, and throat manifestations of GPA were most common, and these are “the kind of stuff we see that is helped by low-dose glucocorticoids,” Merkel said.

It’s a good sign that for patients who were completely weaned off glucocorticoids, nearly all relapses were minor, Galina Marder, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the research. 

The study “can reinforce the message [of] trying to get them off steroids completely [when possible],” she said.

The findings also provide insight for future clinical trials, Merkel noted. For patients taking non–rituximab-based regimens, completely tapering off glucocorticoids or maintaining a low dose can affect study outcomes.

“[These data are] even more important for clinical trials because they are [reinforcing] the fact that you can have a diminishing signal if you allow some patients to stay on 5 mg prednisone” when GPA flares are the primary outcome, Marder added.

The Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium received funding for this research through grants from the National Institutes of Health. Merkel has disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cabaletta, ChemoCentryx, CSL Behring, Dynacure, Eicos, Electra, EMD Serono, Forbius, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, GSK, HI-Bio, Inmagene, InflaRx, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyverna, Magenta, MiroBio, Neutrolis, Novartis, NS Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sparrow, Takeda, Talaris, UpToDate, and Visterra. Marder consults for Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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