MDedge Rheumatology

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis showed reduced spinal radiographic progression after treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, based on data from 314 adults in a prospective cohort study.

feellife/Thinkstock

Evidence of a link between inflammation and axial damage in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has been reported, and these patients are routinely treated with NSAIDs and TNF inhibitors (TNFi), wrote Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and colleagues.

“However, and despite significant efforts, it remains to be clarified whether there is also an effect of these drugs on axial damage accrual,” they noted.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers recruited consecutive patients from rheumatology practices in Northern Alberta to enroll in the Follow Up Research Cohort in Ankylosing Spondylitis Treatment (ALBERTA FORCAST) observational cohort study. The average age of the patients was 41 years, 74% were men, 83% were HLA-B27 positive, and the average duration of symptoms was 18 years.

Progression was measured via spine radiographs every 2 years for up to 10 years; the radiographs were scored using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS). In addition, the researchers assessed the interaction between TNFi exposure and clinical disease activity using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and the impact on mSASSS every 2 years. The analysis included 442 2-year intervals.

Overall, the researchers found a significant interaction between ASDAS and TNFi at the start of the interval, followed by gradient effect of ASDAS at the start of the interval on mSASSS 2 years later, which was more than twice as high in patients never treated with TNFi (beta = 0.41), compared with patients who were continuously treated with a TNFi (beta = 0.16).

“Similarly, patients treated with TNFi were 30% less likely to develop a new syndesmophyte 2 years later compared to those not treated,” the researchers said.

TNFi also directly slowed progression, as treated patients averaged 0.85 mSASSS units less 2 years later, compared with untreated patients.

Of note, “treatment with NSAIDs during follow-up was neither associated with the outcome nor did it modify or confound the association between TNFi and mSASSS,” the researchers said. In addition, “the direct effect of TNFi on mSASSS was still present after adjusting for a propensity score,” they wrote.

The study results were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of data on long-term treatment effects, and inability to assess individual TNFi drugs separately, the researchers noted.

However, “the present study informs the rheumatology community by addressing the question as to whether or not TNFi inhibit radiographic progression in axSpA and if this effect is mediated solely by their effects on inflammation, as measured by the ASDAS, or whether additional mechanisms may be relevant,” they emphasized.

“A better understanding of these mechanisms might open avenues to further treatment strategies that might finally lead to effective disease modification in axial SpA,” they concluded.

The ALBERTA FORCAST study was supported by AbbVie. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie and other manufacturers of TNFi.

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis showed reduced spinal radiographic progression after treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, based on data from 314 adults in a prospective cohort study.

feellife/Thinkstock

Evidence of a link between inflammation and axial damage in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has been reported, and these patients are routinely treated with NSAIDs and TNF inhibitors (TNFi), wrote Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and colleagues.

“However, and despite significant efforts, it remains to be clarified whether there is also an effect of these drugs on axial damage accrual,” they noted.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers recruited consecutive patients from rheumatology practices in Northern Alberta to enroll in the Follow Up Research Cohort in Ankylosing Spondylitis Treatment (ALBERTA FORCAST) observational cohort study. The average age of the patients was 41 years, 74% were men, 83% were HLA-B27 positive, and the average duration of symptoms was 18 years.

Progression was measured via spine radiographs every 2 years for up to 10 years; the radiographs were scored using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS). In addition, the researchers assessed the interaction between TNFi exposure and clinical disease activity using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and the impact on mSASSS every 2 years. The analysis included 442 2-year intervals.

Overall, the researchers found a significant interaction between ASDAS and TNFi at the start of the interval, followed by gradient effect of ASDAS at the start of the interval on mSASSS 2 years later, which was more than twice as high in patients never treated with TNFi (beta = 0.41), compared with patients who were continuously treated with a TNFi (beta = 0.16).

“Similarly, patients treated with TNFi were 30% less likely to develop a new syndesmophyte 2 years later compared to those not treated,” the researchers said.

TNFi also directly slowed progression, as treated patients averaged 0.85 mSASSS units less 2 years later, compared with untreated patients.

Of note, “treatment with NSAIDs during follow-up was neither associated with the outcome nor did it modify or confound the association between TNFi and mSASSS,” the researchers said. In addition, “the direct effect of TNFi on mSASSS was still present after adjusting for a propensity score,” they wrote.

The study results were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of data on long-term treatment effects, and inability to assess individual TNFi drugs separately, the researchers noted.

However, “the present study informs the rheumatology community by addressing the question as to whether or not TNFi inhibit radiographic progression in axSpA and if this effect is mediated solely by their effects on inflammation, as measured by the ASDAS, or whether additional mechanisms may be relevant,” they emphasized.

“A better understanding of these mechanisms might open avenues to further treatment strategies that might finally lead to effective disease modification in axial SpA,” they concluded.

The ALBERTA FORCAST study was supported by AbbVie. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie and other manufacturers of TNFi.

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis showed reduced spinal radiographic progression after treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, based on data from 314 adults in a prospective cohort study.

feellife/Thinkstock

Evidence of a link between inflammation and axial damage in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has been reported, and these patients are routinely treated with NSAIDs and TNF inhibitors (TNFi), wrote Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and colleagues.

“However, and despite significant efforts, it remains to be clarified whether there is also an effect of these drugs on axial damage accrual,” they noted.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers recruited consecutive patients from rheumatology practices in Northern Alberta to enroll in the Follow Up Research Cohort in Ankylosing Spondylitis Treatment (ALBERTA FORCAST) observational cohort study. The average age of the patients was 41 years, 74% were men, 83% were HLA-B27 positive, and the average duration of symptoms was 18 years.

Progression was measured via spine radiographs every 2 years for up to 10 years; the radiographs were scored using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS). In addition, the researchers assessed the interaction between TNFi exposure and clinical disease activity using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and the impact on mSASSS every 2 years. The analysis included 442 2-year intervals.

Overall, the researchers found a significant interaction between ASDAS and TNFi at the start of the interval, followed by gradient effect of ASDAS at the start of the interval on mSASSS 2 years later, which was more than twice as high in patients never treated with TNFi (beta = 0.41), compared with patients who were continuously treated with a TNFi (beta = 0.16).

“Similarly, patients treated with TNFi were 30% less likely to develop a new syndesmophyte 2 years later compared to those not treated,” the researchers said.

TNFi also directly slowed progression, as treated patients averaged 0.85 mSASSS units less 2 years later, compared with untreated patients.

Of note, “treatment with NSAIDs during follow-up was neither associated with the outcome nor did it modify or confound the association between TNFi and mSASSS,” the researchers said. In addition, “the direct effect of TNFi on mSASSS was still present after adjusting for a propensity score,” they wrote.

The study results were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of data on long-term treatment effects, and inability to assess individual TNFi drugs separately, the researchers noted.

However, “the present study informs the rheumatology community by addressing the question as to whether or not TNFi inhibit radiographic progression in axSpA and if this effect is mediated solely by their effects on inflammation, as measured by the ASDAS, or whether additional mechanisms may be relevant,” they emphasized.

“A better understanding of these mechanisms might open avenues to further treatment strategies that might finally lead to effective disease modification in axial SpA,” they concluded.

The ALBERTA FORCAST study was supported by AbbVie. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie and other manufacturers of TNFi.

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

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

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

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

When 42-year-old Danielle Simone Brand started having hormonal migraines, she first turned to cannabidiol (CBD) oil, eventually adding an occasional pull on a prefilled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) vape for nighttime use. She was careful to avoid THC during work hours. A parenting and cannabis writer, Ms. Brand had more than a cursory background in cannabinoid medicine and had spent time at her local California dispensary discussing various cannabinoid components that might help alleviate her pain.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

A self-professed “do-it-yourselfer,” Ms. Brand continues to use cannabinoids for her monthly headaches, forgoing any other pain medication. “There are times for conventional medicine in partnership with your doctor, but when it comes to health and wellness, women should be empowered to make decisions and self-experiment,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Brand is not alone. Significant numbers of women are replacing or supplementing prescription medications with cannabinoids, often without consulting their primary care physician, ob.gyn., or other specialist. At times, women have tried to have these conversations, only to be met with silence or worse.

