User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
div[contains(@class, 'medstat-accordion-set article-series')]
Cloth masks provide inferior protection vs. medical masks, suggests evidence review
according to an evidence review published Jan. 11 in Annals of Family Medicine.
Nevertheless, cloth masks may provide some degree of protection, filtration studies indicate. If clinicians use cloth masks, they should take into account the fit, material, and number of layers, the review authors wrote.
And if cloth masks are used as a last resort, such as during shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), additional measures may help, such as pairing cloth masks with plastic face shields.
“We recommend frequent cloth mask changes to reduce the risk of moisture retention and washing according to hospital laundry standards to decrease the risk of ineffective cleaning,” review author Ariel Kiyomi Daoud, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.
The investigators identified and analyzed nine studies related to cloth masks’ ability to prevent respiratory viral infections among health care clinicians. The studies generally were not specific to SARS-CoV-2. They focused on four nonrandomized trials, three laboratory efficacy studies, one single-case experiment, and one randomized controlled trial.
Filtration and fit
“Seven publications addressed the filtration efficacy of commercial cloth masks or materials used to create homemade masks ... in a laboratory setting,” the researchers wrote. These studies found that cloth materials prevent some level of penetration, but generally have “lesser filtration efficiency and greater variability than medical masks” do.
One study found that the materials with the greatest filtration efficacy – vacuum bags and tea towels – had low airflow, which limits their use.
Two studies found that additional layers may increase the viral filtration efficacy of cloth masks.
Several studies that assessed mask fit and airflow found that cloth masks “have worse fit and a greater level of particle leakage, compared to medical masks,” the authors reported. Most studies did not examine cloth masks’ ability to protect wearers from respiratory droplets or contact, which the World Health Organization consider the primary means of SARS-CoV-2 spread, with aerosols playing a smaller role. “Thus, we must interpret these results with caution in the context of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. “For a primary care clinician without access to medical masks, our qualitative synthesis of the literature suggests that it is better to wear a cloth mask than no mask,” as long as other protective measures are considered along with cloth mask use.
Generally consistent guidance
Agencies and researchers have shared similar recommendations about the use of cloth masks in health care settings.
“Health care workers are at the frontline and they need to be protected,” said Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, MBBS, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of New South Wales, Sydney, in an interview. “Many studies show that respirators are more effective, compared to medical masks, and medical masks are more effective, compared to cloth masks. So ideally, all frontline health care workers should use respirators. If respirators are not available, then medical masks should be used. Cloth masks are not as effective as medical masks and ideally should not be used in health care settings.”
Dr. Chughtai has written about cloth masks for protection against SARS-CoV-2 and was an investigator for a 2015 randomized trial that compared medical masks and cloth masks in health care workers.
In that trial, which was considered in the review, greater rates of influenza-like illness occurred in the cloth mask arm, compared with the medical mask arm.
“Studies show that three or more layers of cloth may reduce the spread of droplets and aerosols from the wearers,” Dr. Chughtai said. “So, cloth masks may be used in community settings to prevent spread of infections from the sick, particularly asymptomatic, people.”
In addition, cloth masks “may be used by health care workers as a last resort, if no other option is available,” he said. In that case, they should have at least three layers, fit to the face, and be washed regularly.
Not considered PPE
According to routine infection prevention and control recommendations for health care personnel from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, face masks – often referred to as surgical masks or procedure masks – should be worn by workers “at all times while they are in the healthcare facility, including in break rooms or other spaces where they might encounter coworkers.”
Unlike cloth masks, face masks offer “protection for the wearer against exposure to splashes and sprays of infectious material from others,” as well as source control, the agency says. Health care personnel “should remove their respirator or face mask, perform hand hygiene, and put on their cloth mask when leaving the facility at the end of their shift,” according to the CDC.
“Cloth masks are NOT PPE and should not be worn for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or other situations where use of a respirator or face mask is recommended,” the agency notes.
When respirators or face masks are unavailable, health care personnel “might use cloth masks as a last resort for care of patients with suspected or confirmed diagnosis for which face mask or respirator use is normally recommended,” according to CDC guidance.
In that scenario, cloth masks “should ideally be used in combination with a face shield that covers the entire front (that extends to the chin or below) and sides of the face,” the CDC says.
Limited data for comparisons
A Dec. 29, 2020, update in Annals of Internal Medicine about masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections highlighted two recent studies in the United States that reported on mask use in health care settings. A study of more than 16,000 health care workers and first responders found that those who used an N95 or surgical mask all of the time were less likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with workers who did not wear masks all the time. The adjusted odds ratio with consistent N95 use was 0.83, and the aOR with consistent surgical mask use was 0.86.
In the second study, which included more than 20,000 asymptomatic health care workers, risk for infection was reduced with any mask use versus no mask use (OR, 0.58). An N95 mask was associated with decreased risk versus a surgical mask (OR, 0.76). The studies had methodological limitations, however, and “evidence for various comparisons about mask use in health care settings and risk for SARS-CoV-2 remains insufficient,” the authors of the update wrote.
The Annals of Family Medicine review authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chughtai has tested filtration of 3M masks and worked with CleanSpace Technology to research fit testing of respirators, and the 2015 randomized trial was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 3M as a partner on the grant. The Dec. 29, 2020, update was of a review that originally was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality.
SOURCE: Daoud AK et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020 Jan 11. doi: 10.1370/afm.2640.
according to an evidence review published Jan. 11 in Annals of Family Medicine.
Nevertheless, cloth masks may provide some degree of protection, filtration studies indicate. If clinicians use cloth masks, they should take into account the fit, material, and number of layers, the review authors wrote.
And if cloth masks are used as a last resort, such as during shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), additional measures may help, such as pairing cloth masks with plastic face shields.
“We recommend frequent cloth mask changes to reduce the risk of moisture retention and washing according to hospital laundry standards to decrease the risk of ineffective cleaning,” review author Ariel Kiyomi Daoud, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.
The investigators identified and analyzed nine studies related to cloth masks’ ability to prevent respiratory viral infections among health care clinicians. The studies generally were not specific to SARS-CoV-2. They focused on four nonrandomized trials, three laboratory efficacy studies, one single-case experiment, and one randomized controlled trial.
Filtration and fit
“Seven publications addressed the filtration efficacy of commercial cloth masks or materials used to create homemade masks ... in a laboratory setting,” the researchers wrote. These studies found that cloth materials prevent some level of penetration, but generally have “lesser filtration efficiency and greater variability than medical masks” do.
One study found that the materials with the greatest filtration efficacy – vacuum bags and tea towels – had low airflow, which limits their use.
Two studies found that additional layers may increase the viral filtration efficacy of cloth masks.
Several studies that assessed mask fit and airflow found that cloth masks “have worse fit and a greater level of particle leakage, compared to medical masks,” the authors reported. Most studies did not examine cloth masks’ ability to protect wearers from respiratory droplets or contact, which the World Health Organization consider the primary means of SARS-CoV-2 spread, with aerosols playing a smaller role. “Thus, we must interpret these results with caution in the context of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. “For a primary care clinician without access to medical masks, our qualitative synthesis of the literature suggests that it is better to wear a cloth mask than no mask,” as long as other protective measures are considered along with cloth mask use.
Generally consistent guidance
Agencies and researchers have shared similar recommendations about the use of cloth masks in health care settings.
“Health care workers are at the frontline and they need to be protected,” said Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, MBBS, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of New South Wales, Sydney, in an interview. “Many studies show that respirators are more effective, compared to medical masks, and medical masks are more effective, compared to cloth masks. So ideally, all frontline health care workers should use respirators. If respirators are not available, then medical masks should be used. Cloth masks are not as effective as medical masks and ideally should not be used in health care settings.”
Dr. Chughtai has written about cloth masks for protection against SARS-CoV-2 and was an investigator for a 2015 randomized trial that compared medical masks and cloth masks in health care workers.
In that trial, which was considered in the review, greater rates of influenza-like illness occurred in the cloth mask arm, compared with the medical mask arm.
“Studies show that three or more layers of cloth may reduce the spread of droplets and aerosols from the wearers,” Dr. Chughtai said. “So, cloth masks may be used in community settings to prevent spread of infections from the sick, particularly asymptomatic, people.”
In addition, cloth masks “may be used by health care workers as a last resort, if no other option is available,” he said. In that case, they should have at least three layers, fit to the face, and be washed regularly.
Not considered PPE
According to routine infection prevention and control recommendations for health care personnel from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, face masks – often referred to as surgical masks or procedure masks – should be worn by workers “at all times while they are in the healthcare facility, including in break rooms or other spaces where they might encounter coworkers.”
Unlike cloth masks, face masks offer “protection for the wearer against exposure to splashes and sprays of infectious material from others,” as well as source control, the agency says. Health care personnel “should remove their respirator or face mask, perform hand hygiene, and put on their cloth mask when leaving the facility at the end of their shift,” according to the CDC.
“Cloth masks are NOT PPE and should not be worn for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or other situations where use of a respirator or face mask is recommended,” the agency notes.
When respirators or face masks are unavailable, health care personnel “might use cloth masks as a last resort for care of patients with suspected or confirmed diagnosis for which face mask or respirator use is normally recommended,” according to CDC guidance.
In that scenario, cloth masks “should ideally be used in combination with a face shield that covers the entire front (that extends to the chin or below) and sides of the face,” the CDC says.
Limited data for comparisons
A Dec. 29, 2020, update in Annals of Internal Medicine about masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections highlighted two recent studies in the United States that reported on mask use in health care settings. A study of more than 16,000 health care workers and first responders found that those who used an N95 or surgical mask all of the time were less likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with workers who did not wear masks all the time. The adjusted odds ratio with consistent N95 use was 0.83, and the aOR with consistent surgical mask use was 0.86.
In the second study, which included more than 20,000 asymptomatic health care workers, risk for infection was reduced with any mask use versus no mask use (OR, 0.58). An N95 mask was associated with decreased risk versus a surgical mask (OR, 0.76). The studies had methodological limitations, however, and “evidence for various comparisons about mask use in health care settings and risk for SARS-CoV-2 remains insufficient,” the authors of the update wrote.
The Annals of Family Medicine review authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chughtai has tested filtration of 3M masks and worked with CleanSpace Technology to research fit testing of respirators, and the 2015 randomized trial was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 3M as a partner on the grant. The Dec. 29, 2020, update was of a review that originally was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality.
SOURCE: Daoud AK et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020 Jan 11. doi: 10.1370/afm.2640.
according to an evidence review published Jan. 11 in Annals of Family Medicine.
Nevertheless, cloth masks may provide some degree of protection, filtration studies indicate. If clinicians use cloth masks, they should take into account the fit, material, and number of layers, the review authors wrote.
And if cloth masks are used as a last resort, such as during shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), additional measures may help, such as pairing cloth masks with plastic face shields.
“We recommend frequent cloth mask changes to reduce the risk of moisture retention and washing according to hospital laundry standards to decrease the risk of ineffective cleaning,” review author Ariel Kiyomi Daoud, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues wrote.
The investigators identified and analyzed nine studies related to cloth masks’ ability to prevent respiratory viral infections among health care clinicians. The studies generally were not specific to SARS-CoV-2. They focused on four nonrandomized trials, three laboratory efficacy studies, one single-case experiment, and one randomized controlled trial.
Filtration and fit
“Seven publications addressed the filtration efficacy of commercial cloth masks or materials used to create homemade masks ... in a laboratory setting,” the researchers wrote. These studies found that cloth materials prevent some level of penetration, but generally have “lesser filtration efficiency and greater variability than medical masks” do.
One study found that the materials with the greatest filtration efficacy – vacuum bags and tea towels – had low airflow, which limits their use.
