ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) associated inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) occurs in 4-6% of ICI-treated patients based on one observational study. We identified cases of ICI-IA using administrative claims to study its incidence and characteristics at the population level. METHODS: We used the Medicare 5% sample to identify patients initiating ICIs. Cancer patients were identified by having ≥ 2 ICD-9/10-CM diagnosis codes from an oncologist for lung cancer, melanoma, or renal/urothelial cancer. ICI-IA was defined as having two Medicare claims ≥ 30 days apart with combinations of ICD-9/10-CM diagnosis codes that favored specificity. ICI-IA was identified in patients with a musculoskeletal diagnosis after ICI initiation, who had i.) no inflammatory arthritis or inflammatory rheumatic disease before ICI initiation ever, and ii) no musculoskeletal complaint in the one year prior to ICI. We examined DMARD utilization and visits to rheumatology in patients with ICI-IA. Landmark analysis and a time varying Cox proportional hazards model for overall survival was constructed. RESULTS: The incidence of ICI-IA was 7.2 (6.1-8.4) per 100 patient years. Patients with ICI-IA were mean (SD) age 73.5(7.0) years, 48% women, 91% white. Median(IQR) time from ICI initiation to first ICI-IA diagnosis was 124(56, 252) days. Only 24(16%) received care from a rheumatologist, and 24(16%) were prescribed a DMARD (46% by a rheumatologist). The HR for mortality in patients with ICI-IA was 0.86 (95% CI 0.59-1.26, p= 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ICI-IA identified in claims data is similar to that reported in observational studies, however, few patients are treated with a DMARD or see a rheumatologist. There was no difference in overall survival between ICI-treated patients with and without ICI-IA.
ABSTRACT
Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) is an immune-related adverse event that can occur as a result of receiving ICIs for cancer treatment. Thus far, ICI-IA has been described variably in the literature, in part due to varying presentations that evolve over time, as well as a lack of standardized definitions and classification. This scoping review aggregates various descriptions of ICI-IA, highlighting the most prominent attributes of ICI-IA from categories such as symptoms, signs, imaging, and laboratory findings as well as discussing potential mimic conditions.
Subject(s)
Arthritis , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Arthritis/drug therapy , Arthritis/chemically induced , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Neoplasms/immunologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution of the OMERACT Fellows Program (OM FP) and to evaluate the innovative changes implemented in the 2023 program. METHODS: The OM FP, the first of its kind in global rheumatology, was developed in 2000 to mentor early career researchers in methods and processes for reaching evidence-driven consensus for outcome measures in clinical studies. The OM FP has evolved through continuing iterations of face to face and online feedback. Key new features delivered in 2023 included e-learning modules, virtual introductory pre-meetings, increased networking with Patient Research Partners (PRPs), learning opportunities to give and receive personal feedback, ongoing performance feedback during the meeting from Fellow peers, PRPs, senior OMERACTers (members of the OMERACT community) and Emerging Leader mentors, involvement in pitching promotions, two-minute Lightning Talks in a plenary session and an embedded poster tour. An online survey was distributed after the meeting to evaluate the program. RESULTS: OM FP has included 208 fellows from 16 countries across 4 continents covering 47 different aspects of rheumatology outcomes since its inception. Over 50 % have remained engaged with OMERACT work. In 2023, 18 Fellows attended and 15 (83 %) completed the post-meeting survey. A dedicated OM FP was deemed important by all respondents, and 93 % would attend the meeting in future. The PRP/Fellow Connection Carousel and Lightning Talks were rated exceptional by 93 %. Key components to improve included clarification of expectations, overall workload, the Emerging Leaders Mentoring Program, and the content and duration of daily summary sessions. CONCLUSION: The innovations in the 2023 OM FP were well received by the majority of participants and supports early career rheumatology researchers to develop collaborations, skills and expertise in outcome measurement. Implementation of feedback from Fellows will enhance the program for future meetings, continuing to facilitate learning and succession planning within OMERACT.