Take Linda Fuller, a 58-year-old yoga instructor from Long Island who says that she uses CBD and THC for chronic sacroiliac pain after a car accident and to alleviate stress-triggered eczema flares. “I’ve had doctors turn their backs on me; I’ve had nurse practitioners walk out on me in the middle of a sentence,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Fuller said her conversion to cannabinoid medicine is relatively new; she never used cannabis recreationally before her accident but now considers it a gift. She doesn’t keep aspirin in the house and refused pain medication immediately after she injured her back.

Diana Krach, a 34-year-old writer from Maryland, says she’s encountered roadblocks about her decision to use cannabinoids for endometriosis and for pain from Crohn’s disease. When she tried to discuss her CBD use with a gastroenterologist, he interrupted her: “Whatever pot you’re smoking isn’t going to work, you’re going on biologics.”

Ms. Krach had not been smoking anything but had turned to a CBD tincture for symptom relief after prescription pain medications failed to help.

Ms. Brand, Ms. Fuller, and Ms. Krach are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to women seeking symptom relief outside the medicine cabinet. A recent survey in the Journal of Women’s Health of almost 1,000 women show that 90% (most between the ages of 35 and 44) had used cannabis and would consider using it to treat gynecologic pain. Roughly 80% said they would consider using it for procedure-related pain or other conditions. Additionally, women have reported using cannabinoids for PTSD, sleep disturbances or insomnia, anxiety, and migraine headaches.

Observational survey data have likewise shown that 80% of women with advanced or recurrent gynecologic malignancies who were prescribed cannabis reported that it was equivalent or superior to other medications for relieving pain, neuropathy, nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, and anxiety.

In another survey, almost half (45%) of women with gynecologic malignancies who used nonprescribed cannabis for the same symptoms reported that they had reduced their use of prescription narcotics after initiating use of cannabis.
 

The gray zone

There has been a surge in self-reported cannabis use among pregnant women in particular. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings for the periods 2002-2003 and 2016-2017 highlight increases in adjusted prevalence rates from 3.4% to 7% in past-month use among pregnant women overall and from 5.7% to 12.1% during the first trimester alone.

“The more that you talk to pregnant women, the more that you realize that a lot are using cannabinoids for something that is basically medicinal, for sleep, for anxiety, or for nausea,” Katrina Mark, MD, an ob.gyn. and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, College Park, said in an interview. “I’m not saying it’s fine to use drugs in pregnancy, but it is a grayer conversation than a lot of colleagues want to believe. Telling women to quit seems foolish since the alternative is to be anxious, don’t sleep, don’t eat, or use a medication that also has risks to it.”

One observational study shows that pregnant women themselves are conflicted. Although the majority believe that cannabis is “natural” and “safe,” compared with prescription drugs, they aren’t entirely in the dark about potential risks. They often express frustration with practitioners’ responses when these topics are broached during office visits. An observational survey among women and practitioners published in 2020 highlights that only half of doctors openly discouraged perinatal cannabis use and that others opted out of the discussion entirely.

This is the experience of many of the women that this news organization spoke with. Ms. Krach pointed out that “there’s a big deficit in listening; the doctor is supposed to be working for our behalf, especially when it comes to reproductive health.”

Dr. Mark believed that a lot of the conversation has been clouded by the illegality of the substance but that cannabinoids deserve as much of a fair chance for discussion and consideration as other medicines, which also carry risks in pregnancy. “There’s literally no evidence that it will work in pregnancy [for these symptoms], but there’s no evidence that it doesn’t, either,” she said in an interview. “When I have this conversation with colleagues who do not share my views, I try to encourage them to look at the actual risks versus the benefits versus the alternatives.”

The ‘entourage effect’

Data supporting cannabinoids have been mostly laboratory based, case based, or observational. However, several well-designed (albeit small) trials have demonstrated efficacy for chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic and headache pain, as well as in Crohn’s disease. Most investigators have concluded that dosage is important and that there is a synergistic interaction between compounds (known as the “entourage effect”) that relates to cannabinoid efficacy or lack thereof, as well as possible adverse effects.

In addition to legality issues, the entourage effect is one of the most important factors related to the medical use of cannabinoids. “There are literally thousands of cultivars of cannabis, each with their own phytocannabinoid and terpenic profiles that may produce distinct therapeutic effects, [so] it is misguided to speak of cannabis in monolithic terms. It is like making broad claims about soup,” wrote coauthor Samoon Ahmad, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook.

Additionally, the role that reproductive hormones play is not entirely understood. Reproductive-aged women appear to be more susceptible to a “telescoping” (gender-related progression to dependence) effect in comparison with men. Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She explained that research has shown that factors such as the degree of exposure, frequency of use, and menses confound this susceptibility.
 

It’s the data

Frustration over cannabinoid therapeutics abound, especially when it comes to data, legal issues, and lack of training. “The feedback that I hear from providers is that there isn’t enough information; we just don’t know enough about it,” Dr. Mark said, “but there is information that we do have, and ignoring it is not beneficial.”

Dr. Cooper concurred. Although she readily acknowledges that data from randomized, placebo-controlled trials are mostly lacking, she says, “There are signals in the literature providing evidence for the utility of cannabis and cannabinoids for pain and some other effects.”

Other practitioners said in an interview that some patients admit to using cannabinoids but that they lack the ample information to guide these patients. By and large, many women equate “natural” with “safe,” and some will experiment on their own to see what works.

Those experiments are not without risk, which is why “it’s just as important for physicians to talk to their patients about cannabis use as it is for patients to be forthcoming about that use,” said Dr. Cooper. “It could have implications on their overall health as well as interactions with other drugs that they’re using.”

That balance from a clinical perspective on cannabis is crucial, wrote coauthor Kenneth Hill, MD, in Medical Marijuana: A Clinical Handbook. “Without it,” he wrote, “the window of opportunity for a patient to accept treatment that she needs may not be open very long.”

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

The SARS-CoV-2 variant first detected in the United Kingdom is rapidly becoming the dominant strain in several countries and is doubling every 10 days in the United States, according to new data.

The findings by Nicole L. Washington, PhD, associate director of research at the genomics company Helix, and colleagues were posted Feb. 7, 2021, on the preprint server medRxiv. The paper has not been peer-reviewed in a scientific journal.

The researchers also found that the transmission rate in the United States of the variant, labeled B.1.1.7, is 30%-40% higher than that of more common lineages.

While clinical outcomes initially were thought to be similar to those of other SARS-CoV-2 variants, early reports suggest that infection with the B.1.1.7 variant may increase death risk by about 30%. 

A coauthor of the current study, Kristian Andersen, PhD, told the New York Times , “Nothing in this paper is surprising, but people need to see it.”

Dr. Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., added that “we should probably prepare for this being the predominant lineage in most places in the United States by March.”

The study of the B.1.1.7 variant adds support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prediction in January that it would dominate by March.

“Our study shows that the U.S. is on a similar trajectory as other countries where B.1.1.7 rapidly became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant, requiring immediate and decisive action to minimize COVID-19 morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

The authors pointed out that the B.1.1.7 variant became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 strain in the United Kingdom within a couple of months of its detection.

“Since then, the variant has been increasingly observed across many European countries, including Portugal and Ireland, which, like the U.K., observed devastating waves of COVID-19 after B.1.1.7 became dominant,” the authors wrote.
 

“Category 5” storm

The B.1.1.7 variant has likely been spreading between U.S. states since at least December, they wrote.

This news organization reported on Jan. 15 that, as of Jan. 13, the B.1.1.7 variant was seen in 76 cases across 12 U.S. states, according to an early release of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

As of Feb. 7, there were 690 cases of the B.1.1.7 variant in the US in 33 states, according to the CDC.

Dr. Washington and colleagues examined more than 500,000 coronavirus test samples from cases across the United States that were tested at San Mateo, Calif.–based Helix facilities since July.

In the study, they found inconsistent prevalence of the variant across states. By the last week in January, the researchers estimated the proportion of B.1.1.7 in the U.S. population to be about 2.1% of all COVID-19 cases, though they found it made up about 2% of all COVID-19 cases in California and about 4.5% of cases in Florida. The authors acknowledged that their data is less robust outside of those two states.

Though that seems a relatively low frequency, “our estimates show that its growth rate is at least 35%-45% increased and doubling every week and a half,” the authors wrote.

“Because laboratories in the U.S. are only sequencing a small subset of SARS-CoV-2 samples, the true sequence diversity of SARS-CoV-2 in this country is still unknown,” they noted.

Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said last week that the United States is facing a “Category 5” storm with the spread of the B.1.1.7 variant as well as the variants first identified in South Africa and Brazil.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Dr. Osterholm said recently on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Lead author Nicole L. Washington and many of the coauthors are employees of Helix. Other coauthors are employees of Illumina. Three coauthors own stock in ILMN. The work was funded by Illumina, Helix, the Innovative Genomics Institute, and the New Frontiers in Research Fund provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 variant first detected in the United Kingdom is rapidly becoming the dominant strain in several countries and is doubling every 10 days in the United States, according to new data.

The findings by Nicole L. Washington, PhD, associate director of research at the genomics company Helix, and colleagues were posted Feb. 7, 2021, on the preprint server medRxiv. The paper has not been peer-reviewed in a scientific journal.

The researchers also found that the transmission rate in the United States of the variant, labeled B.1.1.7, is 30%-40% higher than that of more common lineages.

While clinical outcomes initially were thought to be similar to those of other SARS-CoV-2 variants, early reports suggest that infection with the B.1.1.7 variant may increase death risk by about 30%. 

A coauthor of the current study, Kristian Andersen, PhD, told the New York Times , “Nothing in this paper is surprising, but people need to see it.”

Dr. Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., added that “we should probably prepare for this being the predominant lineage in most places in the United States by March.”

The study of the B.1.1.7 variant adds support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prediction in January that it would dominate by March.

“Our study shows that the U.S. is on a similar trajectory as other countries where B.1.1.7 rapidly became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant, requiring immediate and decisive action to minimize COVID-19 morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

The authors pointed out that the B.1.1.7 variant became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 strain in the United Kingdom within a couple of months of its detection.

“Since then, the variant has been increasingly observed across many European countries, including Portugal and Ireland, which, like the U.K., observed devastating waves of COVID-19 after B.1.1.7 became dominant,” the authors wrote.
 

“Category 5” storm

The B.1.1.7 variant has likely been spreading between U.S. states since at least December, they wrote.

This news organization reported on Jan. 15 that, as of Jan. 13, the B.1.1.7 variant was seen in 76 cases across 12 U.S. states, according to an early release of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

As of Feb. 7, there were 690 cases of the B.1.1.7 variant in the US in 33 states, according to the CDC.

Dr. Washington and colleagues examined more than 500,000 coronavirus test samples from cases across the United States that were tested at San Mateo, Calif.–based Helix facilities since July.

In the study, they found inconsistent prevalence of the variant across states. By the last week in January, the researchers estimated the proportion of B.1.1.7 in the U.S. population to be about 2.1% of all COVID-19 cases, though they found it made up about 2% of all COVID-19 cases in California and about 4.5% of cases in Florida. The authors acknowledged that their data is less robust outside of those two states.

Though that seems a relatively low frequency, “our estimates show that its growth rate is at least 35%-45% increased and doubling every week and a half,” the authors wrote.

“Because laboratories in the U.S. are only sequencing a small subset of SARS-CoV-2 samples, the true sequence diversity of SARS-CoV-2 in this country is still unknown,” they noted.

Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said last week that the United States is facing a “Category 5” storm with the spread of the B.1.1.7 variant as well as the variants first identified in South Africa and Brazil.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Dr. Osterholm said recently on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Lead author Nicole L. Washington and many of the coauthors are employees of Helix. Other coauthors are employees of Illumina. Three coauthors own stock in ILMN. The work was funded by Illumina, Helix, the Innovative Genomics Institute, and the New Frontiers in Research Fund provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 variant first detected in the United Kingdom is rapidly becoming the dominant strain in several countries and is doubling every 10 days in the United States, according to new data.

The findings by Nicole L. Washington, PhD, associate director of research at the genomics company Helix, and colleagues were posted Feb. 7, 2021, on the preprint server medRxiv. The paper has not been peer-reviewed in a scientific journal.

The researchers also found that the transmission rate in the United States of the variant, labeled B.1.1.7, is 30%-40% higher than that of more common lineages.

While clinical outcomes initially were thought to be similar to those of other SARS-CoV-2 variants, early reports suggest that infection with the B.1.1.7 variant may increase death risk by about 30%. 

A coauthor of the current study, Kristian Andersen, PhD, told the New York Times , “Nothing in this paper is surprising, but people need to see it.”

Dr. Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., added that “we should probably prepare for this being the predominant lineage in most places in the United States by March.”

The study of the B.1.1.7 variant adds support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prediction in January that it would dominate by March.

“Our study shows that the U.S. is on a similar trajectory as other countries where B.1.1.7 rapidly became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant, requiring immediate and decisive action to minimize COVID-19 morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

The authors pointed out that the B.1.1.7 variant became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 strain in the United Kingdom within a couple of months of its detection.

“Since then, the variant has been increasingly observed across many European countries, including Portugal and Ireland, which, like the U.K., observed devastating waves of COVID-19 after B.1.1.7 became dominant,” the authors wrote.
 

“Category 5” storm

The B.1.1.7 variant has likely been spreading between U.S. states since at least December, they wrote.

This news organization reported on Jan. 15 that, as of Jan. 13, the B.1.1.7 variant was seen in 76 cases across 12 U.S. states, according to an early release of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

As of Feb. 7, there were 690 cases of the B.1.1.7 variant in the US in 33 states, according to the CDC.

Dr. Washington and colleagues examined more than 500,000 coronavirus test samples from cases across the United States that were tested at San Mateo, Calif.–based Helix facilities since July.

In the study, they found inconsistent prevalence of the variant across states. By the last week in January, the researchers estimated the proportion of B.1.1.7 in the U.S. population to be about 2.1% of all COVID-19 cases, though they found it made up about 2% of all COVID-19 cases in California and about 4.5% of cases in Florida. The authors acknowledged that their data is less robust outside of those two states.

Though that seems a relatively low frequency, “our estimates show that its growth rate is at least 35%-45% increased and doubling every week and a half,” the authors wrote.

“Because laboratories in the U.S. are only sequencing a small subset of SARS-CoV-2 samples, the true sequence diversity of SARS-CoV-2 in this country is still unknown,” they noted.

Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said last week that the United States is facing a “Category 5” storm with the spread of the B.1.1.7 variant as well as the variants first identified in South Africa and Brazil.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Dr. Osterholm said recently on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Lead author Nicole L. Washington and many of the coauthors are employees of Helix. Other coauthors are employees of Illumina. Three coauthors own stock in ILMN. The work was funded by Illumina, Helix, the Innovative Genomics Institute, and the New Frontiers in Research Fund provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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

The emergence of multiple inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in association with COVID-19 may be complicating the investigation and diagnosis of more common viral and bacterial infections, potentially delaying treatment and prolonging hospital stays.

Two recent articles published online in Hospital Pediatrics provide evidence of this phenomenon. The articles outlined case studies of children who underwent extensive investigation for MIS-C when in fact they had less severe and more common infections. MIS-C is a severe but rare syndrome that involves systemic hyperinflammation with fever and multisystem organ dysfunction similar to that of Kawasaki disease (KD).

In one of the articles, Matthew Molloy, MD, MPH, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues aptly asked: “What are we missing in our search for MIS-C?”
 

E. coli, not SARS-CoV-2

That question arose from a case involving a 3-year-old boy who had a 6-day history of fever and fatigue. Three days earlier, he had tested negative for strep antigen and COVID-19. He had a persistent, high fever, reduced appetite, and reduced urine output and was taken to the ED. On physical examination, there was no rash, skin peeling, redness of the eye or oral mucosa, congestion, rhinorrhea, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea.

Urinalysis results and exam findings were suspicious for pyelonephritis. Other findings from an extensive laboratory workup raised the alarm that the boy was suffering from MIS-C as opposed to incomplete KD. After admission to hospital medicine, the cardiology, rheumatology, and infectious disease teams were called in to consult.

Repeat labs were planned for the following day before initiating therapy. On day 2, the child’s urine culture was positive for gram-negative rods, later identified as Escherichia coli. The boy was started on ceftriaxone. Left renal scarring was apparent on ultrasound. The patient’s condition resolved after 36 hours, and he was discharged home with antibiotics.
 

‘Diagnosis derailed’

Calling this a case of “diagnosis derailed,” the authors noted that, in the pre-COVID era, this child’s signs and symptoms would likely have triggered a more targeted and less costly evaluation for more common infectious and noninfectious causes, including pyelonephritis, absent any physical exam findings consistent with KD.

