Rheumatology News

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Exposure to air pollution – even short term – may play a role in triggering psoriasis flares, according to new research from Italy, which found a significant association between exposure to higher levels of air pollution prior to patients presenting for psoriasis flares at medical visits, compared with visits unrelated to flares.

“We found that higher concentration of different air pollutants was associated with psoriasis flares in patients living in an industrialized city of the Po Valley” in Verona, Italy, report the authors of the study, published in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings underscore the need for clinicians to “consider environmental/external triggers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases experiencing flares,” first author Francesco Bellinato, MD, of the Section of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Verona, Italy, told this news organization.

He and his coauthors conducted a case-crossover and cross-sectional longitudinal study that involved a retrospective analysis of data in 957 patients in Verona with chronic plaque psoriasis, who were evaluated every 3-4 months at an outpatient dermatology clinic for a median of 2.7 years.

Over the study period, disease flares, defined as an increase in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 5 or more points from the previous visit, occurred in 369 patients (38.6%), consistent with known flare rates in psoriasis. Participants in the study (mean age, 61) had median PASI scores of 12 during visits for psoriatic flares compared with PASI scores of 1 during control (no flare) visits (P < .001).

Evaluations of mean concentrations of several air pollutants within 10 miles of the patients over 4,398 visits showed that concentrations were significantly higher in the 60 days prior to the psoriasis flare, compared with control visits that were not related to flares (P < .05), after adjusting for factors including seasonality (by trimester, to adjust for weather conditions and UV/sunlight exposure) and the type of systemic psoriasis treatments patients were receiving (conventional or biological).

Increases in air pollutant levels prior to flares were observed among the 35.8% of patients who had a flare of at least a 50% increase in the PASI score, as well among the 47.2% of patients who had at least a 100% increase in PASI, compared with control visits not involving flares. In addition, mean and area-under-the-curve concentrations of air pollutants were higher in the 60 days before the visits among those with PASI 5 or greater, compared with those with PASI scores below 5, the authors add.

Dr. Bellinato noted that the associations were not limited to any particular subgroup. “The associations with air pollution and flares were observed in the entire population,” he said in an interview.

Vehicle, industry emissions

The pollutants that were measured were those mainly associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicle and industry emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, other nitrogen oxides, benzene, coarse particulate matter (2.5-10.0 μm in diameter) and fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 μm in diameter).

They note that the risk of having a PASI score of 5 or greater was elevated even at thresholds of exposure that are largely considered safe. “Indeed, the risk for having a PASI score of 5 or greater was 40% to 50% higher at exposures as low as 20 μg/m³” of coarse particulate matter and 15 μg/m³ of fine particulate matter in the 60-day period prior to the visits, they write.

The authors referred to evidence linking air pollution with a worsening of a variety of inflammatory cutaneous diseases, including atopic dermatitis and acne, as well as photoaging. Psoriasis flares are known to be triggered by a variety of environmental factors, including infections or certain drugs; however, evidence of a role of air pollution has been lacking. Potential mechanisms linking the exposures to flares include the possibility that exhaust particles can activate skin resident T-cells, “resulting in abnormal production of proinflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and interleukins (ILs), including IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8.8,” the authors write.

Their results, though inferring a causal relationship, fall short of showing a clear dose–response relationship between higher pollutant levels and an increased risk of psoriasis flares, possibly the result of a smaller sample size of subjects exposed to higher levels of pollution, they add.

Limitations of the study included the definition of flare, which used a clinical score that could be affected by other measurements, they point out, while strengths of the study included the large cohort of patients followed for over 7 years and the availability of daily measurements of air pollutants.

While the study suggests that environmental air pollutant fluctuations may affect psoriasis course,” the authors concluded, “further study is needed to examine whether these findings generalize to other populations and to better understand the mechanisms by which air pollution may affect psoriasis disease activity.”

Dr. Bellinato and four coauthors had no disclosures; the remaining authors had disclosures that included receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies that were outside of the submitted work.

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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

The risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with psoriatic disease rises with higher levels of two cardiac biomarkers in a manner independent of risk calculated by the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), a longitudinal cohort study has shown. But researchers who conducted the study note that neither of the two biomarkers identified in the study – cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – led to an improvement in predictive performance when combined with the FRS, despite their association with carotid plaque burden.

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are both associated with greater risk of CV morbidity and mortality, partly because of systemic inflammation that leads to atherogenesis. Measures of CV risk such as the FRS rely on traditional measures of CV risk and thus are likely to underestimate the CV event risk of people with psoriatic disease, according to the authors of the new study, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The effort was led by Keith Colaço, MSc; Lihi Eder, MD, PhD; and other researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto.