Subject(s)
Rheumatology , Humans , Mentors , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Consensus , Research PersonnelABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Osteoarthritis, Hip , Osteoarthritis, Knee , Osteoarthritis , Rheumatology , Surgeons , Humans , Osteoarthritis, Hip/complications , Osteoarthritis, Hip/surgery , Osteoarthritis, Knee/complications , Osteoarthritis, Knee/surgery , Pain , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Osteoarthritis , Rheumatology , Surgeons , Humans , Osteoarthritis/therapy , Pain , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Osteoarthritis, Hip , Osteoarthritis, Knee , Osteoarthritis , Rheumatology , Surgeons , Humans , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Osteoarthritis/therapy , Osteoarthritis, Hip/complications , Osteoarthritis, Hip/surgery , Osteoarthritis, Knee/complications , Osteoarthritis, Knee/therapy , Pain , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can potentially cause ICI-inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA), which often resembles rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In this study, we examined the degree of anticitrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA) epitope expansion in CCP+ICI-IA and patients with RA. METHODS: We used clinical data and serum from ICI-IA and patients with RA with early disease as well as longstanding disease. A custom, bead-based antigen array was used to identify IgG ACPA reactivities to 18 putative RA-associated citrullinated proteins. Hierarchical clustering software was used to create a heatmap to identify ACPA levels. Additionally, HLA DRB1 typing was performed on ICI-IA patients as well as controls of patients treated with ICI that did not develop ICI-IA (ICI controls). RESULTS: Compared to patients with CCP+RA, patients with CCP+ICI-IA were older (p<0.001), less likely to have positive rheumatoid factor (p<0.001) and had a shorter duration of symptoms (p<0.001). There were less ACPA levels and a lower number of distinct ACPA epitopes in the serum of patients with ICI-IA compared with longstanding patients with RA (p<0.001). Among those tested for HLA DRB1, there were no differences in the frequency of the shared epitope between those with ICI-IA and ICI controls. CONCLUSION: Patients with ICI-IA had lower ACPA titres and targeted fewer ACPA epitopes than longstanding patients with RA, and there were no significant differences in the presence of the shared epitope between those that developed ICI-IA and ICI controls. It remains to be determined if ICI-IA represents an accelerated model of RA pathogenesis with ICI triggering a transition from preclinical to clinical disease.
Subject(s)
Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Arthritis , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors , Humans , Epitopes , HLA-DRB1 Chains/genetics , Peptides , Peptides, Cyclic , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Arthritis/chemically inducedABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of biologic and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA). METHODS: The retrospective multicentre observational study included patients with a diagnosis of ICI-IA treated with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor (IL6Ri) and/or methotrexate (MTX); patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease were excluded. The primary outcome was time to cancer progression from ICI initiation; the secondary outcome was time to arthritis control from DMARD initiation. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare medication groups, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 147 patients were included (mean age 60.3 (SD 11.9) years, 66 (45%) women). ICI-IA treatment was TNFi in 33 (22%), IL6Ri 42 (29%) and MTX 72 (49%). After adjustment for time from ICI initiation to DMARD initiation, time to cancer progression was significantly shorter for TNFi compared with MTX (HR 3.27 (95% CI 1.21 to 8.84, p=0.019)) while the result for IL6Ri was HR 2.37 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.98, p=0.055). Time to arthritis control was faster for TNFi compared with MTX (HR 1.91 (95% CI 1.06 to 3.45, p=0.032)) while the result for IL6Ri was HR 1.66 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.97, p=0.089). A subset analysis in patients with melanoma gave similar results for both cancer progression and arthritis control. CONCLUSION: The treatment of ICI-IA with a biologic DMARD is associated with more rapid arthritis control than with MTX, but may be associated with a shorter time to cancer progression.
Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Biological Products , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Biological Products/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors , Interleukin-6 Inhibitors , Methotrexate/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alphaABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Glucocorticoids (GCs) ('steroids') are used to treat rheumatic diseases but adverse effects are common. We aimed to explore the impact of GC therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to inform the development of a treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for use in clinical trials and practice. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients from the UK, USA and Australia, treated for a rheumatic condition with GCs in the last 2 years. Purposive sampling was used to select participants with a range of demographic and disease features. An initial conceptual framework informed interview prompts and cues. Interviews elicited GC-related physical and psychological symptoms and salient aspects of HRQoL in relation to GC therapy. Interview data were analysed inductively to develop initial individual themes and domains. Candidate questionnaire items were developed and refined. RESULTS: Sixty semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted (UK n = 34, USA n = 10, Australia n = 16). The mean age was 58 years; 39/60 were female; and 18 rheumatic diseases were represented. Some 126 individual themes were identified and organized into six domains: physical symptoms; psychological symptoms; psychological impact of steroids; impact of steroids on participation; impact of steroids on relationships; and benefits of steroids. Candidate questionnaire items were tested and refined by piloting with patient research partners, iterative rounds of cognitive interviews and linguistic translatability assessment, informing a draft questionnaire. CONCLUSION: We describe an international qualitative study to develop candidate items for a treatment-specific PROM for patients with rheumatic diseases. A future survey will enable the validation of a final version of the PROM.
Subject(s)
Quality of Life , Rheumatic Diseases , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Rheumatic Diseases/chemically induced , Surveys and Questionnaires , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , SteroidsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), increasingly used cancer therapeutics, can cause off-target inflammatory effects called immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-induced IA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (ICI-induced PMR). There are no validated classification criteria or outcome measures for these conditions, and adaptation of treatment recommendations from corresponding rheumatic diseases may not be appropriate. We summarized clinical descriptors of ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR and aggregated domains used for these conditions in order to inform the development of a core set of outcome domains. METHODS: As the initial step of the core domain set generation process, we systemically searched Medline (Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINHL through March 2021 to identify all studies that provide both clinical descriptions and domains relevant to ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR. Domains were mapped to core areas, such as pathophysiological manifestations, life impact, resource use, and longevity/survival, as suggested by the OMERACT 2.1 Filter. RESULTS: We identified 69 publications, over a third of which utilized non-specific diagnoses of "arthritis," "arthralgia," and/or "PMR". Other publications provided the number, the distribution and/or names of specific joints affected, while others labeled the irAE as the corresponding rheumatic disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis. Most distinct domains mapped to the pathophysiology/manifestations core area (24 domains), such as signs/symptoms (13 domains), labs (6 domains), and imaging (5 domains), with harm domains of adverse effects from irAE treatment and fear of irAE treatment decreasing ICI efficacy. Forty-three publications also referenced irAE treatment and 35 subsequent response, as well as 32 tumor response. CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in the domains used to clinically characterize ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR. There were several domains mapped to the pathophysiologic manifestations core area, although several publications highlighted domains evenly distributed among the other core areas of life impact, longevity/survival and resource use.
Subject(s)
Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Giant Cell Arteritis , Neoplasms , Polymyalgia Rheumatica , Rheumatic Diseases , Humans , Polymyalgia Rheumatica/chemically induced , Polymyalgia Rheumatica/drug therapy , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Giant Cell Arteritis/drug therapyABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: Research on the relationship between inflammatory myopathy and malignancy has grown considerably within the last century. Now, the burgeoning field of inflammatory myopathy has yet another player in the mix: immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myositis (ICI myositis). Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myositis is indicated by clinical diagnosis of inflammatory myopathy after initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitor for cancer management. Current literature reflects low prevalence but high mortality associated with ICI myositis, especially when involving myasthenia gravis and myocarditis. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myositis tends to have muscle pain along with weakness, infrequent presentation with dermatitis, or interstitial lung disease and is typically seronegative with scattered, endomysial inflammatory infiltrates on biopsy. The differential diagnosis of ICI myositis includes myasthenia gravis and other neurological immune-related adverse events. Therapeutic approach involves high doses of corticosteroids with a choice of steroid-sparing immunomodulating agent(s) that is primarily driven by expert opinion due to lack of robust research to support one agent over another. There is wide variation in the inclusion criteria for ICI myositis used in previous studies. We review previously used inclusion criteria and suggest an expertise-based classification criterion to provide a standardized definition and allow comparability between studies. There is a critical need for prospective translational and clinical studies that elucidate the pathophysiology of ICI myositis in order to improve evaluation and management of these patients.