“However, the patient presented in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic with growing awareness of a new clinical entity,” Dr. Molloy and colleagues wrote. “Anchored to the patient’s persistent fever, the medical team initiated an extensive, costly, and ultimately unnecessary workup to avoid missing the diagnosis of MIS-C; a not yet well-described diagnosis with potentially severe morbidity.”

Confirmation bias and diagnostic momentum likely contributed to the early focus on MIS-C rather than more common alternatives, the authors acknowledged. The addition of mildly abnormal laboratory data not typically obtained in the evaluation of fever led the team astray. “The diagnosis and definitive treatment may have been made earlier had the focus on concern for MIS-C not been present,” Dr. Molloy said in an interview.
 

Keeping value in care

The authors recognized that their initial approach to evaluating for MIS-C provided low-value care. “In our desire to not ‘miss’ MIS-C, we were performing costly evaluations that at times produced mildly abnormal, nonspecific results,” they wrote. That triggered a cascade of specialty consultations, follow-up testing, and an unwarranted diagnostic preoccupation with MIS-C.

Determining the extra price tag for the child’s workup would be complex and difficult because there is a difference in the cost to the hospital and the cost to the family, Dr. Molloy said. “However, there are potential cost savings that would be related to making a correct diagnosis in a timely manner in terms of preventing downstream effects from delayed diagnoses.”

Even as clinicians struggle with the challenging SARS-CoV-2 learning curve, Dr. Molloy and associates urged them to continue to strive for high-value care, with an unwavering focus on using only necessary resources, a stewardship the pandemic has shown to be critical.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has been an incredibly stressful time for physicians and for families,” Dr. Molloy said. “COVID-19 and related conditions like MIS-C are new, and we are learning more and more about them every week. These diagnoses are understandably on the minds of physicians and families when children present with fever.” Notwithstanding, the boy’s case underscores the need for clinicians to consider alternate diagnoses and the value of the care provided.
 

Impact of bias

Dr. Molloy’s group brings home the cognitive biases practitioners often suffer from, including anchoring and confirmation bias and diagnostic momentum, according to J. Howard Smart, MD, chief of pediatrics at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns, San Diego, and an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Diego.

“But it is one thing to recognize these in retrospect and quite another to consider whether they may be happening to you yourself in real time,” he said in an interview. “It is almost as if we need to have a ‘time out,’ where we stop and ask ourselves whether there is something else that could be explaining our patient’s presentation, something that would be more common and more likely to be occurring.”

According to Dr. Smart, who was not involved in Dr. Molloy’s study, the team’s premature diagnostic focus on MIS-C was almost the inverse of what typically happens with KD. “It is usually the case that Kawasaki disease does not enter the differential diagnosis until late in the course of the fever, typically on day 5 or later, when it may have been better to think of it earlier,” he said.

In the second article, Andrea Dean, MD, of the department of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, and colleagues outlined the cases of five patients aged 8-17 years who were hospitalized in May 2020 for suspected MIS-C. They exhibited inflammatory and other concerning indicators but were eventually discharged with a diagnosis of murine typhus.

This flea-borne infection, most commonly reported in the United States in the southeastern Gulf Coast region, Hawaii, and California, is often associated with a triad of fever, rash, and headache.

Cases have been rising in southern Texas, and Dr. Dean and colleagues postulated that school closures and social distancing may have increased exposure as a result of children spending more time outdoors or with pets. “Alternatively, parental concern for SARS-CoV-2 infection could mean children with symptoms are presenting to care and being referred or admitted to the hospital more frequently due to provider concern for MIS-C,” they wrote.
 

Cardiac involvement

The most concerning of the five cases in terms of possible MIS-C, Dr. Dean said in an interview, was that of a 12-year-old boy who had fever for 6 days in association with headache, eczematous rash, dry lips, and conjunctivitis. Laboratory tests showed a mildly elevated C-reactive protein level, hyponatremia, and thrombocytopenia, as well as sterile pyuria and mildly elevated prothrombin time. He was treated empirically with doxycycline, and his fever resolved over the next 24 hours.

An echocardiogram at initial evaluation, however, revealed mild dilation of the left anterior descending and right coronary arteries, which led to the administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and aspirin for atypical KD, in contrast to MIS-C. The authors postulated that mild cardiac involvement in disorders other than MIS-C and KD may be underrecognized.

The lesson from these cases, Dr. Dean and associates concluded, is that hospitalists must maintain a wide differential diagnosis when assessing a child with prolonged fever and evidence of systemic inflammation. The CDC stipulates that a diagnosis of MIS-C requires the absence of a plausible alternative diagnosis.

In addition to common viral, bacterial, and noninfectious disorders, a range of regional endemic rickettsial and parasitic infections must be considered as alternative diagnoses to MIS-C. “Many of these diseases cannot be reliably differentiated from MIS-C on presentation, and as community exposure to SARS-CoV-2 grows, hospitalists should be prepared to admit febrile children with evidence of systemic inflammation for brief observation periods to evaluate for MIS-C,” Dr. Dean’s group wrote. In this context, however, empiric treatment for common or even uncommon infectious diseases may avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS-C as well as improve patient outcomes.

“We do have specific MIS-C guidelines at our institution,” Dr. Dean said, “but like all institutions, we are dealing with the broad definition of MIS-C according to the World Health Organization and the CDC, which is really the takeaway from this paper.”
 

More difficult differentiation

Both groups of authors pointed out that, as SARS-CoV-2 spreads throughout a community, a higher percentage of the population will have positive results on antibody testing, and such results will become less useful for differentiating between MIS-C and other conditions.

Despite these series’ cautionary lessons, other experts point to the critical importance of including MIS-C early on in the interest of efficient diagnosis and therapy. “In the cases cited, other pathologies were evaluated for and treated accordingly,” said Kara Gross Margolis, MD, AGAF, an associate professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital,New York. “These papers stress the need for a balance that is important, and all potential diagnoses need to be considered, but MIS-C, due to its potential severe consequences, also needs to be on our differential now.”

In her view, as this new high-morbidity entity becomes more widespread during the pandemic, it will be increasingly important to keep this condition on the diagnostic radar.

Interestingly, in a converse example of diagnostic clouding, Dr. Gross Margolis’s group reported (Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct;159[4]:1571-4.e2) last year on a pediatric case series in which the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with COVID-19–related MIS-C muddied the diagnosis by confusing this potentially severe syndrome with more common and less toxic gastrointestinal infections.

According to Dr. Smart, although the two reports don’t offer evidence for a particular diagnostic practice, they can inform the decision-making process. “It may be that we will have enough evidence shortly to say what the best practice is regarding diagnostic evaluation of possible MIS-C cases,” he said. “Until then, we must remember that common things occur commonly, even during a global pandemic.”

Neither of the two reports received any specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The emergence of multiple inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in association with COVID-19 may be complicating the investigation and diagnosis of more common viral and bacterial infections, potentially delaying treatment and prolonging hospital stays.

Two recent articles published online in Hospital Pediatrics provide evidence of this phenomenon. The articles outlined case studies of children who underwent extensive investigation for MIS-C when in fact they had less severe and more common infections. MIS-C is a severe but rare syndrome that involves systemic hyperinflammation with fever and multisystem organ dysfunction similar to that of Kawasaki disease (KD).

In one of the articles, Matthew Molloy, MD, MPH, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues aptly asked: “What are we missing in our search for MIS-C?”
 

E. coli, not SARS-CoV-2

That question arose from a case involving a 3-year-old boy who had a 6-day history of fever and fatigue. Three days earlier, he had tested negative for strep antigen and COVID-19. He had a persistent, high fever, reduced appetite, and reduced urine output and was taken to the ED. On physical examination, there was no rash, skin peeling, redness of the eye or oral mucosa, congestion, rhinorrhea, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea.

Urinalysis results and exam findings were suspicious for pyelonephritis. Other findings from an extensive laboratory workup raised the alarm that the boy was suffering from MIS-C as opposed to incomplete KD. After admission to hospital medicine, the cardiology, rheumatology, and infectious disease teams were called in to consult.

Repeat labs were planned for the following day before initiating therapy. On day 2, the child’s urine culture was positive for gram-negative rods, later identified as Escherichia coli. The boy was started on ceftriaxone. Left renal scarring was apparent on ultrasound. The patient’s condition resolved after 36 hours, and he was discharged home with antibiotics.
 