Two studies found that additional layers may increase the viral filtration efficacy of cloth masks.
Several studies that assessed mask fit and airflow found that cloth masks “have worse fit and a greater level of particle leakage, compared to medical masks,” the authors reported. Most studies did not examine cloth masks’ ability to protect wearers from respiratory droplets or contact, which the World Health Organization consider the primary means of SARS-CoV-2 spread, with aerosols playing a smaller role. “Thus, we must interpret these results with caution in the context of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. “For a primary care clinician without access to medical masks, our qualitative synthesis of the literature suggests that it is better to wear a cloth mask than no mask,” as long as other protective measures are considered along with cloth mask use.
Generally consistent guidance
Agencies and researchers have shared similar recommendations about the use of cloth masks in health care settings.
“Health care workers are at the frontline and they need to be protected,” said Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, MBBS, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of New South Wales, Sydney, in an interview. “Many studies show that respirators are more effective, compared to medical masks, and medical masks are more effective, compared to cloth masks. So ideally, all frontline health care workers should use respirators. If respirators are not available, then medical masks should be used. Cloth masks are not as effective as medical masks and ideally should not be used in health care settings.”
Dr. Chughtai has written about cloth masks for protection against SARS-CoV-2 and was an investigator for a 2015 randomized trial that compared medical masks and cloth masks in health care workers.
In that trial, which was considered in the review, greater rates of influenza-like illness occurred in the cloth mask arm, compared with the medical mask arm.
“Studies show that three or more layers of cloth may reduce the spread of droplets and aerosols from the wearers,” Dr. Chughtai said. “So, cloth masks may be used in community settings to prevent spread of infections from the sick, particularly asymptomatic, people.”
In addition, cloth masks “may be used by health care workers as a last resort, if no other option is available,” he said. In that case, they should have at least three layers, fit to the face, and be washed regularly.
Not considered PPE
According to routine infection prevention and control recommendations for health care personnel from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, face masks – often referred to as surgical masks or procedure masks – should be worn by workers “at all times while they are in the healthcare facility, including in break rooms or other spaces where they might encounter coworkers.”
Unlike cloth masks, face masks offer “protection for the wearer against exposure to splashes and sprays of infectious material from others,” as well as source control, the agency says. Health care personnel “should remove their respirator or face mask, perform hand hygiene, and put on their cloth mask when leaving the facility at the end of their shift,” according to the CDC.
“Cloth masks are NOT PPE and should not be worn for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 or other situations where use of a respirator or face mask is recommended,” the agency notes.
When respirators or face masks are unavailable, health care personnel “might use cloth masks as a last resort for care of patients with suspected or confirmed diagnosis for which face mask or respirator use is normally recommended,” according to CDC guidance.
In that scenario, cloth masks “should ideally be used in combination with a face shield that covers the entire front (that extends to the chin or below) and sides of the face,” the CDC says.
Limited data for comparisons
A Dec. 29, 2020, update in Annals of Internal Medicine about masks for prevention of respiratory virus infections highlighted two recent studies in the United States that reported on mask use in health care settings. A study of more than 16,000 health care workers and first responders found that those who used an N95 or surgical mask all of the time were less likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with workers who did not wear masks all the time. The adjusted odds ratio with consistent N95 use was 0.83, and the aOR with consistent surgical mask use was 0.86.
In the second study, which included more than 20,000 asymptomatic health care workers, risk for infection was reduced with any mask use versus no mask use (OR, 0.58). An N95 mask was associated with decreased risk versus a surgical mask (OR, 0.76). The studies had methodological limitations, however, and “evidence for various comparisons about mask use in health care settings and risk for SARS-CoV-2 remains insufficient,” the authors of the update wrote.
The Annals of Family Medicine review authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Chughtai has tested filtration of 3M masks and worked with CleanSpace Technology to research fit testing of respirators, and the 2015 randomized trial was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with 3M as a partner on the grant. The Dec. 29, 2020, update was of a review that originally was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality.
SOURCE: Daoud AK et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020 Jan 11. doi: 10.1370/afm.2640.
FROM ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE
Feds authorize $3 billion to boost vaccine rollout
The CDC will send $3 billion to the states to boost a lagging national COVID-19 vaccination program.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced the new funding as only 30% of the more than 22 million doses of vaccine distributed in the U.S. has been injected into Americans’ arms.
Along with the $3 billion, HHS said another $19 billion is headed to states and jurisdictions to boost COVID-19 testing programs. The amount each state will receive will be determined by population.
The news comes days after President-elect Joe Biden said he planned to release all available doses of vaccine after he takes office on Jan. 20. The Trump administration has been holding back millions of doses to ensure supply of vaccine to provide the necessary second dose for those who received the first shot.
“This funding is another timely investment that will strengthen our nation’s efforts to stop the COVID-19 pandemic in America,” CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said in a statement. “Particularly now, it is crucial that states and communities have the resources they need to conduct testing, and to distribute and administer safe, high-quality COVID-19 vaccines safely and equitably.”
Federal officials and public health experts, however, expressed concerns this weekend about Biden’s plan.
Outgoing Trump administration officials and others said they worry that doing so will leave providers without enough second doses for people getting the two-shot vaccines.
If Biden releases all available doses and the vaccine-making process has an issue, they said, that could pose a supply risk.
“We have product that is going through QC right now – quality control – for sterility, identity check that we have tens and tens of millions of product. We always will. But batches fail. Sterility fails ... and then you don’t have a product for that second dose,” Alex Azar, secretary of health and human services, told the American Hospital Association on Jan. 8, according to CNN.
“And frankly, talking about that or encouraging that can really undermine a critical public health need, which is that people come back for their second vaccine,” he said.
One of the main roadblocks in the vaccine rollout has been administering the doses that have already been distributed. The U.S. has shipped 22.1 million doses, and 6.6 million first shots have been given, according to the latest CDC data updated Jan. 8. Mr. Azar and other federal health officials have encouraged states to use their current supply and expand vaccine access to more priority groups.
“We would be delighted to learn that jurisdictions have actually administered many more doses than they are presently reporting,” a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told CNN. “We are encouraging jurisdictions to expand their priority groups as needed to ensure no vaccine is sitting on the shelf after having been delivered to the jurisdiction-directed locations.”
Releasing more vaccines for first doses could create ethical concerns as well, since people getting vaccines expect to get a second dose in the proper amount of time, according to The Week. Biden’s transition team said on Jan. 8 that he won’t delay the second dose but, instead, plans to ramp up production to stay on track.
To do this well, the federal government should create a coordinated vaccine strategy that sets expectations for an around-the-clock operation and help state and local vaccination programs meet their goals, Leana Wen, MD, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in an editorial for The Washington Post.
“The Biden team’s urgency around vaccinations is commendable,” she added in a Twitter post on Jan. 11. “I’d like to see a guarantee that every 1st dose given will be followed with a timely 2nd dose. Otherwise, there are ethical concerns that could add to vaccine hesitancy.”
Biden has pledged that 100 million doses will be administered in his first 100 days in office. He has grown frustrated as concerns grow that his administration could fall short of the promise, according to Politico. His coronavirus response team has noted several challenges, including what they say is a lack of long-term planning by the Trump administration and an initial refusal to share key information.
“We’re uncovering new information each day, and we’re unearthing – of course – more work to be done,” Vivek Murthy, MD, Biden’s nominee for surgeon general, told Politico.
The team has uncovered staffing shortages, technology problems, and issues with health care insurance coverage. The incoming Biden team has developed several initiatives, such as mobile vaccination units and new federal sites to give shots. It could take weeks to get the vaccine rollout on track, the news outlet reported.
“Will this be challenging? Absolutely,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Biden’s incoming chief medical adviser on the coronavirus, told Politico. “This is an unprecedented effort to vaccinate the entire country over a period of time that’s fighting against people dying at record numbers. To say it’s not a challenge would be unrealistic. Do I think it can be done? Yes.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC will send $3 billion to the states to boost a lagging national COVID-19 vaccination program.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced the new funding as only 30% of the more than 22 million doses of vaccine distributed in the U.S. has been injected into Americans’ arms.
Along with the $3 billion, HHS said another $19 billion is headed to states and jurisdictions to boost COVID-19 testing programs. The amount each state will receive will be determined by population.
The news comes days after President-elect Joe Biden said he planned to release all available doses of vaccine after he takes office on Jan. 20. The Trump administration has been holding back millions of doses to ensure supply of vaccine to provide the necessary second dose for those who received the first shot.
“This funding is another timely investment that will strengthen our nation’s efforts to stop the COVID-19 pandemic in America,” CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said in a statement. “Particularly now, it is crucial that states and communities have the resources they need to conduct testing, and to distribute and administer safe, high-quality COVID-19 vaccines safely and equitably.”
Federal officials and public health experts, however, expressed concerns this weekend about Biden’s plan.
Outgoing Trump administration officials and others said they worry that doing so will leave providers without enough second doses for people getting the two-shot vaccines.
If Biden releases all available doses and the vaccine-making process has an issue, they said, that could pose a supply risk.
“We have product that is going through QC right now – quality control – for sterility, identity check that we have tens and tens of millions of product. We always will. But batches fail. Sterility fails ... and then you don’t have a product for that second dose,” Alex Azar, secretary of health and human services, told the American Hospital Association on Jan. 8, according to CNN.
“And frankly, talking about that or encouraging that can really undermine a critical public health need, which is that people come back for their second vaccine,” he said.
One of the main roadblocks in the vaccine rollout has been administering the doses that have already been distributed. The U.S. has shipped 22.1 million doses, and 6.6 million first shots have been given, according to the latest CDC data updated Jan. 8. Mr. Azar and other federal health officials have encouraged states to use their current supply and expand vaccine access to more priority groups.
“We would be delighted to learn that jurisdictions have actually administered many more doses than they are presently reporting,” a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told CNN. “We are encouraging jurisdictions to expand their priority groups as needed to ensure no vaccine is sitting on the shelf after having been delivered to the jurisdiction-directed locations.”
Releasing more vaccines for first doses could create ethical concerns as well, since people getting vaccines expect to get a second dose in the proper amount of time, according to The Week. Biden’s transition team said on Jan. 8 that he won’t delay the second dose but, instead, plans to ramp up production to stay on track.
To do this well, the federal government should create a coordinated vaccine strategy that sets expectations for an around-the-clock operation and help state and local vaccination programs meet their goals, Leana Wen, MD, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in an editorial for The Washington Post.
“The Biden team’s urgency around vaccinations is commendable,” she added in a Twitter post on Jan. 11. “I’d like to see a guarantee that every 1st dose given will be followed with a timely 2nd dose. Otherwise, there are ethical concerns that could add to vaccine hesitancy.”
Biden has pledged that 100 million doses will be administered in his first 100 days in office. He has grown frustrated as concerns grow that his administration could fall short of the promise, according to Politico. His coronavirus response team has noted several challenges, including what they say is a lack of long-term planning by the Trump administration and an initial refusal to share key information.
“We’re uncovering new information each day, and we’re unearthing – of course – more work to be done,” Vivek Murthy, MD, Biden’s nominee for surgeon general, told Politico.
The team has uncovered staffing shortages, technology problems, and issues with health care insurance coverage. The incoming Biden team has developed several initiatives, such as mobile vaccination units and new federal sites to give shots. It could take weeks to get the vaccine rollout on track, the news outlet reported.
“Will this be challenging? Absolutely,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Biden’s incoming chief medical adviser on the coronavirus, told Politico. “This is an unprecedented effort to vaccinate the entire country over a period of time that’s fighting against people dying at record numbers. To say it’s not a challenge would be unrealistic. Do I think it can be done? Yes.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC will send $3 billion to the states to boost a lagging national COVID-19 vaccination program.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced the new funding as only 30% of the more than 22 million doses of vaccine distributed in the U.S. has been injected into Americans’ arms.
