Rheumatoid Arthritis

Key clinical point: Methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed varied joint-specific clinical responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate monotherapies, with those receiving methotrexate demonstrating more radiographic progression in the foot joints despite improved clinical response.

Major finding: At 12 months, tofacitinib vs methotrexate improved the clinical response in most tender and swollen joints, except some foot joints. Methotrexate improved the clinical response in most foot joints; however, radiographic progression was significantly worse with methotrexate vs tofacitinib (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 ORAL Start trial including 956 methotrexate-naive patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy with 5 mg (n = 373) or 10 mg (n = 397) tofacitinib or methotrexate (n = 186).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer, Inc. Four authors declared being current or former employees or shareholders of Pfizer or Syneos Health. Some authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or research funding or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Ciurea A et al. Joint-level responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate: A post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Start. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:185 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03144-1

Key clinical point: Methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed varied joint-specific clinical responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate monotherapies, with those receiving methotrexate demonstrating more radiographic progression in the foot joints despite improved clinical response.

Major finding: At 12 months, tofacitinib vs methotrexate improved the clinical response in most tender and swollen joints, except some foot joints. Methotrexate improved the clinical response in most foot joints; however, radiographic progression was significantly worse with methotrexate vs tofacitinib (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 ORAL Start trial including 956 methotrexate-naive patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy with 5 mg (n = 373) or 10 mg (n = 397) tofacitinib or methotrexate (n = 186).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer, Inc. Four authors declared being current or former employees or shareholders of Pfizer or Syneos Health. Some authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or research funding or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Ciurea A et al. Joint-level responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate: A post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Start. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:185 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03144-1

Key clinical point: Methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed varied joint-specific clinical responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate monotherapies, with those receiving methotrexate demonstrating more radiographic progression in the foot joints despite improved clinical response.

Major finding: At 12 months, tofacitinib vs methotrexate improved the clinical response in most tender and swollen joints, except some foot joints. Methotrexate improved the clinical response in most foot joints; however, radiographic progression was significantly worse with methotrexate vs tofacitinib (P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 ORAL Start trial including 956 methotrexate-naive patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy with 5 mg (n = 373) or 10 mg (n = 397) tofacitinib or methotrexate (n = 186).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer, Inc. Four authors declared being current or former employees or shareholders of Pfizer or Syneos Health. Some authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or research funding or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Ciurea A et al. Joint-level responses to tofacitinib and methotrexate: A post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Start. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:185 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03144-1

Key clinical point: Younger age, higher disease activity, prevalent erosions, and monotherapy were significant risk factors for the development of new bone erosions in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Risk of developing new bone erosions increased with younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.970; P < .001), higher Disease Activity Scores for 28 Joints-C-Reactive Protein (aOR per point increase 5.349; P < .001), presence of erosions at baseline (aOR 7.820; P < .001), and conventional DMARD-naive status (aOR 2.068; P  =  .033).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 578 patients with RA who started bDMARD treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. G Adami, D Gatti, and M Rossini declared receiving personal fees or serving as a consultant or speaker for various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Adami G et al. Factors associated with radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis starting biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023;15:1759720X231174534 (Sep 28). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231174534

Key clinical point: Younger age, higher disease activity, prevalent erosions, and monotherapy were significant risk factors for the development of new bone erosions in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Risk of developing new bone erosions increased with younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.970; P < .001), higher Disease Activity Scores for 28 Joints-C-Reactive Protein (aOR per point increase 5.349; P < .001), presence of erosions at baseline (aOR 7.820; P < .001), and conventional DMARD-naive status (aOR 2.068; P  =  .033).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 578 patients with RA who started bDMARD treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. G Adami, D Gatti, and M Rossini declared receiving personal fees or serving as a consultant or speaker for various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Adami G et al. Factors associated with radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis starting biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023;15:1759720X231174534 (Sep 28). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231174534