‘Diagnosis derailed’

Calling this a case of “diagnosis derailed,” the authors noted that, in the pre-COVID era, this child’s signs and symptoms would likely have triggered a more targeted and less costly evaluation for more common infectious and noninfectious causes, including pyelonephritis, absent any physical exam findings consistent with KD.

“However, the patient presented in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic with growing awareness of a new clinical entity,” Dr. Molloy and colleagues wrote. “Anchored to the patient’s persistent fever, the medical team initiated an extensive, costly, and ultimately unnecessary workup to avoid missing the diagnosis of MIS-C; a not yet well-described diagnosis with potentially severe morbidity.”

Confirmation bias and diagnostic momentum likely contributed to the early focus on MIS-C rather than more common alternatives, the authors acknowledged. The addition of mildly abnormal laboratory data not typically obtained in the evaluation of fever led the team astray. “The diagnosis and definitive treatment may have been made earlier had the focus on concern for MIS-C not been present,” Dr. Molloy said in an interview.
 

Keeping value in care

The authors recognized that their initial approach to evaluating for MIS-C provided low-value care. “In our desire to not ‘miss’ MIS-C, we were performing costly evaluations that at times produced mildly abnormal, nonspecific results,” they wrote. That triggered a cascade of specialty consultations, follow-up testing, and an unwarranted diagnostic preoccupation with MIS-C.

Determining the extra price tag for the child’s workup would be complex and difficult because there is a difference in the cost to the hospital and the cost to the family, Dr. Molloy said. “However, there are potential cost savings that would be related to making a correct diagnosis in a timely manner in terms of preventing downstream effects from delayed diagnoses.”

Even as clinicians struggle with the challenging SARS-CoV-2 learning curve, Dr. Molloy and associates urged them to continue to strive for high-value care, with an unwavering focus on using only necessary resources, a stewardship the pandemic has shown to be critical.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has been an incredibly stressful time for physicians and for families,” Dr. Molloy said. “COVID-19 and related conditions like MIS-C are new, and we are learning more and more about them every week. These diagnoses are understandably on the minds of physicians and families when children present with fever.” Notwithstanding, the boy’s case underscores the need for clinicians to consider alternate diagnoses and the value of the care provided.
 

Impact of bias

Dr. Molloy’s group brings home the cognitive biases practitioners often suffer from, including anchoring and confirmation bias and diagnostic momentum, according to J. Howard Smart, MD, chief of pediatrics at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns, San Diego, and an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Diego.

“But it is one thing to recognize these in retrospect and quite another to consider whether they may be happening to you yourself in real time,” he said in an interview. “It is almost as if we need to have a ‘time out,’ where we stop and ask ourselves whether there is something else that could be explaining our patient’s presentation, something that would be more common and more likely to be occurring.”

According to Dr. Smart, who was not involved in Dr. Molloy’s study, the team’s premature diagnostic focus on MIS-C was almost the inverse of what typically happens with KD. “It is usually the case that Kawasaki disease does not enter the differential diagnosis until late in the course of the fever, typically on day 5 or later, when it may have been better to think of it earlier,” he said.

In the second article, Andrea Dean, MD, of the department of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, and colleagues outlined the cases of five patients aged 8-17 years who were hospitalized in May 2020 for suspected MIS-C. They exhibited inflammatory and other concerning indicators but were eventually discharged with a diagnosis of murine typhus.

This flea-borne infection, most commonly reported in the United States in the southeastern Gulf Coast region, Hawaii, and California, is often associated with a triad of fever, rash, and headache.

Cases have been rising in southern Texas, and Dr. Dean and colleagues postulated that school closures and social distancing may have increased exposure as a result of children spending more time outdoors or with pets. “Alternatively, parental concern for SARS-CoV-2 infection could mean children with symptoms are presenting to care and being referred or admitted to the hospital more frequently due to provider concern for MIS-C,” they wrote.
 

Cardiac involvement

The most concerning of the five cases in terms of possible MIS-C, Dr. Dean said in an interview, was that of a 12-year-old boy who had fever for 6 days in association with headache, eczematous rash, dry lips, and conjunctivitis. Laboratory tests showed a mildly elevated C-reactive protein level, hyponatremia, and thrombocytopenia, as well as sterile pyuria and mildly elevated prothrombin time. He was treated empirically with doxycycline, and his fever resolved over the next 24 hours.

An echocardiogram at initial evaluation, however, revealed mild dilation of the left anterior descending and right coronary arteries, which led to the administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and aspirin for atypical KD, in contrast to MIS-C. The authors postulated that mild cardiac involvement in disorders other than MIS-C and KD may be underrecognized.

The lesson from these cases, Dr. Dean and associates concluded, is that hospitalists must maintain a wide differential diagnosis when assessing a child with prolonged fever and evidence of systemic inflammation. The CDC stipulates that a diagnosis of MIS-C requires the absence of a plausible alternative diagnosis.

In addition to common viral, bacterial, and noninfectious disorders, a range of regional endemic rickettsial and parasitic infections must be considered as alternative diagnoses to MIS-C. “Many of these diseases cannot be reliably differentiated from MIS-C on presentation, and as community exposure to SARS-CoV-2 grows, hospitalists should be prepared to admit febrile children with evidence of systemic inflammation for brief observation periods to evaluate for MIS-C,” Dr. Dean’s group wrote. In this context, however, empiric treatment for common or even uncommon infectious diseases may avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS-C as well as improve patient outcomes.

“We do have specific MIS-C guidelines at our institution,” Dr. Dean said, “but like all institutions, we are dealing with the broad definition of MIS-C according to the World Health Organization and the CDC, which is really the takeaway from this paper.”
 

More difficult differentiation

Both groups of authors pointed out that, as SARS-CoV-2 spreads throughout a community, a higher percentage of the population will have positive results on antibody testing, and such results will become less useful for differentiating between MIS-C and other conditions.

Despite these series’ cautionary lessons, other experts point to the critical importance of including MIS-C early on in the interest of efficient diagnosis and therapy. “In the cases cited, other pathologies were evaluated for and treated accordingly,” said Kara Gross Margolis, MD, AGAF, an associate professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital,New York. “These papers stress the need for a balance that is important, and all potential diagnoses need to be considered, but MIS-C, due to its potential severe consequences, also needs to be on our differential now.”

In her view, as this new high-morbidity entity becomes more widespread during the pandemic, it will be increasingly important to keep this condition on the diagnostic radar.

Interestingly, in a converse example of diagnostic clouding, Dr. Gross Margolis’s group reported (Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct;159[4]:1571-4.e2) last year on a pediatric case series in which the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with COVID-19–related MIS-C muddied the diagnosis by confusing this potentially severe syndrome with more common and less toxic gastrointestinal infections.

According to Dr. Smart, although the two reports don’t offer evidence for a particular diagnostic practice, they can inform the decision-making process. “It may be that we will have enough evidence shortly to say what the best practice is regarding diagnostic evaluation of possible MIS-C cases,” he said. “Until then, we must remember that common things occur commonly, even during a global pandemic.”

Neither of the two reports received any specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The emergence of multiple inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in association with COVID-19 may be complicating the investigation and diagnosis of more common viral and bacterial infections, potentially delaying treatment and prolonging hospital stays.

Two recent articles published online in Hospital Pediatrics provide evidence of this phenomenon. The articles outlined case studies of children who underwent extensive investigation for MIS-C when in fact they had less severe and more common infections. MIS-C is a severe but rare syndrome that involves systemic hyperinflammation with fever and multisystem organ dysfunction similar to that of Kawasaki disease (KD).

In one of the articles, Matthew Molloy, MD, MPH, of the division of pediatric hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues aptly asked: “What are we missing in our search for MIS-C?”
 

E. coli, not SARS-CoV-2

That question arose from a case involving a 3-year-old boy who had a 6-day history of fever and fatigue. Three days earlier, he had tested negative for strep antigen and COVID-19. He had a persistent, high fever, reduced appetite, and reduced urine output and was taken to the ED. On physical examination, there was no rash, skin peeling, redness of the eye or oral mucosa, congestion, rhinorrhea, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea.

Urinalysis results and exam findings were suspicious for pyelonephritis. Other findings from an extensive laboratory workup raised the alarm that the boy was suffering from MIS-C as opposed to incomplete KD. After admission to hospital medicine, the cardiology, rheumatology, and infectious disease teams were called in to consult.