Along with the $3 billion, HHS said another $19 billion is headed to states and jurisdictions to boost COVID-19 testing programs. The amount each state will receive will be determined by population.
The news comes days after President-elect Joe Biden said he planned to release all available doses of vaccine after he takes office on Jan. 20. The Trump administration has been holding back millions of doses to ensure supply of vaccine to provide the necessary second dose for those who received the first shot.
“This funding is another timely investment that will strengthen our nation’s efforts to stop the COVID-19 pandemic in America,” CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said in a statement. “Particularly now, it is crucial that states and communities have the resources they need to conduct testing, and to distribute and administer safe, high-quality COVID-19 vaccines safely and equitably.”
Federal officials and public health experts, however, expressed concerns this weekend about Biden’s plan.
Outgoing Trump administration officials and others said they worry that doing so will leave providers without enough second doses for people getting the two-shot vaccines.
If Biden releases all available doses and the vaccine-making process has an issue, they said, that could pose a supply risk.
“We have product that is going through QC right now – quality control – for sterility, identity check that we have tens and tens of millions of product. We always will. But batches fail. Sterility fails ... and then you don’t have a product for that second dose,” Alex Azar, secretary of health and human services, told the American Hospital Association on Jan. 8, according to CNN.
“And frankly, talking about that or encouraging that can really undermine a critical public health need, which is that people come back for their second vaccine,” he said.
One of the main roadblocks in the vaccine rollout has been administering the doses that have already been distributed. The U.S. has shipped 22.1 million doses, and 6.6 million first shots have been given, according to the latest CDC data updated Jan. 8. Mr. Azar and other federal health officials have encouraged states to use their current supply and expand vaccine access to more priority groups.
“We would be delighted to learn that jurisdictions have actually administered many more doses than they are presently reporting,” a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told CNN. “We are encouraging jurisdictions to expand their priority groups as needed to ensure no vaccine is sitting on the shelf after having been delivered to the jurisdiction-directed locations.”
Releasing more vaccines for first doses could create ethical concerns as well, since people getting vaccines expect to get a second dose in the proper amount of time, according to The Week. Biden’s transition team said on Jan. 8 that he won’t delay the second dose but, instead, plans to ramp up production to stay on track.
To do this well, the federal government should create a coordinated vaccine strategy that sets expectations for an around-the-clock operation and help state and local vaccination programs meet their goals, Leana Wen, MD, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in an editorial for The Washington Post.
“The Biden team’s urgency around vaccinations is commendable,” she added in a Twitter post on Jan. 11. “I’d like to see a guarantee that every 1st dose given will be followed with a timely 2nd dose. Otherwise, there are ethical concerns that could add to vaccine hesitancy.”
Biden has pledged that 100 million doses will be administered in his first 100 days in office. He has grown frustrated as concerns grow that his administration could fall short of the promise, according to Politico. His coronavirus response team has noted several challenges, including what they say is a lack of long-term planning by the Trump administration and an initial refusal to share key information.
“We’re uncovering new information each day, and we’re unearthing – of course – more work to be done,” Vivek Murthy, MD, Biden’s nominee for surgeon general, told Politico.
The team has uncovered staffing shortages, technology problems, and issues with health care insurance coverage. The incoming Biden team has developed several initiatives, such as mobile vaccination units and new federal sites to give shots. It could take weeks to get the vaccine rollout on track, the news outlet reported.
“Will this be challenging? Absolutely,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Biden’s incoming chief medical adviser on the coronavirus, told Politico. “This is an unprecedented effort to vaccinate the entire country over a period of time that’s fighting against people dying at record numbers. To say it’s not a challenge would be unrealistic. Do I think it can be done? Yes.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Physicians react: Doctors worry about patients reading their clinical notes
Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.
The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
Potentially more legal woes for physicians?
A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.
“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.
She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.
Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?
As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”
The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.
“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”
One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”
Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.
One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
Will Open Notes erode patient communication?
One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.
“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
Some physicians envision positive developments
Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.
A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.
“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.
“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”
One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.
Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”
Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”
“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”
“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.
The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
Potentially more legal woes for physicians?
A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.
“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.
She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.
Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?
As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”
The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.
“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”
One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”
Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.
One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
Will Open Notes erode patient communication?
One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.
“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
Some physicians envision positive developments
Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.
A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.
“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.
“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”
One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.
Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”
Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”
“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”
“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients will soon be able to read the notes that physicians make during an episode of care, as well as information about diagnostic testing and imaging results, tests for STDs, fetal ultrasounds, and cancer biopsies. This open access is raising concerns among physicians.
As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have the right to see their medical notes. Known as Open Notes, the policy will go into effect on April 5, 2021. The Department of Health & Human Services recently changed the original start date, which was to be Nov. 2, 2020.
The mandate has some physicians worrying about potential legal risks and possible violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. When asked to share their views on the new Open Notes mandate, many physicians expressed their concerns but also cited some of the positive effects that could come from this.
Potentially more legal woes for physicians?
A key concern raised by one physician commenter is that patients could misunderstand legitimate medical terminology or even put a physician in legal crosshairs. For example, a medical term such as “spontaneous abortion” could be misconstrued by patients. A physician might write notes with the idea that a patient is reading them and thus might alter those notes in a way that creates legal trouble.
“This layers another level of censorship and legal liability onto physicians, who in attempting to be [politically correct], may omit critical information or have to use euphemisms in order to avoid conflict,” one physician said.
She also questioned whether notes might now have to be run through legal counsel before being posted to avoid potential liability.
Another doctor questioned how physicians would be able to document patients suspected of faking injuries for pain medication, for example. Could such documentation lead to lawsuits for the doctor?
As one physician noted, some patients “are drug seekers. Some refuse to aid in their own care. Some are malingerers. Not documenting that is bad medicine.”
The possibility of violating doctor-patient confidentiality laws, particularly for teenagers, could be another negative effect of Open Notes, said one physician.
“Won’t this violate the statutes that teenagers have the right to confidential evaluations?” the commenter mused. “If charts are to be immediately available, then STDs and pregnancies they weren’t ready to talk about will now be suddenly known by their parents.”
One doctor has already faced this issue. “I already ran into this problem once,” he noted. “Now I warn those on their parents’ insurance before I start the visit. I have literally had a patient state, ‘well then we are done,’ and leave without being seen due to it.”
Another physician questioned the possibility of having to write notes differently than they do now, especially if the patients have lower reading comprehension abilities.
One physician who uses Open Notes said he receives patient requests for changes that have little to do with the actual diagnosis and relate to ancillary issues. He highlighted patients who “don’t want psych diagnosis in their chart or are concerned a diagnosis will raise their insurance premium, so they ask me to delete it.”
Will Open Notes erode patient communication?
One physician questioned whether it would lead to patients being less open and forthcoming about their medical concerns with doctors.
“The main problem I see is the patient not telling me the whole story, or worse, telling me the story, and then asking me not to document it (as many have done in the past) because they don’t want their spouse, family, etc. to read the notes and they have already given their permission for them to do so, for a variety of reasons,” he commented. “This includes topics of STDs, infidelity, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other symptoms the patient doesn’t want their family to read about.”
Some physicians envision positive developments
Many physicians are unconcerned by the new mandate. “I see some potential good in this, such as improving doctor-patient communication and more scrupulous charting,” one physician said.
A doctor working in the U.S. federal health care system noted that open access has been a part of that system for decades.
“Since health care providers work in this unveiled setting for their entire career, they usually know how to write appropriate clinical notes and what information needs to be included in them,” he wrote. “Now it’s time for the rest of the medical community to catch up to a reality that we have worked within for decades now.
“The world did not end, malpractice complaints did not increase, and physician/patient relationships were not damaged. Living in the information age, archaic practices like private notes were surely going to end at some point.”
One doctor who has been using Open Notes has had experiences in which the patient noted an error in the medical chart that needed correcting. “I have had one patient correct me on a timeline in the HPI which was helpful and I made the requested correction in that instance,” he said.
Another physician agreed. “I’ve had patients add or correct valuable information I’ve missed. Good probably outweighs the bad if we set limits on behaviors expressed by the personality disordered group. The majority of people don’t seem to care and still ask me ‘what would you do’ or ‘tell me what to do.’ It’s all about patient/physician trust.”
Another talked about how Open Notes should have little or no impact. “Here’s a novel concept – talking to our patients,” he commented. “There is nothing in every one of my chart notes that has not already been discussed with my patients and I dictate (speech to text) my findings and plan in front of them. So, if they are reviewing my office notes, it will only serve to reinforce what we have already discussed.”
“I don’t intend to change anything,” he added. “Chances are if they were to see a test result before I have a chance to discuss it with them, they will have already ‘Googled’ its meaning and we can have more meaningful interaction if they have a basic understanding of the test.”
“I understand that this is anxiety provoking, but in general I think it is appropriate for patients to have access to their notes,” said another physician. “If physicians write lousy notes that say they did things they didn’t do, that fail to actually state a diagnosis and a plan (and they often do), that is the doc’s problem, not the patient’s.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Deucravacitinib offers biologic-like psoriasis efficacy in oral form
and a range of other chronic inflammatory diseases, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.
Deucravacitinib solely blocks tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) signaling without touching Janus kinase (JAK) 1, 2, or 3. In so doing, it inhibits several cytokines important for inflammation: interleukin-12, IL-13, and interferon-alpha and -beta. Yet it doesn’t affect the numerous pathways mediated by JAKs 1-3, many of which relate to growth and development of cell lineages, including production of erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, prolactin, growth hormone, and leptin. These deucravacitinib characteristics should translate into fewer off-target side effects than with oral JAK inhibitors.
“The promise of TYK2 inhibition that’s brought to you by deucravacitinib is there will be no laboratory monitoring and the effects will be narrow in blocking inflammation,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.
He highlighted the positive results of a randomized, phase 2, dose-ranging study conducted in 267 patients with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis. Participants had an average baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 19, with a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of about 12. At the top dose of 12 mg once daily, 75% of patients achieved a PASI 75 response at week 12, and 44% reached a PASI 90, as did 69% and 44%, respectively, who were on deucravacitinib at 3 mg twice daily. Those are collective efficacy numbers similar to adalimumab (Humira) or ustekinumab (Stelara).
Deucravacitinib may provide efficacy “like one of our second-tier biological therapies, yet it will be oral,” Dr. Strober commented.
Importantly, no laboratory abnormalities were detected in this trial. Only mild side effects were documented, most prominently acne, which occurred in dose-dependent fashion in 2% of patients on 3 mg of deucravacitinib twice daily and 4% at 12 mg once daily.
“The treatment of the acne that is elicited by this drug is yet to be fully described, but I’m sure we’ll learn the best approaches, given that acne is in our wheel house,” the dermatologist added.
Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced positive results from the pivotal phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial. Deucravacitinib at 6 mg once daily met both of its coprimary efficacy endpoints in the study, which included 666 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The TYK 2 inhibitor demonstrated superiority to both placebo and oral apremilast (Otezla) at week 16. The company said the safety profile was consistent with the phase 2 results, and that the full details of the phase 3 trial will be presented next year at a major medical meeting.
In addition, positive phase 2 results were reported for deucravacitinib in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a randomized trial presented at the fall 2020 meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Deucravacitinib is also under study for lupus and inflammatory bowel disease.
Dr. Strober, an active clinical trialist, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
and a range of other chronic inflammatory diseases, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.