Key clinical point: Younger age, higher disease activity, prevalent erosions, and monotherapy were significant risk factors for the development of new bone erosions in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Risk of developing new bone erosions increased with younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.970; P < .001), higher Disease Activity Scores for 28 Joints-C-Reactive Protein (aOR per point increase 5.349; P < .001), presence of erosions at baseline (aOR 7.820; P < .001), and conventional DMARD-naive status (aOR 2.068; P  =  .033).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 578 patients with RA who started bDMARD treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. G Adami, D Gatti, and M Rossini declared receiving personal fees or serving as a consultant or speaker for various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Adami G et al. Factors associated with radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis starting biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023;15:1759720X231174534 (Sep 28). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231174534

Key clinical point: Abatacept improved disease activity in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with those managed with treat-to-target (T2T) approach being more likely to achieve low disease activity (LDA) compared with routine care (RC).

Major finding: In each treatment group, abatacept treatment led to early and sustained improvement in disease activity (P < .0001). However, the odds of achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index LDA were significantly higher with T2T vs RC approach (odds ratio 1.33; P  =  .0263).

Study details: Findings are from the 12-month prospective, randomized Abatacept Best Care trial including 284 patients with moderate-to-severely active RA who initiated abatacept as first- or second-line biologic therapy and were randomly assigned to the T2T (n = 130) or RC (n = 154) group.

Disclosures: This study was managed by JSS Medical Research, and the trial was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). Three authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in BMS or JSS Medical Research. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including BMS.

Source: Bessette L et al. Effectiveness of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:183 (Sep 28). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03151-2

Key clinical point: Abatacept improved disease activity in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with those managed with treat-to-target (T2T) approach being more likely to achieve low disease activity (LDA) compared with routine care (RC).

Major finding: In each treatment group, abatacept treatment led to early and sustained improvement in disease activity (P < .0001). However, the odds of achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index LDA were significantly higher with T2T vs RC approach (odds ratio 1.33; P  =  .0263).

Study details: Findings are from the 12-month prospective, randomized Abatacept Best Care trial including 284 patients with moderate-to-severely active RA who initiated abatacept as first- or second-line biologic therapy and were randomly assigned to the T2T (n = 130) or RC (n = 154) group.

Disclosures: This study was managed by JSS Medical Research, and the trial was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). Three authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in BMS or JSS Medical Research. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including BMS.

Source: Bessette L et al. Effectiveness of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:183 (Sep 28). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03151-2

Key clinical point: Abatacept improved disease activity in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with those managed with treat-to-target (T2T) approach being more likely to achieve low disease activity (LDA) compared with routine care (RC).

Major finding: In each treatment group, abatacept treatment led to early and sustained improvement in disease activity (P < .0001). However, the odds of achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index LDA were significantly higher with T2T vs RC approach (odds ratio 1.33; P  =  .0263).

Study details: Findings are from the 12-month prospective, randomized Abatacept Best Care trial including 284 patients with moderate-to-severely active RA who initiated abatacept as first- or second-line biologic therapy and were randomly assigned to the T2T (n = 130) or RC (n = 154) group.

Disclosures: This study was managed by JSS Medical Research, and the trial was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). Three authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in BMS or JSS Medical Research. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including BMS.

Source: Bessette L et al. Effectiveness of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:183 (Sep 28). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03151-2

Key clinical point: Nearly half of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) showed radiographic progression of fibrosis, and the presence of diabetes mellitus, high disease activity, and advanced high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scores significantly increased the fibrotic progression risk.

Major finding: HRCT-based radiographic progression of fibrosis was observed in 51.0% of patients with RA-ILD, with diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio [HR] 2.47; P < .01), Disease Activity Scores in 28 Joints-Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate > 5.1 (HR 2.32; P  =  .04), and baseline HRCT scores > 5 (HR 3.04; P < .01) being significant risk factors for fibrotic progression.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 371 patients with RA, of which 32.3% had RA-ILD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chai D et al. Progression of radiographic fibrosis in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1265355 (Sep 22). doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1265355

Key clinical point: Nearly half of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) showed radiographic progression of fibrosis, and the presence of diabetes mellitus, high disease activity, and advanced high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scores significantly increased the fibrotic progression risk.

