Singh, Namrata

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the safety of advanced therapies in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Using an administrative claims database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse), we identified patients with UC who initiated treatment with tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin agents, anti-interleukin, Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK), or sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators between 2016 and 2022 and had followed up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation. We compared the risk of serious infections, venous thromboembolism, and major adverse cardiovascular events through multinomial propensity score-based inverse probability weighting, with propensity scores estimated through generalized boosted models that accounted for disease characteristics, healthcare utilization, comorbidities, and previous and concomitant medications, and the competing risk of mortality. We calculated cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals for multiple treatment comparisons. RESULTS: We included 9,430 patients with UC treated with TNF antagonists (n = 4,111), anti-integrins (n = 3,165), anti-ILs (n = 1,342), JAK inhibitors (n = 701), or sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators (n = 111), followed over median 27 months. After adjusting for confounding variables, anti-ILs were associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF antagonists (HR, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, 0.51–0.87]) and anti-integrins (HR, 0.75 [0.57–0.98]). JAK inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of serious infections compared with TNF antagonists (HR, 0.66 [0.46–0.94]). The incidence of venous thromboembolism (incidence rate, 1.4–2.0 per 100 py) and major adverse cardiovascular event (0.5–1.0 per 100 py) was very low, without any significant differences across agents. DISCUSSION: In a real-world cohort of patients with UC, anti-ILs and JAK inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of serious infections and may offer net benefit, especially in patients with previous TNF antagonist exposure.

ABSTRACT Background Advanced therapies increase the risk of shingles in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Aim To compare the risk of shingles with different advanced therapies in patients with IBD. Methods We identified patients with IBD who initiated treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, anti‐integrins, anti‐interleukins, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, or sphingosine‐1 phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators between 2016 and 2022 and had follow‐up for at least 1 year before and after treatment initiation. We estimated the incidence rate (IR per 100 person‐year [PY]) of shingles (overall and complicated) and compared the risk with different advanced therapies through multinomial propensity score‐based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), with propensity scores estimated through generalised boosted models, accounting for disease characteristics, healthcare utilisation, comorbidities and prior and concomitant medications. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for multiple treatment comparisons. Results We included 21,675 patients followed over 27 months. IRs per 100 PY of shingles and complicated shingles were: TNF antagonists 1.0/0.3, anti‐integrin agents 1.4/0.4, anti‐interleukins 1.2/0.5, JAK inhibitors 3.3/0.9 and S1PR modulators 2.0/1.0. After adjusting for confounding variables, JAK inhibitors were associated with higher risks of shingles than TNF antagonists (HR 2.19; 1.28–3.75), anti‐integrins (HR 1.87; 1.12–3.14) and anti‐interleukins (HR 1.70; 0.98–2.96). Conclusions JAK inhibitors were associated with 1.7–2.2‐fold higher risk of shingles than other advanced therapies.

ObjectivePatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) frequently visit emergency departments (EDs), but their clinical characteristics and admission factors are poorly understood. Our study investigates the epidemiology and outcomes of ED visits among patients with RA using the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS).MethodsThis cross‐sectional study used the 2019 NEDS data to identify RA‐related ED visits using International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision codes M05.X or M06.X. RA‐related ED visits were defined as encounters in which RA was recorded in any diagnostic position. Demographics, clinical features, and comorbidities were compared between RA and non‐RA ED visits. Racial variations were assessed, and multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with inpatient admission.ResultsWe identified 905,811 (0.8%) ED visits for adults aged ≥18 years with RA. Compared to non‐RA visits, RA ED visits had a higher proportion of patients aged ≥65 years, women, White patients, and Medicare‐insured individuals with a greater comorbidity burden. Admission rates were 46% for RA visits versus 16% for non‐RA visits. Black and Hispanic patients with RA were younger than White patients and more likely to belong to the lowest income quartile. Older age, male sex, and comorbidities were associated with higher admission odds, whereas Black race, lowest income quartile, and Medicaid coverage correlated with lower odds of admission. Septicemia was the most common primary ED diagnosis in patients with RA.ConclusionPatients with RA visiting the ED were older, had a higher comorbidity burden, and were three times more likely to be admitted than patients without RA. Black patients and those in the lowest income quartile had lower odds of admission, highlighting potential disparities and the need for targeted interventions to improve health equity.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association between frailty status and risk of readmissions, inpatient death, and cost of admission among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Readmissions Database. Using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes, we identified individuals >18 years of age who had a primary or secondary diagnosis of SLE and were hospitalized between January and June 2018. Using the validated claims‐based Hospital Frailty Risk Score, we categorized individuals as frail (score ≥ 5) or nonfrail (score < 5) at the time of index hospitalization. Our primary outcome was readmission rates post discharge from index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were rates of inpatient mortality and the total cost of hospitalizations. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between frailty and risk of readmissions, with adjustment for age, sex, insurance type, household income, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score.ResultsA total of 39,738 patients with SLE met eligibility criteria. Over a median follow‐up of eight months, frail patients with SLE (n = 18,385) had higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index scores and longer length of stay compared to nonfrail patients with SLE (n = 21,353). Frail patients with SLE had higher readmission rates, a higher proportion of prolonged hospitalizations, and higher costs per hospitalization. Frailty was independently associated with a 10% higher risk of readmission after adjustment for covariates.ConclusionAmong hospitalized adults with SLE, presence of frailty was associated with higher readmission and inpatient mortality rates. Our results highlight that frailty status can help risk stratify patients with SLE at increased risk for readmissions and other adverse health outcomes.

ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate lung cancer risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and RA‐interstitial lung disease (ILD).MethodsWe performed a retrospective, matched cohort study of RA and RA‐ILD within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) between 2000 and 2019. Patients with RA and RA‐ILD were identified with validated administrative‐based algorithms, then matched (up to 1:10) on age, gender, and VA enrollment year to individuals without RA. Lung cancers were identified from a VA oncology database and the National Death Index. Conditional Cox regression models assessed lung cancer risk adjusting for race, ethnicity, smoking status, Agent Orange exposure, and comorbidity burden among matched individuals. Several sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsWe matched 72,795 patients with RA with 633,937 patients without RA (mean age 63 years; 88% male). Over 4,481,323 patient‐years, 17,099 incident lung cancers occurred. RA was independently associated with an increased lung cancer risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52–1.64]), which persisted in never smokers (aHR 1.65 [95% CI 1.22–2.24]) and in those with incident RA (aHR 1.54 [95% CI 1.44–1.65]). Compared to non‐RA controls, prevalent RA‐ILD (n = 757) was more strongly associated with lung cancer risk (aHR 3.25 [95% CI 2.13–4.95]) than RA without ILD (aHR 1.57 [95% CI 1.51–1.64]). Analyses of both prevalent and incident RA‐ILD produced similar results (RA‐ILD vs non‐RA aHR 2.88 [95% CI 2.45–3.40]).ConclusionRA was associated with a >50% increased risk of lung cancer, and those with RA‐ILD represented a particularly high‐risk group with an approximate three‐fold increased risk. Increased lung cancer surveillance in RA, and especially RA‐ILD, may be a useful strategy for reducing the burden posed by the leading cause of cancer death.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.