Subject(s)
Myasthenia Gravis , Myocarditis , Myositis , Neoplasms , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Myasthenia Gravis/diagnosis , Myasthenia Gravis/drug therapy , Myositis/chemically induced , Myositis/diagnosis , Myositis/drug therapy , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
Immune checkpoint inhibitors activate the immune system to combat cancer. In doing so, however, they can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including rheumatic syndromes, such as inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and myositis. This article reviews rheumatic irAEs that may be encountered in the general medicine practice and provides guidance to support prompt recognition, referral, and treatment of these patients.
Subject(s)
Myositis , Neoplasms , Polymyalgia Rheumatica , Rheumatic Diseases , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Myositis/chemically induced , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Polymyalgia Rheumatica/chemically induced , Polymyalgia Rheumatica/drug therapy , Rheumatic Diseases/therapyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are a novel cancer therapeutic that have been successful in treating advanced malignancies; however, they also cause immune-related adverse events (irAE). Given that some irAE are clinically similar to traditional autoimmune diseases, autoantibodies have been suggested as possible biomarkers of irAE. However, there are very little data on autoantibody investigation prior to ICI. Our aim was to determine if specific baseline autoantibodies were associated with irAE and see if changes in autoantibody concentration corresponded with irAE development. METHODS: This study used data from an oncologic clinical trial of adaptive dosing combination ICI therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Plasma was collected at baseline and 6 weeks after ICI initiation and tested in a microarray of 120 autoantigens commonly associated with autoimmune disease, as well as antinuclear antibody (ANA), rheumatoid factor (RF), and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP). Autoantibody concentrations were compared between patients experiencing an organ-specific event versus not. Heatmaps, volcano plots and hierarchical clustering were used to determine autoantibody concentration differences among irAE patient clusters as defined by signal intensity of autoantibodies. Kaplan-Meier curves were created and a log-rank test was performed to assess differences in survival. RESULTS: The microarray analysis demonstrated that patients who experienced specific irAE had fewer differentially expressed autoantibodies at baseline than those that did not have those specific irAE, and a greater fold change (FC) in antibody concentration from baseline to 6 weeks corresponded with specific irAE development. However, no autoantibodies were identified as being predictive of specific events. Time to first irAE was less than 6 weeks in 69% of patients, and these patients had less autoantibodies at baseline. Considering ANA, RF and CCP autoantibodies, there were no significant differences between the seropositive and seronegative patients in irAE development, severity, timing or survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with low autoantibody concentrations at baseline as well as a greater FC in autoantibody concentration over 6 weeks developed more distinct organ-specific irAE. This may suggest differences in the balance of cellular immunity and humoral pathways that are relevant in the pathogenesis of irAE, though further investigation is needed.
Subject(s)
Autoantibodies/blood , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/adverse effects , Melanoma/drug therapy , Aged , Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies/blood , Antibodies, Antinuclear/blood , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulins/blood , Male , Melanoma/immunology , Middle Aged , Rheumatoid Factor/bloodABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are sometimes associated with autoantibodies, but we do not know how frequently or whether these autoantibodies are present before ICI initiation. Our aim was to determine the positivity rate of autoantibodies in patients with organ-specific ICI-associated irAEs and determine their value as pretreatment biomarkers. METHODS: We searched for all English, peer-reviewed publications from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library through February 20, 2020, and included any publication describing patients with irAEs and reporting results of any autoantibody investigation. Three reviewers independently extracted data, and 1 reviewer verified all data for accuracy and quality of reporting. RESULTS: We identified 515 publications. Most reports described endocrine, rheumatic, gastrointestinal/hepatic, and myositis/myasthenia/myocarditis irAEs. Autoantibodies were present in close to 50% of patients with ICI-associated endocrinopathies. Anti-BP180 was found in more than 50% of patients with skin irAEs. Antibodies were also common in patients with the triad of myositis/myasthenia/myocarditis including striational antibodies (49%), acetylcholine receptor antibodies (40%), and myositis-associated antibodies (27%). Only 11% of patients with arthritis had either rheumatoid factor or cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, and only 30% of patients with sicca had Sjögren antibodies. Autoantibodies were also relatively uncommon in patients with hepatitis (antinuclear antibody, 18%) and colitis (perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody, 19%). Some cohort studies analyzing pre-ICI seropositivity suggest there may be a role for autoantibodies as biomarkers of irAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Reported autoantibody positivity is high in irAEs involving the endocrine organs, skin, and muscle, but lower in irAEs affecting other organ systems. Autoantibody investigations in pre-ICI treatment patients have yielded mixed results regarding their utility as a biomarker of irAEs.