Major finding: HRCT-based radiographic progression of fibrosis was observed in 51.0% of patients with RA-ILD, with diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio [HR] 2.47; P < .01), Disease Activity Scores in 28 Joints-Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate > 5.1 (HR 2.32; P  =  .04), and baseline HRCT scores > 5 (HR 3.04; P < .01) being significant risk factors for fibrotic progression.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 371 patients with RA, of which 32.3% had RA-ILD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chai D et al. Progression of radiographic fibrosis in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1265355 (Sep 22). doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1265355

Key clinical point: Nearly half of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) showed radiographic progression of fibrosis, and the presence of diabetes mellitus, high disease activity, and advanced high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scores significantly increased the fibrotic progression risk.

Major finding: HRCT-based radiographic progression of fibrosis was observed in 51.0% of patients with RA-ILD, with diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio [HR] 2.47; P < .01), Disease Activity Scores in 28 Joints-Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate > 5.1 (HR 2.32; P  =  .04), and baseline HRCT scores > 5 (HR 3.04; P < .01) being significant risk factors for fibrotic progression.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 371 patients with RA, of which 32.3% had RA-ILD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chai D et al. Progression of radiographic fibrosis in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1265355 (Sep 22). doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1265355

Key clinical point: The findings demonstrate the feasibility of glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) treated with tofacitinib, highlighting the steroid-sparing effect of tofacitinib.

Major finding: Overall, 30% and 40% of patients completely discontinued prednisone by weeks 12 and 24-48 of initiating tofacitinib, respectively. The median prednisone dose was reduced from 5 to 2.5 mg/day at week 12 (P < .00001), with nine patients further reducing the glucocorticoid dose to 1.25 mg/day from week 12 to week 48 (P < .00001).

Study details: This prospective, open-label, pilot study included 30 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and MTX-IR receiving a stable dose of glucocorticoids who initiated 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, of which those who achieved at least a moderate European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response initiated glucocorticoid tapering until complete discontinuation.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a Pfizer Grant Award. FR Spinelli declared receiving a research grant from Pfizer. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Spinelli FR et al. Tapering and discontinuation of glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15537 (Sep 20). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42371-z

Key clinical point: The findings demonstrate the feasibility of glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) treated with tofacitinib, highlighting the steroid-sparing effect of tofacitinib.

Major finding: Overall, 30% and 40% of patients completely discontinued prednisone by weeks 12 and 24-48 of initiating tofacitinib, respectively. The median prednisone dose was reduced from 5 to 2.5 mg/day at week 12 (P < .00001), with nine patients further reducing the glucocorticoid dose to 1.25 mg/day from week 12 to week 48 (P < .00001).

Study details: This prospective, open-label, pilot study included 30 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and MTX-IR receiving a stable dose of glucocorticoids who initiated 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, of which those who achieved at least a moderate European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response initiated glucocorticoid tapering until complete discontinuation.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a Pfizer Grant Award. FR Spinelli declared receiving a research grant from Pfizer. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Spinelli FR et al. Tapering and discontinuation of glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15537 (Sep 20). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42371-z

Key clinical point: The findings demonstrate the feasibility of glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) treated with tofacitinib, highlighting the steroid-sparing effect of tofacitinib.

Major finding: Overall, 30% and 40% of patients completely discontinued prednisone by weeks 12 and 24-48 of initiating tofacitinib, respectively. The median prednisone dose was reduced from 5 to 2.5 mg/day at week 12 (P < .00001), with nine patients further reducing the glucocorticoid dose to 1.25 mg/day from week 12 to week 48 (P < .00001).