Deucravacitinib solely blocks tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) signaling without touching Janus kinase (JAK) 1, 2, or 3. In so doing, it inhibits several cytokines important for inflammation: interleukin-12, IL-13, and interferon-alpha and -beta. Yet it doesn’t affect the numerous pathways mediated by JAKs 1-3, many of which relate to growth and development of cell lineages, including production of erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, prolactin, growth hormone, and leptin. These deucravacitinib characteristics should translate into fewer off-target side effects than with oral JAK inhibitors.
“The promise of TYK2 inhibition that’s brought to you by deucravacitinib is there will be no laboratory monitoring and the effects will be narrow in blocking inflammation,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.
He highlighted the positive results of a randomized, phase 2, dose-ranging study conducted in 267 patients with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis. Participants had an average baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 19, with a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of about 12. At the top dose of 12 mg once daily, 75% of patients achieved a PASI 75 response at week 12, and 44% reached a PASI 90, as did 69% and 44%, respectively, who were on deucravacitinib at 3 mg twice daily. Those are collective efficacy numbers similar to adalimumab (Humira) or ustekinumab (Stelara).
Deucravacitinib may provide efficacy “like one of our second-tier biological therapies, yet it will be oral,” Dr. Strober commented.
Importantly, no laboratory abnormalities were detected in this trial. Only mild side effects were documented, most prominently acne, which occurred in dose-dependent fashion in 2% of patients on 3 mg of deucravacitinib twice daily and 4% at 12 mg once daily.
“The treatment of the acne that is elicited by this drug is yet to be fully described, but I’m sure we’ll learn the best approaches, given that acne is in our wheel house,” the dermatologist added.
Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced positive results from the pivotal phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial. Deucravacitinib at 6 mg once daily met both of its coprimary efficacy endpoints in the study, which included 666 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The TYK 2 inhibitor demonstrated superiority to both placebo and oral apremilast (Otezla) at week 16. The company said the safety profile was consistent with the phase 2 results, and that the full details of the phase 3 trial will be presented next year at a major medical meeting.
In addition, positive phase 2 results were reported for deucravacitinib in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a randomized trial presented at the fall 2020 meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Deucravacitinib is also under study for lupus and inflammatory bowel disease.
Dr. Strober, an active clinical trialist, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
and a range of other chronic inflammatory diseases, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.
Deucravacitinib solely blocks tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) signaling without touching Janus kinase (JAK) 1, 2, or 3. In so doing, it inhibits several cytokines important for inflammation: interleukin-12, IL-13, and interferon-alpha and -beta. Yet it doesn’t affect the numerous pathways mediated by JAKs 1-3, many of which relate to growth and development of cell lineages, including production of erythropoietin, thrombopoietin, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, prolactin, growth hormone, and leptin. These deucravacitinib characteristics should translate into fewer off-target side effects than with oral JAK inhibitors.
“The promise of TYK2 inhibition that’s brought to you by deucravacitinib is there will be no laboratory monitoring and the effects will be narrow in blocking inflammation,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.
He highlighted the positive results of a randomized, phase 2, dose-ranging study conducted in 267 patients with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis. Participants had an average baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 19, with a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of about 12. At the top dose of 12 mg once daily, 75% of patients achieved a PASI 75 response at week 12, and 44% reached a PASI 90, as did 69% and 44%, respectively, who were on deucravacitinib at 3 mg twice daily. Those are collective efficacy numbers similar to adalimumab (Humira) or ustekinumab (Stelara).
Deucravacitinib may provide efficacy “like one of our second-tier biological therapies, yet it will be oral,” Dr. Strober commented.
Importantly, no laboratory abnormalities were detected in this trial. Only mild side effects were documented, most prominently acne, which occurred in dose-dependent fashion in 2% of patients on 3 mg of deucravacitinib twice daily and 4% at 12 mg once daily.
“The treatment of the acne that is elicited by this drug is yet to be fully described, but I’m sure we’ll learn the best approaches, given that acne is in our wheel house,” the dermatologist added.
Bristol-Myers Squibb has announced positive results from the pivotal phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial. Deucravacitinib at 6 mg once daily met both of its coprimary efficacy endpoints in the study, which included 666 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. The TYK 2 inhibitor demonstrated superiority to both placebo and oral apremilast (Otezla) at week 16. The company said the safety profile was consistent with the phase 2 results, and that the full details of the phase 3 trial will be presented next year at a major medical meeting.
In addition, positive phase 2 results were reported for deucravacitinib in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a randomized trial presented at the fall 2020 meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Deucravacitinib is also under study for lupus and inflammatory bowel disease.
Dr. Strober, an active clinical trialist, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb.
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM MEDSCAPELIVE LAS VEGAS DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
Over half of COVID-19 transmission may occur via asymptomatic people
As COVID-19 cases surge and vaccinations lag, health authorities continue to seek additional ways to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Now, a modeling study estimates that more than half of transmissions come from pre-, never-, and asymptomatic individuals, indicating that symptom-based screening will have little effect on spread.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, published online Jan. 7 in JAMA Network Open, concludes that for optimal control, protective measures such as masking and social distancing should be supplemented with strategic testing of potentially exposed but asymptomatic individuals .
“In the absence of effective and widespread use of therapeutics or vaccines that can shorten or eliminate infectivity, successful control of SARS-CoV-2 cannot rely solely on identifying and isolating symptomatic cases; even if implemented effectively, this strategy would be insufficient,” CDC biologist Michael J. Johansson, PhD, and colleagues warn. “Multiple measures that effectively address transmission risk in the absence of symptoms are imperative to control SARS-CoV-2.”
According to the authors, the effectiveness of some current transmission prevention efforts has been disputed and subject to mixed messaging. Therefore, they decided to model the proportion of COVID-19 infections that are likely the result of individuals who show no symptoms and may be unknowingly infecting others.
“Unfortunately, there continues to be some skepticism about the value of community-wide mitigation efforts for preventing transmission such as masking, distancing, and hand hygiene, particularly for people without symptoms,” corresponding author Jay C. Butler, MD, said in an interview. “So we wanted to have a base assumption about how much transmission occurs from asymptomatic people to underscore the importance of mitigation measures and of creating immunity through vaccine delivery.”
Such a yardstick is especially germane in the context of the new, more transmissible variant. “It really puts [things] in a bigger box and underscores, boldfaces, and italicizes the need to change people’s behaviors and the importance of mitigation,” Dr. Butler said. It also highlights the advisability of targeted strategic testing in congregate settings, schools, and universities, which is already underway.
The analysis
Based on data from several COVID-19 studies from last year, the CDC’s analytical model assumes at baseline that infectiousness peaks at the median point of symptom onset, and that 30% of infected individuals never develop symptoms but are nevertheless 75% as infectious as those who develop overt symptoms.
The investigators then model multiple scenarios of transmission based pre- and never-symptomatic individuals, assuming different incubation and infectious periods, and varying numbers of days from point of infection to symptom onset.
When combined, the models predicts that 59% of all transmission would come from asymptomatic transmission – 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from never-symptomatic individuals.
The findings complement those of an earlier CDC analysis, according to the authors.
The overall proportion of transmission from presymptomatic and never-symptomatic individuals is key to identifying mitigation measures that may be able to control SARS-CoV-2, the authors stated.
For example, they explain, if the infection reproduction number (R) in a particular setting is 2.0, a reduction in transmission of at least 50% is needed in order to reduce R to below 1.0. “Given that in some settings R is likely much greater than 2 and more than half of transmissions may come from individuals who are asymptomatic at the time of transmission, effective control must mitigate transmission risk from people without symptoms,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledge that the study applies a simplistic model to a complex and evolving phenomenon, and that the exact proportions of presymptomatic and never-symptomatic transmission and the incubation periods are not known. They also note symptoms and transmissions appear to vary across different population groups, with older individuals more likely than younger persons to experience symptoms, according to previous studies.
“Assume that everyone is potentially infected”
Other experts agree that expanded testing of asymptomatic individuals is important. “Screening for fever and isolation of symptomatic individuals is a common-sense approach to help prevent spread, but these measures are by no means adequate since it’s been clearly documented that individuals who are either asymptomatic or presymptomatic can still spread the virus,” said Brett Williams, MD, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Rush University in Chicago.
“As we saw with the White House Rose Garden superspreader outbreak, testing does not reliably exclude infection either because the tested individual has not yet become positive or the test is falsely negative,” Dr. Williams, who was not involved in the CDC study, said in an interview. He further noted that when prevalence is as high as it currently is in the United States, the rate of false negatives will be high because a large proportion of those screened will be unknowingly infected.
At his center, all visitors and staff are screened with a temperature probe on entry, and since the earliest days of the pandemic, universal masking has been required. “Nationally there have been many instances of hospital break room outbreaks because of staff eating lunch together, and these outbreaks also demonstrate the incompleteness of symptomatic isolation,” Dr. Williams said.
For his part, virologist Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said that while it’s been understood for some time that many infected people will not exhibit symptoms, “the question that remains is just how infectious are they?”
Dr. Esper’s takeaway from the modeling study is not so much that we need more screening of possibly exposed but asymptomatic people, but rather testing symptomatic people and tracing their contacts is not enough.
“We need to continue to assume that everyone is potentially infected whether they know it or not. And even though we have ramped up our testing to a much greater capacity than in the first wave, we need to continue to wear masks and socially distance because just identifying people who are sick and isolating or quarantining them is not going to be enough to contain the pandemic.”
And although assumption-based modeling is helpful, it cannot tell us “how many asymptomatic people are actually infected,” said Dr. Esper, who was not involved in the CDC study.
Dr. Esper also pointed out that the study estimates are based on data from early Chinese studies, but the virus has since changed. The new, more transmissible strain in the United States and elsewhere may involve not only more infections but also a longer presymptomatic stage. “So the CDC study may actually undershoot asymptomatic infections,” he said.
He also agreed with the authors that when it comes to infection, not all humans are equal. “Older people tend to be more symptomatic and become symptomatic more quickly so the asymptomatic rate is not the same across board from young people age 20 to older people.”
The bottom line, said David. A. Hirschwerk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., is that these data support the maintenance of protective measures we’ve been taking over the past months. “They support the concept that asymptomatic people are a significant source of transmission and that we need to adhere to mask wearing and social distancing, particularly indoors,” Dr. Hirschwerk, who was not involved in the analysis, said in an interview. “More testing would be better but it has to be fast and it has to be efficient, and there are a lot of challenges to overcome.”
The study was done as part of the CDC’s coronavirus disease 2019 response and was supported solely by federal base and response funding. The authors and commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As COVID-19 cases surge and vaccinations lag, health authorities continue to seek additional ways to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Now, a modeling study estimates that more than half of transmissions come from pre-, never-, and asymptomatic individuals, indicating that symptom-based screening will have little effect on spread.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, published online Jan. 7 in JAMA Network Open, concludes that for optimal control, protective measures such as masking and social distancing should be supplemented with strategic testing of potentially exposed but asymptomatic individuals .
“In the absence of effective and widespread use of therapeutics or vaccines that can shorten or eliminate infectivity, successful control of SARS-CoV-2 cannot rely solely on identifying and isolating symptomatic cases; even if implemented effectively, this strategy would be insufficient,” CDC biologist Michael J. Johansson, PhD, and colleagues warn. “Multiple measures that effectively address transmission risk in the absence of symptoms are imperative to control SARS-CoV-2.”
According to the authors, the effectiveness of some current transmission prevention efforts has been disputed and subject to mixed messaging. Therefore, they decided to model the proportion of COVID-19 infections that are likely the result of individuals who show no symptoms and may be unknowingly infecting others.
“Unfortunately, there continues to be some skepticism about the value of community-wide mitigation efforts for preventing transmission such as masking, distancing, and hand hygiene, particularly for people without symptoms,” corresponding author Jay C. Butler, MD, said in an interview. “So we wanted to have a base assumption about how much transmission occurs from asymptomatic people to underscore the importance of mitigation measures and of creating immunity through vaccine delivery.”