Repeat labs were planned for the following day before initiating therapy. On day 2, the child’s urine culture was positive for gram-negative rods, later identified as Escherichia coli. The boy was started on ceftriaxone. Left renal scarring was apparent on ultrasound. The patient’s condition resolved after 36 hours, and he was discharged home with antibiotics.
 

‘Diagnosis derailed’

Calling this a case of “diagnosis derailed,” the authors noted that, in the pre-COVID era, this child’s signs and symptoms would likely have triggered a more targeted and less costly evaluation for more common infectious and noninfectious causes, including pyelonephritis, absent any physical exam findings consistent with KD.

“However, the patient presented in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic with growing awareness of a new clinical entity,” Dr. Molloy and colleagues wrote. “Anchored to the patient’s persistent fever, the medical team initiated an extensive, costly, and ultimately unnecessary workup to avoid missing the diagnosis of MIS-C; a not yet well-described diagnosis with potentially severe morbidity.”

Confirmation bias and diagnostic momentum likely contributed to the early focus on MIS-C rather than more common alternatives, the authors acknowledged. The addition of mildly abnormal laboratory data not typically obtained in the evaluation of fever led the team astray. “The diagnosis and definitive treatment may have been made earlier had the focus on concern for MIS-C not been present,” Dr. Molloy said in an interview.
 

Keeping value in care

The authors recognized that their initial approach to evaluating for MIS-C provided low-value care. “In our desire to not ‘miss’ MIS-C, we were performing costly evaluations that at times produced mildly abnormal, nonspecific results,” they wrote. That triggered a cascade of specialty consultations, follow-up testing, and an unwarranted diagnostic preoccupation with MIS-C.

Determining the extra price tag for the child’s workup would be complex and difficult because there is a difference in the cost to the hospital and the cost to the family, Dr. Molloy said. “However, there are potential cost savings that would be related to making a correct diagnosis in a timely manner in terms of preventing downstream effects from delayed diagnoses.”

Even as clinicians struggle with the challenging SARS-CoV-2 learning curve, Dr. Molloy and associates urged them to continue to strive for high-value care, with an unwavering focus on using only necessary resources, a stewardship the pandemic has shown to be critical.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has been an incredibly stressful time for physicians and for families,” Dr. Molloy said. “COVID-19 and related conditions like MIS-C are new, and we are learning more and more about them every week. These diagnoses are understandably on the minds of physicians and families when children present with fever.” Notwithstanding, the boy’s case underscores the need for clinicians to consider alternate diagnoses and the value of the care provided.
 

Impact of bias

Dr. Molloy’s group brings home the cognitive biases practitioners often suffer from, including anchoring and confirmation bias and diagnostic momentum, according to J. Howard Smart, MD, chief of pediatrics at Sharp Mary Birch Hospital for Women and Newborns, San Diego, and an assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Diego.

“But it is one thing to recognize these in retrospect and quite another to consider whether they may be happening to you yourself in real time,” he said in an interview. “It is almost as if we need to have a ‘time out,’ where we stop and ask ourselves whether there is something else that could be explaining our patient’s presentation, something that would be more common and more likely to be occurring.”

According to Dr. Smart, who was not involved in Dr. Molloy’s study, the team’s premature diagnostic focus on MIS-C was almost the inverse of what typically happens with KD. “It is usually the case that Kawasaki disease does not enter the differential diagnosis until late in the course of the fever, typically on day 5 or later, when it may have been better to think of it earlier,” he said.

In the second article, Andrea Dean, MD, of the department of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston, and colleagues outlined the cases of five patients aged 8-17 years who were hospitalized in May 2020 for suspected MIS-C. They exhibited inflammatory and other concerning indicators but were eventually discharged with a diagnosis of murine typhus.

This flea-borne infection, most commonly reported in the United States in the southeastern Gulf Coast region, Hawaii, and California, is often associated with a triad of fever, rash, and headache.

Cases have been rising in southern Texas, and Dr. Dean and colleagues postulated that school closures and social distancing may have increased exposure as a result of children spending more time outdoors or with pets. “Alternatively, parental concern for SARS-CoV-2 infection could mean children with symptoms are presenting to care and being referred or admitted to the hospital more frequently due to provider concern for MIS-C,” they wrote.
 

Cardiac involvement

The most concerning of the five cases in terms of possible MIS-C, Dr. Dean said in an interview, was that of a 12-year-old boy who had fever for 6 days in association with headache, eczematous rash, dry lips, and conjunctivitis. Laboratory tests showed a mildly elevated C-reactive protein level, hyponatremia, and thrombocytopenia, as well as sterile pyuria and mildly elevated prothrombin time. He was treated empirically with doxycycline, and his fever resolved over the next 24 hours.

An echocardiogram at initial evaluation, however, revealed mild dilation of the left anterior descending and right coronary arteries, which led to the administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and aspirin for atypical KD, in contrast to MIS-C. The authors postulated that mild cardiac involvement in disorders other than MIS-C and KD may be underrecognized.

The lesson from these cases, Dr. Dean and associates concluded, is that hospitalists must maintain a wide differential diagnosis when assessing a child with prolonged fever and evidence of systemic inflammation. The CDC stipulates that a diagnosis of MIS-C requires the absence of a plausible alternative diagnosis.

In addition to common viral, bacterial, and noninfectious disorders, a range of regional endemic rickettsial and parasitic infections must be considered as alternative diagnoses to MIS-C. “Many of these diseases cannot be reliably differentiated from MIS-C on presentation, and as community exposure to SARS-CoV-2 grows, hospitalists should be prepared to admit febrile children with evidence of systemic inflammation for brief observation periods to evaluate for MIS-C,” Dr. Dean’s group wrote. In this context, however, empiric treatment for common or even uncommon infectious diseases may avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment of MIS-C as well as improve patient outcomes.

“We do have specific MIS-C guidelines at our institution,” Dr. Dean said, “but like all institutions, we are dealing with the broad definition of MIS-C according to the World Health Organization and the CDC, which is really the takeaway from this paper.”
 

More difficult differentiation

Both groups of authors pointed out that, as SARS-CoV-2 spreads throughout a community, a higher percentage of the population will have positive results on antibody testing, and such results will become less useful for differentiating between MIS-C and other conditions.

Despite these series’ cautionary lessons, other experts point to the critical importance of including MIS-C early on in the interest of efficient diagnosis and therapy. “In the cases cited, other pathologies were evaluated for and treated accordingly,” said Kara Gross Margolis, MD, AGAF, an associate professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital,New York. “These papers stress the need for a balance that is important, and all potential diagnoses need to be considered, but MIS-C, due to its potential severe consequences, also needs to be on our differential now.”

In her view, as this new high-morbidity entity becomes more widespread during the pandemic, it will be increasingly important to keep this condition on the diagnostic radar.

Interestingly, in a converse example of diagnostic clouding, Dr. Gross Margolis’s group reported (Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct;159[4]:1571-4.e2) last year on a pediatric case series in which the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with COVID-19–related MIS-C muddied the diagnosis by confusing this potentially severe syndrome with more common and less toxic gastrointestinal infections.

According to Dr. Smart, although the two reports don’t offer evidence for a particular diagnostic practice, they can inform the decision-making process. “It may be that we will have enough evidence shortly to say what the best practice is regarding diagnostic evaluation of possible MIS-C cases,” he said. “Until then, we must remember that common things occur commonly, even during a global pandemic.”

Neither of the two reports received any specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

States that implemented mask mandates in 2020 saw a decline in the growth of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March and October 2020, according to a new study published Feb. 5 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points for adults between ages 18-64 about 3 weeks after the mandates were implemented, compared with climbing growth rates in the 4 weeks before mandates.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said she was pleased to see the results, but that it’s “too early” to tell whether President Joe Biden’s recent mask orders have had an effect on cases and hospitalizations in 2021.

“We’re going to be watching the mask data very carefully,” she said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team on Feb. 5. “I think it’s probably still a bit too early to tell, but I’m encouraged with the decrease in case rates right now.”

In another study published Feb. 5 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, trained observers tracked mask use at six universities with mask mandates between September and November 2020. Overall, observers reported that about 92% of people wore masks correctly indoors, which varied based on the type of mask.

About 97% of people used N95 masks correctly, compared with 92% who used cloth masks, and 79% who used bandanas, scarves, or neck gaiters. Cloth masks were most common, and bandanas and scarves were least common.