Study details: This prospective, open-label, pilot study included 30 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and MTX-IR receiving a stable dose of glucocorticoids who initiated 5 mg tofacitinib twice daily, of which those who achieved at least a moderate European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response initiated glucocorticoid tapering until complete discontinuation.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a Pfizer Grant Award. FR Spinelli declared receiving a research grant from Pfizer. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Spinelli FR et al. Tapering and discontinuation of glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15537 (Sep 20). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42371-z

Key clinical point: Patients with microscopic colitis (MC) were at nearly 2-fold higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with the general population, with a significant risk persisting up to 5 years after MC diagnosis.

Major finding: The risk for RA was significantly higher in patients with MC compared with matched reference individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.83; 95% CI 1.39-2.41) and full siblings without MC (aHR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18-3.56). The risk was highest during the first year of follow-up (aHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.08-4.97) and remained significantly high up to 5 years after MC diagnosis (aHR 2.16; 95% CI 1.42-3.30).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based matched cohort study including 8179 patients with biopsy-verified MC, 36,400 matched reference individuals, and 8202 full siblings without MC.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and other sources. Some authors declared serving as study coordinators or advisory board members for, receiving financial support from, and reporting agreements between various sources.

Source: Bergman D et al. Microscopic colitis and risk of incident rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide population-based matched cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023 (Sep 20). D+oi: 10.1111/apt.17708

Key clinical point: Patients with microscopic colitis (MC) were at nearly 2-fold higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with the general population, with a significant risk persisting up to 5 years after MC diagnosis.

Major finding: The risk for RA was significantly higher in patients with MC compared with matched reference individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.83; 95% CI 1.39-2.41) and full siblings without MC (aHR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18-3.56). The risk was highest during the first year of follow-up (aHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.08-4.97) and remained significantly high up to 5 years after MC diagnosis (aHR 2.16; 95% CI 1.42-3.30).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based matched cohort study including 8179 patients with biopsy-verified MC, 36,400 matched reference individuals, and 8202 full siblings without MC.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and other sources. Some authors declared serving as study coordinators or advisory board members for, receiving financial support from, and reporting agreements between various sources.

Source: Bergman D et al. Microscopic colitis and risk of incident rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide population-based matched cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023 (Sep 20). D+oi: 10.1111/apt.17708

Key clinical point: Patients with microscopic colitis (MC) were at nearly 2-fold higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with the general population, with a significant risk persisting up to 5 years after MC diagnosis.

Major finding: The risk for RA was significantly higher in patients with MC compared with matched reference individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.83; 95% CI 1.39-2.41) and full siblings without MC (aHR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18-3.56). The risk was highest during the first year of follow-up (aHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.08-4.97) and remained significantly high up to 5 years after MC diagnosis (aHR 2.16; 95% CI 1.42-3.30).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based matched cohort study including 8179 patients with biopsy-verified MC, 36,400 matched reference individuals, and 8202 full siblings without MC.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Karolinska Institutet and other sources. Some authors declared serving as study coordinators or advisory board members for, receiving financial support from, and reporting agreements between various sources.

Source: Bergman D et al. Microscopic colitis and risk of incident rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide population-based matched cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023 (Sep 20). D+oi: 10.1111/apt.17708

Key clinical point: The use of oral contraceptives (OC) appeared to be protective against rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Major finding: Compared with never-use, ever-use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96) and current-use (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) of OC decreased the risk for RA, whereas ever-use (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) and former-use (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24) of MHT increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 239,785 British women whose data were evaluated for the effect of OC (n = 236,602) or MHT (age ≥ 60 years, n = 102,466) on RA risk.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Agnes and Mac Rudbergs Foundation (Sweden), the Åke Wiberg Foundation (Sweden), the Marcus Borgström Foundation (Sweden), and various other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hadizadeh F et al. Effects of oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy on the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead513