Such a yardstick is especially germane in the context of the new, more transmissible variant. “It really puts [things] in a bigger box and underscores, boldfaces, and italicizes the need to change people’s behaviors and the importance of mitigation,” Dr. Butler said. It also highlights the advisability of targeted strategic testing in congregate settings, schools, and universities, which is already underway.
The analysis
Based on data from several COVID-19 studies from last year, the CDC’s analytical model assumes at baseline that infectiousness peaks at the median point of symptom onset, and that 30% of infected individuals never develop symptoms but are nevertheless 75% as infectious as those who develop overt symptoms.
The investigators then model multiple scenarios of transmission based pre- and never-symptomatic individuals, assuming different incubation and infectious periods, and varying numbers of days from point of infection to symptom onset.
When combined, the models predicts that 59% of all transmission would come from asymptomatic transmission – 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from never-symptomatic individuals.
The findings complement those of an earlier CDC analysis, according to the authors.
The overall proportion of transmission from presymptomatic and never-symptomatic individuals is key to identifying mitigation measures that may be able to control SARS-CoV-2, the authors stated.
For example, they explain, if the infection reproduction number (R) in a particular setting is 2.0, a reduction in transmission of at least 50% is needed in order to reduce R to below 1.0. “Given that in some settings R is likely much greater than 2 and more than half of transmissions may come from individuals who are asymptomatic at the time of transmission, effective control must mitigate transmission risk from people without symptoms,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledge that the study applies a simplistic model to a complex and evolving phenomenon, and that the exact proportions of presymptomatic and never-symptomatic transmission and the incubation periods are not known. They also note symptoms and transmissions appear to vary across different population groups, with older individuals more likely than younger persons to experience symptoms, according to previous studies.
“Assume that everyone is potentially infected”
Other experts agree that expanded testing of asymptomatic individuals is important. “Screening for fever and isolation of symptomatic individuals is a common-sense approach to help prevent spread, but these measures are by no means adequate since it’s been clearly documented that individuals who are either asymptomatic or presymptomatic can still spread the virus,” said Brett Williams, MD, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Rush University in Chicago.
“As we saw with the White House Rose Garden superspreader outbreak, testing does not reliably exclude infection either because the tested individual has not yet become positive or the test is falsely negative,” Dr. Williams, who was not involved in the CDC study, said in an interview. He further noted that when prevalence is as high as it currently is in the United States, the rate of false negatives will be high because a large proportion of those screened will be unknowingly infected.
At his center, all visitors and staff are screened with a temperature probe on entry, and since the earliest days of the pandemic, universal masking has been required. “Nationally there have been many instances of hospital break room outbreaks because of staff eating lunch together, and these outbreaks also demonstrate the incompleteness of symptomatic isolation,” Dr. Williams said.
For his part, virologist Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said that while it’s been understood for some time that many infected people will not exhibit symptoms, “the question that remains is just how infectious are they?”
Dr. Esper’s takeaway from the modeling study is not so much that we need more screening of possibly exposed but asymptomatic people, but rather testing symptomatic people and tracing their contacts is not enough.
“We need to continue to assume that everyone is potentially infected whether they know it or not. And even though we have ramped up our testing to a much greater capacity than in the first wave, we need to continue to wear masks and socially distance because just identifying people who are sick and isolating or quarantining them is not going to be enough to contain the pandemic.”
And although assumption-based modeling is helpful, it cannot tell us “how many asymptomatic people are actually infected,” said Dr. Esper, who was not involved in the CDC study.
Dr. Esper also pointed out that the study estimates are based on data from early Chinese studies, but the virus has since changed. The new, more transmissible strain in the United States and elsewhere may involve not only more infections but also a longer presymptomatic stage. “So the CDC study may actually undershoot asymptomatic infections,” he said.
He also agreed with the authors that when it comes to infection, not all humans are equal. “Older people tend to be more symptomatic and become symptomatic more quickly so the asymptomatic rate is not the same across board from young people age 20 to older people.”
The bottom line, said David. A. Hirschwerk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., is that these data support the maintenance of protective measures we’ve been taking over the past months. “They support the concept that asymptomatic people are a significant source of transmission and that we need to adhere to mask wearing and social distancing, particularly indoors,” Dr. Hirschwerk, who was not involved in the analysis, said in an interview. “More testing would be better but it has to be fast and it has to be efficient, and there are a lot of challenges to overcome.”
The study was done as part of the CDC’s coronavirus disease 2019 response and was supported solely by federal base and response funding. The authors and commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As COVID-19 cases surge and vaccinations lag, health authorities continue to seek additional ways to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Now, a modeling study estimates that more than half of transmissions come from pre-, never-, and asymptomatic individuals, indicating that symptom-based screening will have little effect on spread.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, published online Jan. 7 in JAMA Network Open, concludes that for optimal control, protective measures such as masking and social distancing should be supplemented with strategic testing of potentially exposed but asymptomatic individuals .
“In the absence of effective and widespread use of therapeutics or vaccines that can shorten or eliminate infectivity, successful control of SARS-CoV-2 cannot rely solely on identifying and isolating symptomatic cases; even if implemented effectively, this strategy would be insufficient,” CDC biologist Michael J. Johansson, PhD, and colleagues warn. “Multiple measures that effectively address transmission risk in the absence of symptoms are imperative to control SARS-CoV-2.”
According to the authors, the effectiveness of some current transmission prevention efforts has been disputed and subject to mixed messaging. Therefore, they decided to model the proportion of COVID-19 infections that are likely the result of individuals who show no symptoms and may be unknowingly infecting others.
“Unfortunately, there continues to be some skepticism about the value of community-wide mitigation efforts for preventing transmission such as masking, distancing, and hand hygiene, particularly for people without symptoms,” corresponding author Jay C. Butler, MD, said in an interview. “So we wanted to have a base assumption about how much transmission occurs from asymptomatic people to underscore the importance of mitigation measures and of creating immunity through vaccine delivery.”
Such a yardstick is especially germane in the context of the new, more transmissible variant. “It really puts [things] in a bigger box and underscores, boldfaces, and italicizes the need to change people’s behaviors and the importance of mitigation,” Dr. Butler said. It also highlights the advisability of targeted strategic testing in congregate settings, schools, and universities, which is already underway.
The analysis
Based on data from several COVID-19 studies from last year, the CDC’s analytical model assumes at baseline that infectiousness peaks at the median point of symptom onset, and that 30% of infected individuals never develop symptoms but are nevertheless 75% as infectious as those who develop overt symptoms.
The investigators then model multiple scenarios of transmission based pre- and never-symptomatic individuals, assuming different incubation and infectious periods, and varying numbers of days from point of infection to symptom onset.
When combined, the models predicts that 59% of all transmission would come from asymptomatic transmission – 35% from presymptomatic individuals and 24% from never-symptomatic individuals.
The findings complement those of an earlier CDC analysis, according to the authors.
The overall proportion of transmission from presymptomatic and never-symptomatic individuals is key to identifying mitigation measures that may be able to control SARS-CoV-2, the authors stated.
For example, they explain, if the infection reproduction number (R) in a particular setting is 2.0, a reduction in transmission of at least 50% is needed in order to reduce R to below 1.0. “Given that in some settings R is likely much greater than 2 and more than half of transmissions may come from individuals who are asymptomatic at the time of transmission, effective control must mitigate transmission risk from people without symptoms,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledge that the study applies a simplistic model to a complex and evolving phenomenon, and that the exact proportions of presymptomatic and never-symptomatic transmission and the incubation periods are not known. They also note symptoms and transmissions appear to vary across different population groups, with older individuals more likely than younger persons to experience symptoms, according to previous studies.
“Assume that everyone is potentially infected”
Other experts agree that expanded testing of asymptomatic individuals is important. “Screening for fever and isolation of symptomatic individuals is a common-sense approach to help prevent spread, but these measures are by no means adequate since it’s been clearly documented that individuals who are either asymptomatic or presymptomatic can still spread the virus,” said Brett Williams, MD, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Rush University in Chicago.
“As we saw with the White House Rose Garden superspreader outbreak, testing does not reliably exclude infection either because the tested individual has not yet become positive or the test is falsely negative,” Dr. Williams, who was not involved in the CDC study, said in an interview. He further noted that when prevalence is as high as it currently is in the United States, the rate of false negatives will be high because a large proportion of those screened will be unknowingly infected.
At his center, all visitors and staff are screened with a temperature probe on entry, and since the earliest days of the pandemic, universal masking has been required. “Nationally there have been many instances of hospital break room outbreaks because of staff eating lunch together, and these outbreaks also demonstrate the incompleteness of symptomatic isolation,” Dr. Williams said.
For his part, virologist Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said that while it’s been understood for some time that many infected people will not exhibit symptoms, “the question that remains is just how infectious are they?”
Dr. Esper’s takeaway from the modeling study is not so much that we need more screening of possibly exposed but asymptomatic people, but rather testing symptomatic people and tracing their contacts is not enough.
“We need to continue to assume that everyone is potentially infected whether they know it or not. And even though we have ramped up our testing to a much greater capacity than in the first wave, we need to continue to wear masks and socially distance because just identifying people who are sick and isolating or quarantining them is not going to be enough to contain the pandemic.”
And although assumption-based modeling is helpful, it cannot tell us “how many asymptomatic people are actually infected,” said Dr. Esper, who was not involved in the CDC study.
Dr. Esper also pointed out that the study estimates are based on data from early Chinese studies, but the virus has since changed. The new, more transmissible strain in the United States and elsewhere may involve not only more infections but also a longer presymptomatic stage. “So the CDC study may actually undershoot asymptomatic infections,” he said.
He also agreed with the authors that when it comes to infection, not all humans are equal. “Older people tend to be more symptomatic and become symptomatic more quickly so the asymptomatic rate is not the same across board from young people age 20 to older people.”
The bottom line, said David. A. Hirschwerk, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., is that these data support the maintenance of protective measures we’ve been taking over the past months. “They support the concept that asymptomatic people are a significant source of transmission and that we need to adhere to mask wearing and social distancing, particularly indoors,” Dr. Hirschwerk, who was not involved in the analysis, said in an interview. “More testing would be better but it has to be fast and it has to be efficient, and there are a lot of challenges to overcome.”
The study was done as part of the CDC’s coronavirus disease 2019 response and was supported solely by federal base and response funding. The authors and commentators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data call for biologics trials in undertreated juvenile arthritis subtype
Children with enthesitis-related arthritis often have a high burden of disease and could benefit from medications currently approved for adults with spondyloarthritis, according to a review published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“Enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) was the JIA [juvenile idiopathic arthritis] category applied to children with spondyloarthritis (SpA), recognizing enthesitis as a defining characteristic,” wrote Pamela F. Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The ERA criteria include “arthritis plus enthesitis; or arthritis or enthesitis plus at least two of the following: sacroiliac tenderness or inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, first-degree relative with HLA-B27–associated disease, acute anterior uveitis, and arthritis in a male older than 6 years,” the review authors noted.
“None of the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies for peripheral SpA or nonradiographic axial SpA” have been studied or approved for use in children with ERA, but data support biologic similarity to SpA in adults; notably, studies of the HLA-B27 allele have identified it as a risk factor for both SpA and ERA, they said.
Common factors in adult and childhood conditions
“The principal commonalities of children with ERA and axial arthritis, and adults with nonradiographic axial SpA, include enthesitis, arthritis, inflammatory back pain, anterior uveitis, HLA-B27 positivity, and family history of HLA-B27–associated disease,” the review authors wrote.