The Biden administration is considering whether to send masks directly to American households to encourage people to wear them, according to NBC News. The White House COVID-19 Response Team is debating the logistics of mailing out masks, including how many to send and what the mask material would be, the news outlet reported.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers reissued a new statewide mask mandate on Feb. 4, just an hour after the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal his previous mandate, according to The Associated Press. Gov. Evers said his priority is to keep people safe and that wearing a mask is the easiest way to do so.

“If the legislature keeps playing politics and we don’t keep wearing masks, we’re going to see more preventable deaths,” he said. “It’s going to take even longer to get our state and our economy back on track.”

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

States that implemented mask mandates in 2020 saw a decline in the growth of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March and October 2020, according to a new study published Feb. 5 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points for adults between ages 18-64 about 3 weeks after the mandates were implemented, compared with climbing growth rates in the 4 weeks before mandates.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said she was pleased to see the results, but that it’s “too early” to tell whether President Joe Biden’s recent mask orders have had an effect on cases and hospitalizations in 2021.

“We’re going to be watching the mask data very carefully,” she said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team on Feb. 5. “I think it’s probably still a bit too early to tell, but I’m encouraged with the decrease in case rates right now.”

In another study published Feb. 5 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, trained observers tracked mask use at six universities with mask mandates between September and November 2020. Overall, observers reported that about 92% of people wore masks correctly indoors, which varied based on the type of mask.

About 97% of people used N95 masks correctly, compared with 92% who used cloth masks, and 79% who used bandanas, scarves, or neck gaiters. Cloth masks were most common, and bandanas and scarves were least common.

The Biden administration is considering whether to send masks directly to American households to encourage people to wear them, according to NBC News. The White House COVID-19 Response Team is debating the logistics of mailing out masks, including how many to send and what the mask material would be, the news outlet reported.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers reissued a new statewide mask mandate on Feb. 4, just an hour after the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal his previous mandate, according to The Associated Press. Gov. Evers said his priority is to keep people safe and that wearing a mask is the easiest way to do so.

“If the legislature keeps playing politics and we don’t keep wearing masks, we’re going to see more preventable deaths,” he said. “It’s going to take even longer to get our state and our economy back on track.”

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

States that implemented mask mandates in 2020 saw a decline in the growth of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March and October 2020, according to a new study published Feb. 5 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points for adults between ages 18-64 about 3 weeks after the mandates were implemented, compared with climbing growth rates in the 4 weeks before mandates.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said she was pleased to see the results, but that it’s “too early” to tell whether President Joe Biden’s recent mask orders have had an effect on cases and hospitalizations in 2021.

“We’re going to be watching the mask data very carefully,” she said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team on Feb. 5. “I think it’s probably still a bit too early to tell, but I’m encouraged with the decrease in case rates right now.”

In another study published Feb. 5 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, trained observers tracked mask use at six universities with mask mandates between September and November 2020. Overall, observers reported that about 92% of people wore masks correctly indoors, which varied based on the type of mask.

About 97% of people used N95 masks correctly, compared with 92% who used cloth masks, and 79% who used bandanas, scarves, or neck gaiters. Cloth masks were most common, and bandanas and scarves were least common.

The Biden administration is considering whether to send masks directly to American households to encourage people to wear them, according to NBC News. The White House COVID-19 Response Team is debating the logistics of mailing out masks, including how many to send and what the mask material would be, the news outlet reported.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers reissued a new statewide mask mandate on Feb. 4, just an hour after the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal his previous mandate, according to The Associated Press. Gov. Evers said his priority is to keep people safe and that wearing a mask is the easiest way to do so.

“If the legislature keeps playing politics and we don’t keep wearing masks, we’re going to see more preventable deaths,” he said. “It’s going to take even longer to get our state and our economy back on track.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus appear more likely to die from COVID-19 if their rheumatologic condition is not being well controlled at the time of their infection.

New data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) physician registry reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases have found that the odds of dying from COVID-19 were 87% higher in individuals recorded as having moderate to high disease activity versus those reported to be in remission or having low disease activity.

“I think this really highlights the importance of continuing to appropriately, and actively, treat our patients, and the importance of controlling their disease,” Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Machado, an associate professor in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College London and a consultant rheumatologist at several U.K. hospitals, has been involved in the GRA physician registry from the start, and sits on the GRA steering committee.

Alongside higher disease activity, several other important factors were found to be associated with increased odds of dying from COVID-19 – older age, male gender, and the presence of one or more comorbidities, such as hypertension combined with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease.

These demographic and disease-based factors have been linked to an increased risk for COVID-19–related hospitalization before, both in people with RMDs and in the general population, but the latest GRA physician registry data now take that a step further, and link them also to an increased risk for death, together with several other factors more specific to RMDs.
 

Logging COVID-19 rheumatologic cases

Since the start of the global pandemic, the potential effects that SARS-CoV-2 infection might have on people with RMDs in particular has concerned the rheumatology community. The main worries being that, either because of the underlying RMD itself or to its treatment, there may be immunoregulatory deficits or other risk factors that would make individuals more susceptible to not only infection but also to developing more severe COVID-19 than the general population.

These concerns led to the rapid formation of the GRA and the COVID-19 GRA physician registry in March 2020 to collect and analyze data on adults with rheumatic disease and confirmed or presumptive COVID-19. Entries into the registry are made by or under the direction of rheumatologists, and this is a voluntary process.

“This population cannot ever be entirely representative of the population of patients with rheumatic diseases,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. There will be selection and other biases that affect the reported data. That said, it’s the largest database of reported COVID-19 cases in adult rheumatology patients across the world, with more than 9,000 cases so far included from multiple registries, including those based in Europe and North and South America. Data from one of these – the French RMD cohort – have also recently been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showing much the same findings but on a national level.

Hospitalization was the focus of a previous report because “you need large sample sizes” to look at endpoints that occur less frequently. When the first analysis was done, there were around 600 cases from 40 countries in the registry with sufficient data that could be used. Now, with a greater number of recorded cases, factors influencing the risk for death could be examined.

Death rate and risk factors found

Data on 3,729 COVID-19 cases in people with RMDs were included in the current analysis, all recorded in the first few months of the registry being open and up until July 1, 2020. In all, 390 (10.5%) of people died. While this is “clearly higher” than reported in the general population in most countries, the analysis was not designed to calculate a precise estimate.

“It should not be taken as an estimate of the overall death rate among patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19,” Dr. Machado and coauthors have been keen to point out.

“Age is always the biggest risk factor,” Dr. Machado explained. “There’s always a gradient: the older the patient, the worse the outcome.”

Indeed, there was a threefold increased risk for death among those aged 66-75 years versus those who were 65 years or younger (odds ratio, 3.00), and a sixfold increased risk for patients older than 75, compared with the younger age group (OR, 6.18).

Having both hypertension and cardiovascular disease was associated with an OR of 1.89, and coexisting chronic lung disease also significantly increased the chances of dying from COVID-19 (OR, 1.68).

Being of male sex was associated with a 46% increased risk for death from COVID-19 versus being of female sex.

The risk for COVID-19 death also rose with the use of corticosteroids. Compared with no steroid use, there was a 69% increased risk for with death at doses of 10 mg or more prednisolone equivalent per day.

“The finding about moderate to high doses of steroids being associated with a worse outcome is consistent with the first report; it was the same for hospitalization,” Dr. Machado observed.

The general consensus on steroid use in the COVID-19 setting is that they should be continued as needed, but at the lowest possible dose, as outlined in provisional recommendations set out by the recently renamed European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

The GRA physician registry findings provide further support for this, suggesting that disease control should be optimized with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ideally without increasing the dose of steroids.

Surprise over sulfasalazine risk

“Taking all medications into account – such as methotrexate, leflunomide, hydroxychloroquine, [tumor necrosis factor] blockers, interleukin-6 blockers, and [Janus kinase] inhibitors – it is quite reassuring because we did not see an association with worse outcome with those drugs overall,” Dr. Machado said.

However, treatment with rituximab (OR, 4.0), sulfasalazine (OR, 3.6), and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, or tacrolimus (OR, 2.2), were associated with higher odds of dying from COVID-19 when compared with treatment with methotrexate alone.