Key clinical point: The use of oral contraceptives (OC) appeared to be protective against rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Major finding: Compared with never-use, ever-use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96) and current-use (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) of OC decreased the risk for RA, whereas ever-use (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) and former-use (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24) of MHT increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 239,785 British women whose data were evaluated for the effect of OC (n = 236,602) or MHT (age ≥ 60 years, n = 102,466) on RA risk.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Agnes and Mac Rudbergs Foundation (Sweden), the Åke Wiberg Foundation (Sweden), the Marcus Borgström Foundation (Sweden), and various other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hadizadeh F et al. Effects of oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy on the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead513

Key clinical point: The use of oral contraceptives (OC) appeared to be protective against rheumatoid arthritis (RA), whereas the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Major finding: Compared with never-use, ever-use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96) and current-use (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) of OC decreased the risk for RA, whereas ever-use (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) and former-use (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24) of MHT increased the risk for late-onset RA.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 239,785 British women whose data were evaluated for the effect of OC (n = 236,602) or MHT (age ≥ 60 years, n = 102,466) on RA risk.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Agnes and Mac Rudbergs Foundation (Sweden), the Åke Wiberg Foundation (Sweden), the Marcus Borgström Foundation (Sweden), and various other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Hadizadeh F et al. Effects of oral contraceptives and menopausal hormone therapy on the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: A prospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Sep 29). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead513

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

In combination with methotrexate, both abatacept (Orencia) and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), but not tocilizumab (Actemra), showed superiority over different combinations of active conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for promoting remission in patients with early, untreated rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

The study population included 812 adults from sites in six European countries who had treatment-naive early RA (less than 24 months’ duration) and moderate to severe disease.

Participants were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with methotrexate plus one of four treatments:

• Active conventional therapy (oral , tapered quickly and discontinued after 9 months, or , hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints).
• Certolizumab pegol.
• Abatacept.
• Tocilizumab.

In all the biologic-treated groups, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections were allowed on demand up to week 12; thereafter, up to 40 mg were allowed every 12 weeks. In all groups, intra-articular glucocorticoids were prohibited in weeks 20-24 and weeks 44-48 to minimize their influence on week 24 and week 48 outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Clinical remission rates at week 48 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index scores of 2.8 or less were 59.3% with abatacept and 52.3% with certolizumab, which were significantly greater than the rate of 39.2% seen with active conventional therapy. The 51.9% rate seen with tocilizumab was not superior to active conventional therapy.
• The co–primary outcome of change in van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score from baseline to week 48 was relatively low across all groups: 0.45 for active conventional therapy, and 0.62, 0.47, and 0.50 for abatacept, certolizumab pegol, and tocilizumab, respectively.
• No new safety signals appeared, nor did any significantly increased risk associated with glucocorticoid use; at least one adverse event was reported in 88.3%, 89.6%, 85.8%, and 96.7% of patients taking conventional therapy, certolizumab pegol, abatacept, and tocilizumab, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest that both abatacept and certolizumab pegol yield higher remission rates than optimized conventional therapy, and “should be considered when the management of patients with newly diagnosed RA is decided, both in clinical practice and in treatment recommendations,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Mikkel Østergaard, MD, PhD, of the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Disease.  

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label study design could influence some subjective outcomes, and conventional therapy included two slightly different strategies based on national recommendations for the individual countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by multiple public sources to centers from countries participating in the study, as well as the Icelandic Society for Rheumatology, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and the Research Fund of University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. UCB and Bristol-Myers Squibb provided certolizumab pegol and abatacept, respectively, at no cost, but were not otherwise involved in the study. Many authors, including Dr. Østergaard, report financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.

Rheumatoid arthritis can’t be cured, but it can significantly improve naturally during pregnancy in 50%-75% of women, prior research has established. It may worsen or stay the same during pregnancy in others.

As of yet, there’s no way to tell which experience a woman with RA will have. RA occurs in 1% of adults globally and is three times more likely to occur in women.

However, a novel study of 19 women with RA suggests that blood biomarkers before pregnancy may predict who will get better or worse during pregnancy. If confirmed with larger studies, the discovery could lead to personalizing medication choices for women with RA who are seeking to become pregnant and change prepregnancy counseling for physicians.