The first-line treatment for both ERA with axial arthritis and nonradiographic axial SpA is NSAIDs, followed by tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors if needed, they said. However, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) may be used in cases of peripheral disease affecting five or more joints. Studies of treatment response show similarities between ERA in children and SpA in adults, the authors added, with nearly half of adults with axial disease unable to achieve remission and approximately one-third of children with ERA failing to respond to therapy.
Clinical trials could improve options and outcomes for those with ERA who need advanced therapy and such trials should evaluate response of axial and peripheral disease separately, the review authors emphasized. For example, “Eligibility criteria for children with ERA and axial features could include the presence of some of the following disease features: active inflammatory sacroiliitis based on typical MRI changes according to ASAS/OMERACT [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials] criteria; elevated CRP [C-reactive protein]; and inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDs,” they noted. “Considering the similarities between adult spondyloarthritis and ERA in terms of etiology, genetics, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations, it is evident that medications approved for axial or peripheral SpA should be studied in children with ERA involving axial or peripheral joints, respectively, with the intent to achieve labeling for use in children,” they concluded.
New data highlight ERA disease burden
The need for additional therapies for ERA patients gained more support from a recent study in which a majority of children with ERA or juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) used biologics, but those with sacroiliitis in particular showed a significant disease burden despite high biologic use.
The International Leagues Against Rheumatism criteria include seven categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, of which ERA and jPsA are the most common; however, characteristics of these children have not been well described, wrote Dax G. Rumsey, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.
“Children with ERA are more likely to have a clinical picture with predominantly peripheral arthritis, typically described as an oligoarthritis involving the lower limbs with high risk of axial disease, relative to the other categories of JIA,” and report more intense pain and worse health status, compared with children in other categories, the researchers wrote.
To more completely characterize children with ERA and jPsA, the researchers assessed 522 children with ERA and 380 with jPsA. The children were enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry. The findings were published in a brief report in Arthritis Care & Research.
Overall, 69% of the children took at least one biologic, including 72% with ERA and 64% with jPsA. Biologic use was even higher (81%) among the 28% of patients with sacroiliitis (40% of ERA patients and 12% of jPsA patients). Approximately 36% of the patients with sacroiliitis were positive for HLA-B27. In addition, Physician Global Assessment scores and clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-10 (cJADAS10) scores were significantly higher at the first clinical visit with sacroiliitis, compared with the first visit without, which confirms “the clinical impression that active sacroiliitis significantly impacts children and their families,” the researchers said.
The average age at diagnosis was 10.8 years for ERA and 8.2 years for jPsA, and significantly more ERA patients were male (56% vs. 38%). However, more of the patients with sacroiliitis (54%) were female. More than half of the patients reported polyarticular involvement.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the classification of ERA or jPsA and the reliance on physician diagnoses, as well as the variation in identifying sacroiliitis, the researchers said. However, the results increase understanding of the pathophysiology of ERA and jPsA to help determine optimal treatment, they concluded.
Data highlight research and treatment gaps
“Recent research demonstrates a large, unmet medical need in the treatment of JIA with 52%-65% of all JIA patients, including those with ERA and jPsA, having been treated with at least one biologic DMARD and 15%-19% having been treated with an FDA-unapproved biologic. In those with ERA or jPsA, 72%-79% of the children had been treated with a biologic DMARD, although no biologic DMARD has ever been FDA approved for these JIA categories,” Daniel J. Lovell, MD, and Hermine I. Brunner, MD, both with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, wrote in an editorial that accompanied the new study. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Brunner also were coauthors of the review article.
The new study supports findings from other recent publications, the editorialists noted. The new results showed “a significant proportion of the JIA population with active sacroiliitis with high disease burden despite very frequent (over 80% of the population) [treatment] with unstudied and unapproved biologic DMARDs,” they said. “These children with sacroiliitis had significantly greater disease burden with higher physician assessment of disease activity, higher parent assessment of disease impact, and higher disease activity as measured by the Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Disease Activity Score, compared to the children with ERA or jPsA without sacroiliitis,” they noted.
Previously, “the FDA granted pharmaceutical companies studying new treatments in adult SpA automatic full waivers from doing studies in children for new medications for ‘axial spondyloarthropathies including ankylosing spondylitis’ up until July 2020,” the editorialists said. However, “It is now time now for the pharmaceutical industry to perform FDA-monitored clinical trials of children and adolescents with SpA,” they emphasized. “This will allow for the scientific assessment of proper dosing, efficacy, and safety of the increasing number of new medications that are being licensed by the FDA for the treatment of SpA, such as the anti-TNF, anti–IL[interleukin]-17, and anti–IL-23 biologics, and perhaps JAK [Janus kinase] agents, to address this unmet medical need in these patients with juvenile SpA,” they concluded.
Dr. Weiss disclosed grant support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), and financial relationships with Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Lovell disclosed relationships with companies including Abbott, AbbVie Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, and Wyeth, as well as serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Forest Research and NIAMS. Dr. Brunner disclosed relationships with companies including Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, R-Pharm, and Sanofi. The study by Dr. Rumsey and colleagues was supported by Amgen. Dr. Rumsey and colleagues had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Weiss PF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 5. doi: 10.1002/acr.24529; Rumsey DG et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec. 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24537; Lovell DJ and Brunner HI. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24536.
Children with enthesitis-related arthritis often have a high burden of disease and could benefit from medications currently approved for adults with spondyloarthritis, according to a review published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“Enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) was the JIA [juvenile idiopathic arthritis] category applied to children with spondyloarthritis (SpA), recognizing enthesitis as a defining characteristic,” wrote Pamela F. Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The ERA criteria include “arthritis plus enthesitis; or arthritis or enthesitis plus at least two of the following: sacroiliac tenderness or inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, first-degree relative with HLA-B27–associated disease, acute anterior uveitis, and arthritis in a male older than 6 years,” the review authors noted.
“None of the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies for peripheral SpA or nonradiographic axial SpA” have been studied or approved for use in children with ERA, but data support biologic similarity to SpA in adults; notably, studies of the HLA-B27 allele have identified it as a risk factor for both SpA and ERA, they said.
Common factors in adult and childhood conditions
“The principal commonalities of children with ERA and axial arthritis, and adults with nonradiographic axial SpA, include enthesitis, arthritis, inflammatory back pain, anterior uveitis, HLA-B27 positivity, and family history of HLA-B27–associated disease,” the review authors wrote.
The first-line treatment for both ERA with axial arthritis and nonradiographic axial SpA is NSAIDs, followed by tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors if needed, they said. However, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) may be used in cases of peripheral disease affecting five or more joints. Studies of treatment response show similarities between ERA in children and SpA in adults, the authors added, with nearly half of adults with axial disease unable to achieve remission and approximately one-third of children with ERA failing to respond to therapy.
Clinical trials could improve options and outcomes for those with ERA who need advanced therapy and such trials should evaluate response of axial and peripheral disease separately, the review authors emphasized. For example, “Eligibility criteria for children with ERA and axial features could include the presence of some of the following disease features: active inflammatory sacroiliitis based on typical MRI changes according to ASAS/OMERACT [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials] criteria; elevated CRP [C-reactive protein]; and inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDs,” they noted. “Considering the similarities between adult spondyloarthritis and ERA in terms of etiology, genetics, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations, it is evident that medications approved for axial or peripheral SpA should be studied in children with ERA involving axial or peripheral joints, respectively, with the intent to achieve labeling for use in children,” they concluded.
New data highlight ERA disease burden
The need for additional therapies for ERA patients gained more support from a recent study in which a majority of children with ERA or juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) used biologics, but those with sacroiliitis in particular showed a significant disease burden despite high biologic use.
The International Leagues Against Rheumatism criteria include seven categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, of which ERA and jPsA are the most common; however, characteristics of these children have not been well described, wrote Dax G. Rumsey, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.
“Children with ERA are more likely to have a clinical picture with predominantly peripheral arthritis, typically described as an oligoarthritis involving the lower limbs with high risk of axial disease, relative to the other categories of JIA,” and report more intense pain and worse health status, compared with children in other categories, the researchers wrote.
To more completely characterize children with ERA and jPsA, the researchers assessed 522 children with ERA and 380 with jPsA. The children were enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry. The findings were published in a brief report in Arthritis Care & Research.
Overall, 69% of the children took at least one biologic, including 72% with ERA and 64% with jPsA. Biologic use was even higher (81%) among the 28% of patients with sacroiliitis (40% of ERA patients and 12% of jPsA patients). Approximately 36% of the patients with sacroiliitis were positive for HLA-B27. In addition, Physician Global Assessment scores and clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-10 (cJADAS10) scores were significantly higher at the first clinical visit with sacroiliitis, compared with the first visit without, which confirms “the clinical impression that active sacroiliitis significantly impacts children and their families,” the researchers said.
The average age at diagnosis was 10.8 years for ERA and 8.2 years for jPsA, and significantly more ERA patients were male (56% vs. 38%). However, more of the patients with sacroiliitis (54%) were female. More than half of the patients reported polyarticular involvement.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the classification of ERA or jPsA and the reliance on physician diagnoses, as well as the variation in identifying sacroiliitis, the researchers said. However, the results increase understanding of the pathophysiology of ERA and jPsA to help determine optimal treatment, they concluded.
Data highlight research and treatment gaps
“Recent research demonstrates a large, unmet medical need in the treatment of JIA with 52%-65% of all JIA patients, including those with ERA and jPsA, having been treated with at least one biologic DMARD and 15%-19% having been treated with an FDA-unapproved biologic. In those with ERA or jPsA, 72%-79% of the children had been treated with a biologic DMARD, although no biologic DMARD has ever been FDA approved for these JIA categories,” Daniel J. Lovell, MD, and Hermine I. Brunner, MD, both with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, wrote in an editorial that accompanied the new study. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Brunner also were coauthors of the review article.
The new study supports findings from other recent publications, the editorialists noted. The new results showed “a significant proportion of the JIA population with active sacroiliitis with high disease burden despite very frequent (over 80% of the population) [treatment] with unstudied and unapproved biologic DMARDs,” they said. “These children with sacroiliitis had significantly greater disease burden with higher physician assessment of disease activity, higher parent assessment of disease impact, and higher disease activity as measured by the Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Disease Activity Score, compared to the children with ERA or jPsA without sacroiliitis,” they noted.
Previously, “the FDA granted pharmaceutical companies studying new treatments in adult SpA automatic full waivers from doing studies in children for new medications for ‘axial spondyloarthropathies including ankylosing spondylitis’ up until July 2020,” the editorialists said. However, “It is now time now for the pharmaceutical industry to perform FDA-monitored clinical trials of children and adolescents with SpA,” they emphasized. “This will allow for the scientific assessment of proper dosing, efficacy, and safety of the increasing number of new medications that are being licensed by the FDA for the treatment of SpA, such as the anti-TNF, anti–IL[interleukin]-17, and anti–IL-23 biologics, and perhaps JAK [Janus kinase] agents, to address this unmet medical need in these patients with juvenile SpA,” they concluded.
Dr. Weiss disclosed grant support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), and financial relationships with Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Lovell disclosed relationships with companies including Abbott, AbbVie Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, and Wyeth, as well as serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Forest Research and NIAMS. Dr. Brunner disclosed relationships with companies including Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, R-Pharm, and Sanofi. The study by Dr. Rumsey and colleagues was supported by Amgen. Dr. Rumsey and colleagues had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Weiss PF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 5. doi: 10.1002/acr.24529; Rumsey DG et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec. 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24537; Lovell DJ and Brunner HI. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24536.
Children with enthesitis-related arthritis often have a high burden of disease and could benefit from medications currently approved for adults with spondyloarthritis, according to a review published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“Enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) was the JIA [juvenile idiopathic arthritis] category applied to children with spondyloarthritis (SpA), recognizing enthesitis as a defining characteristic,” wrote Pamela F. Weiss, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues.