Subject(s)
Myositis , Neoplasms , Autoantibodies , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors , Myositis/chemically induced , Myositis/diagnosis , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Rheumatoid FactorABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions. METHODS: The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set. RESULTS: 113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as "mandatory in specific circumstances". The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders. CONCLUSION: A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials.
Subject(s)
Rheumatic Diseases , Rheumatology , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapyABSTRACT
Immune checkpoint inhibitors activate the immune system to combat cancer. In doing so, however, they can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including rheumatic syndromes, such as inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and myositis. This article reviews rheumatic irAEs that may be encountered in the general medicine practice and provides guidance to support prompt recognition, referral, and treatment of these patients.
Subject(s)
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Rheumatic Diseases , Antineoplastic Agents/immunology , Antineoplastic Agents/pharmacology , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/immunology , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/pharmacology , Rheumatic Diseases/chemically induced , Rheumatic Diseases/immunology , Rheumatic Diseases/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cohort study was to understand the positive and negative effects of glucocorticoids (GCs) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and myositis from the patients' perspective with the aim of developing a patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: Included patients were asked to participate in 1 of 5 nominal groups where demographic information and a quality-of-life questionnaire were collected. Patients were asked 2 open-ended questions on (1) benefits and (2) harms related to GC use. We used the Nominal Group Technique, a highly structured consensus method in which responses are generated, shared, and ranked. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Nominal group sessions took place from April to May 2019. RESULTS: Of 206 patients who were approached, 21 patients participated, 17 with systemic lupus erythematosus and 4 with myositis, predominantly women with more than 10 years of steroid use. The domains ranked highest for GC benefits were disease control (55 votes), fast onset of action (30 votes), increased energy (10 votes), and pain relief (10 votes). The highest-ranked negative effects were bone loss (38 votes) and weight gain (16 votes); psychological effects and damaged internal organs each received 12 votes. CONCLUSIONS: The top-ranked GC effects-both benefits and harms-among patients with systemic rheumatic disease are consistent with the top domains associated with GC use reported with other inflammatory diseases. This study informs the development of a comprehensive patient-reported outcome measure that can be used across inflammatory diseases.
Subject(s)
Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic , Myositis , Cohort Studies , Female , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Humans , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/diagnosis , Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic/drug therapy , Myositis/chemically induced , Myositis/diagnosis , Myositis/epidemiology , Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic literature review to identify all reports of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated inflammatory arthritis to describe it phenotypically and serologically. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for reports of musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events secondary to ICI treatment. Publications were included if they provided individual patient level data regarding the pattern of joint involvement. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. RESULTS: A total of 4339 articles were screened, of which 67 were included, encompassing 372 patients. The majority of patients had metastatic melanoma (57%), and they were treated with anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 therapy (78%). Median time to onset of arthritis was 4 months (range, 1 day to 53 months). Forty-nine percent had polyarthritis, 17% oligoarthritis, 3% monoarthritis, 10% arthralgia, and 21% polymyalgia rheumatica. More than half of patients were described as having a "rheumatoid arthritis-like" presentation. Nine percent tested positive for rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Seventy-four percent required corticosteroids, and 45% required additional medications. Sixty-three percent achieved arthritis control, and 32% were ultimately able to discontinue antirheumatic treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were continued in 49%, transiently withheld in 11%, and permanently discontinued due to musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events in 13%. CONCLUSIONS: Half of reported immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated arthritis cases present with polyarthritis (often RA-like), but only 9% are seropositive. Polymyalgia rheumatica is also common. Most patients respond to steroids alone, but about half require additional medications. Further studies are needed to determine long-term musculoskeletal outcomes in these patients, and the impact of arthritis treatment on cancer survival.