Findings from the research, conducted by first author Matthew Wright, MS, of Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute and colleagues were published online in Arthritis Research & Therapy.
 

A risky choice for women

Currently, the choice is difficult because stopping medications during pregnancy could cause disease flare and continuing could risk possible harm to the baby as some of the medications have toxic side effects.

This is the first study to analyze genetic differences in women with RA who plan to get pregnant, senior author Damini Jawaheer, PhD, research associate professor of medicine in rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Identifying women who have the disease and confirming they were planning to get pregnant has been extremely difficult, she noted, especially since the start of their research predated electronic health records (EHRs).

The researchers were able to develop a cohort from work they were already doing with researchers in Denmark, which has a national registry that included both women with RA and women of reproductive age. From there they could contact women about their pregnancy intentions and build the cohort for this study.

Healthy women and women with RA of Danish descent who planned to get pregnant were enrolled and were prospectively followed.
 

Genetic differences at prepregnancy baseline

Researchers analyzed genetic differences through RNA sequencing before pregnancy from 19 women with RA and 13 healthy women.

Of the 19 women with RA, disease activity improved during pregnancy in 14 and worsened in 5.

Before pregnancy, the researchers found, several neutrophil-related genes were significantly overexpressed in women whose RA later improved during pregnancy. Genes related to B cells were highly expressed among women who worsened. Those elevated B-cell–related gene levels were not seen in the group who improved during pregnancy, Dr. Jawaheer added.

“We don’t understand at this point why that is,” she said.

They also compared the blood samples with women in the control group who did not have RA.

“Comparisons to healthy women revealed that the B-cell signature was specific” to women with worsened RA, the authors wrote. “Thus, at the prepregnancy stage, the two groups of RA women differed significantly from each other in terms of B-cell function.”
 

Information could help to eliminate fear

Dr. Jawaheer said almost all the women in the cohort who have RA said they were afraid to take medications during pregnancy even if the medications they are taking are considered safe.

“If we could reliably predict who’s going to improve, those women would not have to be scared,” she said. They could stop their medications if they know they’re going to improve naturally.

“Women who are predicted to worsen could then work together with their rheumatologist so that they get treatment to prevent them from getting worse,” Dr. Jawaheer said. “Treatment could be focused on that group only.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, a rheumatologist at University of California San Diego Health and director of the UCSD Center for Innovative Therapy, who was not part of the study, said his patients planning pregnancy struggle with the choices the researchers describe and that investigating potential biomarkers is important.

“Ideally, people would not want to be on anything when they’re pregnant,” he says.

He found the results “intriguing and hypothesis-generating,” but he said the small sample size makes it hard to draw conclusions about the work before it is replicated on a larger scale.

Beth L. Jonas, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, also not a part of the study, said the small study size must be considered, but if the findings are validated in larger studies, the potential is “huge.”

She said doctors used to tell their patients years ago that there’s an excellent chance they will be in remission in pregnancy.

Now, she says, “We’ve tempered our advice to say there’s a good chance you’ll still have disease activity during your pregnancy.”

Rheumatologists would be very interested in a predictive biomarker, she said, as would colleagues in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine physicians who manage high-risk pregnancies and do prepregnancy counseling.

She said she would also like to see these data followed over multiple pregnancies for each woman, noting that some of her patients have seen RA improve in one pregnancy and worsen in another.

A question she has is, “with a single patient with RA, could you measure this multiple times and get different results?”
 

Tackling the unanswered questions

Next, the researchers want to conduct the study with a larger sample in the United States and one that is more diverse than the Danish cohort, which included only White patients. Now, Dr. Jawaheer and her team will have the help of EHRs.

A big part of Dr. Jawaheer’s lab’s focus is to find out why many with RA report “never feeling better” during pregnancy – some even experience remission – and why women who improve during pregnancy report that their disease flares 3-6 months after pregnancy, she said.

Her team is also studying what happens biologically when some women worsen in pregnancy.

Those answers “will give us an indication of what could be a potential drug target,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Jonas reported no relevant financial relationships.