The ERA criteria include “arthritis plus enthesitis; or arthritis or enthesitis plus at least two of the following: sacroiliac tenderness or inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, first-degree relative with HLA-B27–associated disease, acute anterior uveitis, and arthritis in a male older than 6 years,” the review authors noted.
“None of the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved therapies for peripheral SpA or nonradiographic axial SpA” have been studied or approved for use in children with ERA, but data support biologic similarity to SpA in adults; notably, studies of the HLA-B27 allele have identified it as a risk factor for both SpA and ERA, they said.
Common factors in adult and childhood conditions
“The principal commonalities of children with ERA and axial arthritis, and adults with nonradiographic axial SpA, include enthesitis, arthritis, inflammatory back pain, anterior uveitis, HLA-B27 positivity, and family history of HLA-B27–associated disease,” the review authors wrote.
The first-line treatment for both ERA with axial arthritis and nonradiographic axial SpA is NSAIDs, followed by tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors if needed, they said. However, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) may be used in cases of peripheral disease affecting five or more joints. Studies of treatment response show similarities between ERA in children and SpA in adults, the authors added, with nearly half of adults with axial disease unable to achieve remission and approximately one-third of children with ERA failing to respond to therapy.
Clinical trials could improve options and outcomes for those with ERA who need advanced therapy and such trials should evaluate response of axial and peripheral disease separately, the review authors emphasized. For example, “Eligibility criteria for children with ERA and axial features could include the presence of some of the following disease features: active inflammatory sacroiliitis based on typical MRI changes according to ASAS/OMERACT [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society/Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials] criteria; elevated CRP [C-reactive protein]; and inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDs,” they noted. “Considering the similarities between adult spondyloarthritis and ERA in terms of etiology, genetics, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations, it is evident that medications approved for axial or peripheral SpA should be studied in children with ERA involving axial or peripheral joints, respectively, with the intent to achieve labeling for use in children,” they concluded.
New data highlight ERA disease burden
The need for additional therapies for ERA patients gained more support from a recent study in which a majority of children with ERA or juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) used biologics, but those with sacroiliitis in particular showed a significant disease burden despite high biologic use.
The International Leagues Against Rheumatism criteria include seven categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, of which ERA and jPsA are the most common; however, characteristics of these children have not been well described, wrote Dax G. Rumsey, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.
“Children with ERA are more likely to have a clinical picture with predominantly peripheral arthritis, typically described as an oligoarthritis involving the lower limbs with high risk of axial disease, relative to the other categories of JIA,” and report more intense pain and worse health status, compared with children in other categories, the researchers wrote.
To more completely characterize children with ERA and jPsA, the researchers assessed 522 children with ERA and 380 with jPsA. The children were enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry. The findings were published in a brief report in Arthritis Care & Research.
Overall, 69% of the children took at least one biologic, including 72% with ERA and 64% with jPsA. Biologic use was even higher (81%) among the 28% of patients with sacroiliitis (40% of ERA patients and 12% of jPsA patients). Approximately 36% of the patients with sacroiliitis were positive for HLA-B27. In addition, Physician Global Assessment scores and clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-10 (cJADAS10) scores were significantly higher at the first clinical visit with sacroiliitis, compared with the first visit without, which confirms “the clinical impression that active sacroiliitis significantly impacts children and their families,” the researchers said.
The average age at diagnosis was 10.8 years for ERA and 8.2 years for jPsA, and significantly more ERA patients were male (56% vs. 38%). However, more of the patients with sacroiliitis (54%) were female. More than half of the patients reported polyarticular involvement.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the classification of ERA or jPsA and the reliance on physician diagnoses, as well as the variation in identifying sacroiliitis, the researchers said. However, the results increase understanding of the pathophysiology of ERA and jPsA to help determine optimal treatment, they concluded.
Data highlight research and treatment gaps
“Recent research demonstrates a large, unmet medical need in the treatment of JIA with 52%-65% of all JIA patients, including those with ERA and jPsA, having been treated with at least one biologic DMARD and 15%-19% having been treated with an FDA-unapproved biologic. In those with ERA or jPsA, 72%-79% of the children had been treated with a biologic DMARD, although no biologic DMARD has ever been FDA approved for these JIA categories,” Daniel J. Lovell, MD, and Hermine I. Brunner, MD, both with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, wrote in an editorial that accompanied the new study. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Brunner also were coauthors of the review article.
The new study supports findings from other recent publications, the editorialists noted. The new results showed “a significant proportion of the JIA population with active sacroiliitis with high disease burden despite very frequent (over 80% of the population) [treatment] with unstudied and unapproved biologic DMARDs,” they said. “These children with sacroiliitis had significantly greater disease burden with higher physician assessment of disease activity, higher parent assessment of disease impact, and higher disease activity as measured by the Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Disease Activity Score, compared to the children with ERA or jPsA without sacroiliitis,” they noted.
Previously, “the FDA granted pharmaceutical companies studying new treatments in adult SpA automatic full waivers from doing studies in children for new medications for ‘axial spondyloarthropathies including ankylosing spondylitis’ up until July 2020,” the editorialists said. However, “It is now time now for the pharmaceutical industry to perform FDA-monitored clinical trials of children and adolescents with SpA,” they emphasized. “This will allow for the scientific assessment of proper dosing, efficacy, and safety of the increasing number of new medications that are being licensed by the FDA for the treatment of SpA, such as the anti-TNF, anti–IL[interleukin]-17, and anti–IL-23 biologics, and perhaps JAK [Janus kinase] agents, to address this unmet medical need in these patients with juvenile SpA,” they concluded.
Dr. Weiss disclosed grant support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), and financial relationships with Eli Lilly and Pfizer. Dr. Lovell disclosed relationships with companies including Abbott, AbbVie Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, and Wyeth, as well as serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Forest Research and NIAMS. Dr. Brunner disclosed relationships with companies including Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, R-Pharm, and Sanofi. The study by Dr. Rumsey and colleagues was supported by Amgen. Dr. Rumsey and colleagues had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Weiss PF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 5. doi: 10.1002/acr.24529; Rumsey DG et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec. 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24537; Lovell DJ and Brunner HI. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Dec 16. doi: 10.1002/acr.24536.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA Jan 2021
The availability of biologic DMARDs such as TNF-alpha inhibitors has expanded the therapies available to patient with RA. However, these agents have been associated with immunogenicity and the development of anti-drug antibodies that can in turn be associated with allergic reactions as well as secondary non-response to the medication. This observational study analyzes the potential relationship between the presence of anti-nuclear antibodies before and after administration of different TNF-alpha inhibitors (infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), and etanercept (ADA)) with the development of anti-drug antibodies, with the aim of predicting treatment failure. Interestingly, patients who were ANA negative (by immunofluorescence) prior to initiation of therapy did not develop antibodies to ADA or IFX (antibodies to ETN were not measured). How this is related to treatment efficacy is not clear; more patients who had anti-drug antibodies discontinued therapy within 52 weeks and were classified as non-responders to therapy, but whether there was a secondary non-response was not examined in this study. As many patients with RA are also ANA positive and have SSA antibodies, these findings could potentially greatly alter treatment algorithms if proven in longer-term randomized trials and should be examined in other biologic DMARDs as well.
The Leiden Early Arthritis Cohort (EAC) is an inception cohort that was established to study inflammatory arthritis early in the disease state, with a particular interest in RA. This cross-sectional study evaluates the frequency of intermetatarsal and submetatarsal bursitis (IMB and SMB) in early RA. The presence of these forefoot disorders on MRI was evaluated in 441 consecutive patients presenting to the EAC and in 193 healthy controls. IMB and SMB were found more frequently in RA than in other inflammatory arthritides or healthy controls, with a specificity of 70-97%. Sensitivity was higher for IMB than SMB. While the study was not designed to evaluate MRI of the forefoot as a predictive test for development of RA, these findings raise the possibility that this could be used as a diagnostic test in early arthritis and would be worthwhile studying prospectively.
Another question with regard to prediction of response of RA to therapy is that of the possibility of maintaining sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR). Another study from the Leiden EAC examined 772 RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs who had achieved clinical remission (DAS < 2.4) without synovitis. Taper and discontinuation of therapy was attempted, and patients were followed to evaluate whether absence of synovitis on exam was sustained on followup for at least 1 year. Of these patients, 149 achieved SDFR within 7 years of followup; 130 of these patients were seronegative for ACPA. Baseline DAS was similar between patients who did and did not achieve SDFR, but a better early DAS response (larger decrease between baseline and 4 months) was associated an increased chance of SDFR. As the study is observational without a control, it is hard to evaluate how SDFR may proceed in the natural course of the disease. Although the importance of treatment response at 4 months places a premium on early reduction of inflammation, achievement of SDFR in these patients may also be related to other baseline characteristics of the group, especially as ACPA-positive patients less frequently achieved SDFR.
The availability of biologic DMARDs such as TNF-alpha inhibitors has expanded the therapies available to patient with RA. However, these agents have been associated with immunogenicity and the development of anti-drug antibodies that can in turn be associated with allergic reactions as well as secondary non-response to the medication. This observational study analyzes the potential relationship between the presence of anti-nuclear antibodies before and after administration of different TNF-alpha inhibitors (infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), and etanercept (ADA)) with the development of anti-drug antibodies, with the aim of predicting treatment failure. Interestingly, patients who were ANA negative (by immunofluorescence) prior to initiation of therapy did not develop antibodies to ADA or IFX (antibodies to ETN were not measured). How this is related to treatment efficacy is not clear; more patients who had anti-drug antibodies discontinued therapy within 52 weeks and were classified as non-responders to therapy, but whether there was a secondary non-response was not examined in this study. As many patients with RA are also ANA positive and have SSA antibodies, these findings could potentially greatly alter treatment algorithms if proven in longer-term randomized trials and should be examined in other biologic DMARDs as well.
The Leiden Early Arthritis Cohort (EAC) is an inception cohort that was established to study inflammatory arthritis early in the disease state, with a particular interest in RA. This cross-sectional study evaluates the frequency of intermetatarsal and submetatarsal bursitis (IMB and SMB) in early RA. The presence of these forefoot disorders on MRI was evaluated in 441 consecutive patients presenting to the EAC and in 193 healthy controls. IMB and SMB were found more frequently in RA than in other inflammatory arthritides or healthy controls, with a specificity of 70-97%. Sensitivity was higher for IMB than SMB. While the study was not designed to evaluate MRI of the forefoot as a predictive test for development of RA, these findings raise the possibility that this could be used as a diagnostic test in early arthritis and would be worthwhile studying prospectively.
Another question with regard to prediction of response of RA to therapy is that of the possibility of maintaining sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR). Another study from the Leiden EAC examined 772 RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs who had achieved clinical remission (DAS < 2.4) without synovitis. Taper and discontinuation of therapy was attempted, and patients were followed to evaluate whether absence of synovitis on exam was sustained on followup for at least 1 year. Of these patients, 149 achieved SDFR within 7 years of followup; 130 of these patients were seronegative for ACPA. Baseline DAS was similar between patients who did and did not achieve SDFR, but a better early DAS response (larger decrease between baseline and 4 months) was associated an increased chance of SDFR. As the study is observational without a control, it is hard to evaluate how SDFR may proceed in the natural course of the disease. Although the importance of treatment response at 4 months places a premium on early reduction of inflammation, achievement of SDFR in these patients may also be related to other baseline characteristics of the group, especially as ACPA-positive patients less frequently achieved SDFR.