The findings for rituximab and immunosuppressant use were perhaps not unexpected, but the possible association between sulfasalazine and COVID-19 death was “a bit intriguing,” Dr. Machado observed. “Sulfasalazine is believed to have low immunosuppressive effect.”

This warrants further investigation, but there are likely a range of confounding factors at play. One could be that people considered to be at higher risk may have been more often prescribed sulfasalazine because it was thought to be less immunosuppressive. Another might be because people taking sulfasalazine were more likely to be smokers, and they were also not advised to protect themselves from exposure to the virus (shielding) during the first wave of the pandemic, at least not in the United Kingdom.
 

Rituximab caution and vaccination

“Rituximab is a concern,” Dr. Machado acknowledged. “It is a concern that rheumatologists are now aware of and they are addressing, but then it’s a concern for a very specific subgroup of patients.”

While rheumatologists are, and will continue to prescribe it, there will be even more careful consideration over when, in whom, and how to use it during, and possibly even after, the pandemic.

“COVID is here to stay, it will become endemic, and it’s going to be part of our lives like the flu virus is,” Dr. Machado predicted.

Then there is the issue on vaccinating people against COVID-19, should those on rituximab still receive it? The answer is a yes, but, as with other vaccinations it’s all about the timing of when the vaccination is given.

Societies such as the British Society for Rheumatology have already begun to include guidance on this, recommending one of the available COVID-19 vaccines is given at least a month before the next or first dose of rituximab is due. As rituximab is given every few months, with doses sometimes spaced as much as 9 months or even a year apart, this should not be too much of a problem, but it is “better to have the vaccine first,” Dr. Machado said.
 

Has COVID-19 care improved in RMDs?

In separate research published in The Lancet Rheumatology, April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and associates found that the risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes have improved over time, although they still “remain substantial.”

Dr. Jorge and colleagues looked at temporal trends in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with RMDs over the course of the first 6 months of the pandemic in 2020, using data from a large, multicenter, electronic health record network (TriNetX).

They formed two patient cohorts – a late (diagnosed from April 20 to July 20) and an early (diagnosed from January 20 to April 20) cohort – to see if outcomes had improved and discovered lower relative risks among patients in the late cohort for hospitalization (0.67), admission to the ICU (0.56), mechanical ventilation (0.39), acute kidney injury (0.66), renal replacement (0.53), and death (0.39).

“These results are encouraging,” but it’s difficult to match these different populations of patients, Dr. Machado said. “There are always factors that you cannot match for” and were not included in the U.S. analysis.

While there are important caveats in how the analysis was performed and thus in interpreting these data, they do “suggest that one of the reasons why outcomes have improved is because we have become better at treating these patients,” Dr. Machado added.

“Our treatment has improved, and our capacity to treat the complications has improved. We understand better how the disease behaves – we know that they can have thromboembolic complications that we can manage, and we are now able to manage ventilation issues better.”

Moreover, Dr. Machado said that, not only were clinicians more aware of what they should or should not do, there were treatments that were being used routinely or in some cases based on recent clinical trial results. “I think we are indeed treating these patients better.”

The COVID-19 GRA physician registry is financially supported by the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR. Dr. Machado had no relevant conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.
 

Bimekizumab, an experimental biologic for the treatment of psoriasis that inhibits both interleukin-17A and IL-17F, achieves rates of skin clearance greater than those reported in phase 3 trials with other biologics, according to data from two simultaneously published trials, one of which was a head-to-head comparison with ustekinumab.

In the head-to-head trial called BE VIVID, which included a placebo arm, there was a large advantage of bimekizumab over ustekinumab, a biologic that targets IL-12 and IL-23 and is approved for treating psoriasis, for both coprimary endpoints, according to a multinational group of investigators led by Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.

The proportion of patients with skin clearance was not only greater but faster, “with responses observed after one dose,” Dr. Reich and coinvestigators reported.

The data from the BE VIVID trial was published simultaneously with the BE READY trial, which was placebo-controlled but did not include an active comparator.

Evaluated at week 16, the coprimary endpoints in both studies were skin clearance as measured by a Psoriasis Area Severity Index greater than 90% (PASI 90) and Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear).

In BE VIVID, 567 patients were randomized in 11 countries, including the United States. The dose of bimekizumab was 320 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. In a randomization scheme of 4:2:1, half as many patients (163) were randomized to ustekinumab (Stelara), which was administered in weight-based dosing of 45 mg or 90 mg at enrollment, at 4 weeks, and then every 12 weeks. The placebo arm had 83 patients. All were switched to bimekizumab at 16 weeks.

At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved in 85% of patients randomized to bimekizumab, compared with 50% of patients randomized to ustekinumab (P < .0001). The rate in the placebo group was 5%.

The bimekizumab advantage for an IGA response of 0 or 1 was of similar magnitude, relative to ustekinumab (84% vs. 53%; P < .0001) and placebo (5%). All secondary efficacy endpoints, such as PASI 90 at week 12 (85% vs. 44%) and PASI 100 at week 16 (59% vs. 21%), favored bimekizumab over ustekinumab.

In the BE READY trial, which evaluated the same dose and schedule of bimekizumab, the rates of PASI 90 at week 16 were 91% and 1% (P < .0001) for the experimental arm and placebo, respectively. The proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 were 93% and 1% (P < .0001), respectively.

In BE READY, patients who achieved PASI 90 at week 16 were reallocated to receive bimekizumab every 4 weeks, bimekizumab every 8 weeks (also 320 mg), or placebo. Both schedules of bimekizumab maintained responses through week 56, according to the authors, led by Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

In both trials, safety was evaluated over the first 16 weeks as well as over a subsequent maintenance period, which extended to 52 weeks in BE VIVID and 56 weeks in BE READY. For bimekizumab, oral candidiasis was the most common treatment-related adverse event. In BE VIVID, this adverse event was reported in 9% of bimekizumab patients, compared with 0% of either the ustekinumab or placebo groups, up to week 16. Out to week 52, the rates were 15% in the bimekizumab group and 1% in the ustekinumab group.

In the BE READY trial, the rates of oral candidiasis were 6% and 0% for bimekizumab and placebo, respectively, through week 16. Over the maintenance periods, the rates were 9% and 11% for the every-8-week and every-4-week doses, respectively.

Discontinuation for adverse events was not higher on bimekizumab than placebo in either trial, nor was the proportion of serious treatment-emergent adverse events.

Nevertheless, the potential for adverse events was a key part of the discussion regarding the future role of bimekizumab, if approved, in an editorial that accompanied the publication of these studies.

“Bimekizumab might be our most effective biologic for psoriasis yet,” coauthors, William W. Huang, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, and Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, both at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, wrote in the editorial. “If the goal of psoriasis treatment is complete clearance, bimekizumab seems like a good option from an efficacy perspective.”

However, they noted that other IL-17 blockers, like secukinumab (Cosentyx) and brodalumab (Siliq), have been associated with risks, including the development of inflammatory bowel disease. In addition to the oral candidiasis seen in the BE VIVID and BE READY trials, they cautioned that other issues might arise with longer follow-up and greater numbers of patients exposed to this therapy.

In an interview, Dr. Feldman said adequately informed patients might be willing to accept these risks for the potential of greater efficacy, but he emphasized the need for appropriate warnings and education.

“We have a lot of very good treatments that offer patients an excellent chance of an excellent outcome – treatments that have been around and in use in large numbers of people for years,” Dr. Feldman said. “Unless the doctor and patient felt strongly about the need to use this new, perhaps more potent option, I would be personally inclined to use treatment with well-established safety profiles first.”

The senior author of the BE VIVID trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, dean for clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, disagreed. He acknowledged that other agents targeting IL-17 have been associated with IBD, but risk of IBD is already elevated in patients with psoriasis and the risk appears to be lower with bimekizumab relative to prior agents in this class.

“Bimekizumab has now been studied in thousands of patients over several years. We can say with support from a sizable amount of data that IBD is very uncommon,” he said. While oral candidiasis is associated with bimekizumab, it is “easy to treat.”

Asked specifically if he will consider using bimekizumab as a first-line agent in psoriasis patients who are candidates for a biologic, Dr. Lebwohl said he would. Based on the evidence that this agent is more effective than other options and has manageable side effects, he believes it will be an important new treatment option.

Dr. Reich, Dr. Lebwohl, Dr. Gordon, and Dr. Feldman have financial relationships with multiple companies that produce therapies for psoriasis, including UCB Pharma, the sponsor of these studies.