The availability of biologic DMARDs such as TNF-alpha inhibitors has expanded the therapies available to patient with RA. However, these agents have been associated with immunogenicity and the development of anti-drug antibodies that can in turn be associated with allergic reactions as well as secondary non-response to the medication. This observational study analyzes the potential relationship between the presence of anti-nuclear antibodies before and after administration of different TNF-alpha inhibitors (infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), and etanercept (ADA)) with the development of anti-drug antibodies, with the aim of predicting treatment failure. Interestingly, patients who were ANA negative (by immunofluorescence) prior to initiation of therapy did not develop antibodies to ADA or IFX (antibodies to ETN were not measured). How this is related to treatment efficacy is not clear; more patients who had anti-drug antibodies discontinued therapy within 52 weeks and were classified as non-responders to therapy, but whether there was a secondary non-response was not examined in this study. As many patients with RA are also ANA positive and have SSA antibodies, these findings could potentially greatly alter treatment algorithms if proven in longer-term randomized trials and should be examined in other biologic DMARDs as well.
The Leiden Early Arthritis Cohort (EAC) is an inception cohort that was established to study inflammatory arthritis early in the disease state, with a particular interest in RA. This cross-sectional study evaluates the frequency of intermetatarsal and submetatarsal bursitis (IMB and SMB) in early RA. The presence of these forefoot disorders on MRI was evaluated in 441 consecutive patients presenting to the EAC and in 193 healthy controls. IMB and SMB were found more frequently in RA than in other inflammatory arthritides or healthy controls, with a specificity of 70-97%. Sensitivity was higher for IMB than SMB. While the study was not designed to evaluate MRI of the forefoot as a predictive test for development of RA, these findings raise the possibility that this could be used as a diagnostic test in early arthritis and would be worthwhile studying prospectively.
Another question with regard to prediction of response of RA to therapy is that of the possibility of maintaining sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR). Another study from the Leiden EAC examined 772 RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs who had achieved clinical remission (DAS < 2.4) without synovitis. Taper and discontinuation of therapy was attempted, and patients were followed to evaluate whether absence of synovitis on exam was sustained on followup for at least 1 year. Of these patients, 149 achieved SDFR within 7 years of followup; 130 of these patients were seronegative for ACPA. Baseline DAS was similar between patients who did and did not achieve SDFR, but a better early DAS response (larger decrease between baseline and 4 months) was associated an increased chance of SDFR. As the study is observational without a control, it is hard to evaluate how SDFR may proceed in the natural course of the disease. Although the importance of treatment response at 4 months places a premium on early reduction of inflammation, achievement of SDFR in these patients may also be related to other baseline characteristics of the group, especially as ACPA-positive patients less frequently achieved SDFR.
Anaphylaxis cases after COVID-19 vaccine rising but still rare: CDC
Health care providers should be ready to treat rare cases of anaphylaxis following administration of COVID-19 vaccines, federal medical officials have urged. The officials also stressed the importance of continuing vaccinations, despite reports of the rare side effect.
There have been 29 cases of anaphylaxis to date following administration of a COVID-19 vaccine, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a call with reporters on Jan. 6.
The severe allergic reaction, which appears to be rare, can happen with either the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or the rival Moderna product. The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorizations for these two vaccines in December.
Even with the cases seen to date, the COVID-19 vaccines remain a “good value proposition,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization, said in the call.
There have been about 11.1 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which is higher than the estimated 1.3 cases per million doses with influenza vaccines, she said. But the low risk of anaphylaxis must be balanced against the threat of COVID-19, which currently claims about 2,000 lives a day in the United States, she said. In addition, many people are reporting long-term complications with COVID-19 even if they recover.
Kept in context, the data on anaphylaxis should not scare people away from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, she added.
“Their risk from COVID and poor outcomes is still more than the risk of a severe outcome from the vaccine,” Dr. Messonnier said. “And fortunately, we know how to treat anaphylaxis.”
Dr. Messonnier urged health care workers administering COVID-19 vaccines to be prepared.
“Anybody administering vaccines needs not just to have the EpiPen available, but frankly, to know how to use it,” Dr. Messonnier said.
MMWR details
The CDC on Jan. 6 also provided an update on anaphylaxis in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
The information included in the report was based on cases reported with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – the first to get emergency use authorization from the FDA. On the call with reporters, CDC officials confirmed there have been additional reports since then and anaphylaxis has been reported with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. CDC officials said they could not give a breakdown of how many cases were linked to each of these products at this time.
Between Dec. 14 and 23, 2020, monitoring by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System detected 21 cases of anaphylaxis after administration of a reported 1,893,360 first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Most reactions – 71% – occurred within 15 minutes of vaccination.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Health care providers should be ready to treat rare cases of anaphylaxis following administration of COVID-19 vaccines, federal medical officials have urged. The officials also stressed the importance of continuing vaccinations, despite reports of the rare side effect.
There have been 29 cases of anaphylaxis to date following administration of a COVID-19 vaccine, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a call with reporters on Jan. 6.
The severe allergic reaction, which appears to be rare, can happen with either the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or the rival Moderna product. The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorizations for these two vaccines in December.
Even with the cases seen to date, the COVID-19 vaccines remain a “good value proposition,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization, said in the call.
There have been about 11.1 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which is higher than the estimated 1.3 cases per million doses with influenza vaccines, she said. But the low risk of anaphylaxis must be balanced against the threat of COVID-19, which currently claims about 2,000 lives a day in the United States, she said. In addition, many people are reporting long-term complications with COVID-19 even if they recover.
Kept in context, the data on anaphylaxis should not scare people away from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, she added.
“Their risk from COVID and poor outcomes is still more than the risk of a severe outcome from the vaccine,” Dr. Messonnier said. “And fortunately, we know how to treat anaphylaxis.”
Dr. Messonnier urged health care workers administering COVID-19 vaccines to be prepared.
“Anybody administering vaccines needs not just to have the EpiPen available, but frankly, to know how to use it,” Dr. Messonnier said.
MMWR details
The CDC on Jan. 6 also provided an update on anaphylaxis in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
The information included in the report was based on cases reported with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – the first to get emergency use authorization from the FDA. On the call with reporters, CDC officials confirmed there have been additional reports since then and anaphylaxis has been reported with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. CDC officials said they could not give a breakdown of how many cases were linked to each of these products at this time.
Between Dec. 14 and 23, 2020, monitoring by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System detected 21 cases of anaphylaxis after administration of a reported 1,893,360 first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Most reactions – 71% – occurred within 15 minutes of vaccination.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Health care providers should be ready to treat rare cases of anaphylaxis following administration of COVID-19 vaccines, federal medical officials have urged. The officials also stressed the importance of continuing vaccinations, despite reports of the rare side effect.
There have been 29 cases of anaphylaxis to date following administration of a COVID-19 vaccine, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a call with reporters on Jan. 6.
The severe allergic reaction, which appears to be rare, can happen with either the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or the rival Moderna product. The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorizations for these two vaccines in December.
Even with the cases seen to date, the COVID-19 vaccines remain a “good value proposition,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization, said in the call.
There have been about 11.1 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, which is higher than the estimated 1.3 cases per million doses with influenza vaccines, she said. But the low risk of anaphylaxis must be balanced against the threat of COVID-19, which currently claims about 2,000 lives a day in the United States, she said. In addition, many people are reporting long-term complications with COVID-19 even if they recover.
Kept in context, the data on anaphylaxis should not scare people away from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, she added.
“Their risk from COVID and poor outcomes is still more than the risk of a severe outcome from the vaccine,” Dr. Messonnier said. “And fortunately, we know how to treat anaphylaxis.”
Dr. Messonnier urged health care workers administering COVID-19 vaccines to be prepared.
“Anybody administering vaccines needs not just to have the EpiPen available, but frankly, to know how to use it,” Dr. Messonnier said.
MMWR details
The CDC on Jan. 6 also provided an update on anaphylaxis in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
The information included in the report was based on cases reported with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – the first to get emergency use authorization from the FDA. On the call with reporters, CDC officials confirmed there have been additional reports since then and anaphylaxis has been reported with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. CDC officials said they could not give a breakdown of how many cases were linked to each of these products at this time.
Between Dec. 14 and 23, 2020, monitoring by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System detected 21 cases of anaphylaxis after administration of a reported 1,893,360 first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Most reactions – 71% – occurred within 15 minutes of vaccination.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Guidance issued on COVID vaccine use in patients with dermal fillers
outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.
The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.
“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.
The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.
“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.
In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.
The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.
“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.
The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.
Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.
“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.
As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,
Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.
The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.
As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
This article was updated 1/7/21.
outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.
The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.
“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.
The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.
“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.
In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.
The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.
“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.
The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.
Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.
“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.
As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,
Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.
The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.
As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
This article was updated 1/7/21.
outlining the potential risk and clinical relevance.
The association is not surprising, since other vaccines, including the influenza vaccine, have also been associated with inflammatory reactions in patients with dermal fillers. A warning about inflammatory events from these and other immunologic triggers should be part of routine informed consent, according to Sue Ellen Cox, MD, a coauthor of the guidance and the ASDS president-elect.
“Patients who have had dermal filler should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine, and those who have received the vaccine should not be discouraged from receiving dermal filler,” Dr. Cox, who practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview.
The only available data to assess the risk came from the trial of the Moderna vaccine. Of a total of 15,184 participants who received at least one dose of mRNA-1273, three developed facial or lip swelling that was presumably related to dermal filler. In the placebo group, there were no comparable inflammatory events.
“This is a very small number, but there is no reliable information about the number of patients in either group who had dermal filler, so we do not know the denominator,” Dr. Cox said.
In all three cases, the swelling at the site of dermal filler was observed within 2 days of the vaccination. None were considered a serious adverse event and all resolved. The filler had been administered 2 weeks prior to vaccination in one case, 6 months prior in a second, and time of administration was unknown in the third.
The resolution of the inflammatory reactions associated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is similar to those related to dermal fillers following other immunologic triggers, which not only include other vaccines, but viral or bacterial illnesses and dental procedures. Typically, they are readily controlled with oral corticosteroids, but also typically resolve even in the absence of treatment, according to Dr. Cox.
“The good news is that these will go away,” Dr. Cox said.
The ASDS guidance is meant to alert clinicians and patients to the potential association between inflammatory events and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with dermal filler, but Dr. Cox said that it will ultimately have very little effect on her own practice. She already employs an informed consent that includes language warning about the potential risk of local reactions to immunological triggers that include vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can now be added to examples of potential triggers, but it does not change the importance of informing patients of such triggers, Dr. Cox explained.
Asked if patients should be informed specifically about the association between dermal filler inflammatory reactions and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the current ASDS president and first author of the guidance, Mathew Avram, MD, JD, suggested that they should. Although he emphasized that the side effect is clearly rare, he believes it deserves attention.
“We wanted dermatologists and other physicians to be aware of the potential. We focused on the available data but specifically decided not to provide any treatment recommendations at this time,” he said in an interview.
As new data become available, the Soft-Tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
“Our guidance was based only on the trial data, but there will soon be tens of millions of patients exposed to several different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We may learn things we do not know now, and we plan to communicate to our membership and others any new information as events unfold,” said Dr. Avram, who is director of dermatologic surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,
Based on her own expertise in the field, Dr. Cox suggested that administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and administration of dermal filler should be separated by at least 2 weeks regardless of which comes first. Her recommendation is not based on controlled data, but she considers this a prudent interval even if it has not been tested in a controlled study.
The full ASDS guidance is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue of Dermatologic Surgery.
As new data become available, the Soft-tissue Fillers Guideline Task Force of the ASDS, which provided the guidance, will continue to monitor the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and dermal filler reactions, including other types of vaccines and the relative risks for hyaluronic acid and non–hyaluronic acid types of fillers.
This article was updated 1/7/21.