Alexander Raths/ThinkStock

“We are desperately in need of biomarker science advancement in psoriatic arthritis for a variety of places of guidance: How to choose a medication more accurately for the patient in front of us – that is, getting to be more like oncologists who use biomarkers to pick the best treatment or combination. That’s an important need. A second important need is how to guide clinicians regarding risk prediction for things like persistent, severe disease activity, progressive structural damage from disease, and, in this case, predicting a very common comorbidity that occurs in [psoriasis and] psoriatic arthritis patients,” Philip J. Mease, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment on the study.

Such biomarkers could assist with patient counseling, according to Dr. Mease, who is director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington, both in Seattle. Some patients may struggle with advice to lose weight or adopt lifestyle measures to limit CV risk, and more accurate predictions of risk may serve as further motivation. “It could well be that if you have a biomarker that accurately predicts a coming cataclysm, that it will lead you to redouble your efforts to do whatever it takes to reduce cardiovascular risk,” he said.

Both cTnI and NT-proBNP have been linked to increased CV risk in the general population, but little work has been done in the context of rheumatologic diseases.

The researchers analyzed data from 358 patients seen at the University of Toronto. The mean follow-up was 3.69 years. After adjustment for CV risk factors, lipid-lowering therapy, and creatinine levels, there was an association between cTnI levels and total carotid plaque area (adjusted beta coefficient, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0-0.41), but not for levels of NT-proBNP.

Atherosclerosis progressed in 89 participants overall, but multivariate adjustment revealed no significant relationship between progression and cTnI or NT-proBNP levels.

Separately, the researchers analyzed 1,000 individuals with psoriatic arthritis (n = 648) or with psoriasis and no arthritis (n = 352) whom they followed for a mean of 7.1 years after the patients underwent evaluation during 2002-2019. After adjustment for FRS, there was an association between the risk of a CV event and each 1–standard deviation increase in both cTnI (hazard ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.12-8.16) and NT-proBNP (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.28-3.18).

The combination of both biomarkers with the FRS predicted higher CV risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.23-2.97). Neither biomarker made a statistically significant difference in changing CV risk prediction when added individually to FRS, although cTnI trended toward significance (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.98-6.87).

Instead of the carotid plaque burden, Dr. Mease would have liked to have seen the authors evaluate calcium scores in coronary arteries as measured by CT. “I would have loved to have seen the researchers using that in addition to the carotid plaque assessment, to see what that would show us about these patients,” he said.

Only a small number of patients experienced CV events during the study period, which will likely make it necessary to conduct larger studies to identify a clear relationship. “You need a registry-type study with probably many hundreds if not thousands of patients in order to identify whether or not adding troponin could be useful to what we typically measure with patients when we’re trying to assess their risk,” Dr. Mease said.

The study was supported in part by the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Individual researchers have received support from a range of sources, including the Enid Walker Estate, the Women’s College Research Institute, the Arthritis Society, the National Psoriasis Foundation, the Edward Dunlop Foundation, the Ontario Ministry of Science and Innovation, and a Pfizer Chair Research Award. Some of the researchers have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

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

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Survival rates of biologics and other novel immunomodulatory drugs vary substantially across chronic inflammatory diseases, and rates are highest for rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and golimumab in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but with similar rates seen for most drugs used in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to findings from a study of two Danish registries.

Drug survival refers to “the probability that patients will remain on a given drug, and is a proxy for efficacy as well as safety in daily clinical practice,” wrote Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Copenhagen University Hospital–Bispebjerg, and colleagues. Although the use of biologics has expanded for inflammatory diseases, real-world data on drug survival in newer agents such as interleukin (IL)-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase inhibitors are lacking, they said.

In a study published in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, the researchers reviewed data from the DANBIO and DERMBIO registries of patients in Denmark with inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis.

The study population included 12,089 adults: 5,104 with RA, 2,157 with AxSpA, 2,251 with PsA, and 2,577 with psoriasis. Patients’ mean age at the time of first treatment for these conditions was 57.8 years, 42.3 years, 49 years, and 45 years, respectively. Participants were treated with biologics or novel small molecule therapies for RA, AxSpA, PsA, or psoriasis between January 2015 and May 2021 (from the DANBIO database) and November 2009 to November 2019 (DERMBIO database).

In adjusted models, drug survival in RA was highest for rituximab followed by baricitinib, etanercept, and tocilizumab. Drug survival in AxSpA was highest for golimumab, compared with all other drugs, followed by secukinumab and etanercept. Survival was lowest for infliximab. In PsA, drug survival was roughly equal for most drugs, including golimumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab, with the lowest survival observed for tofacitinib and infliximab, compared with all other drugs. Drug survival in psoriasis was highest with guselkumab, followed by ustekinumab and IL-17 inhibitors.

However, the number of treatment series “was low for some drugs, and not all differences were statistically significant, which could influence the overall interpretability of these findings,” the researchers noted in their discussion.

Notably, the high treatment persistence for rituximab in RA patients needs further confirmation, the researchers said. “In Denmark, rituximab is often the biologic drug of choice in RA patients with a history of cancer while there is a reluctancy to use TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors in such patients; this may have prolonged the drug survival for rituximab treated patients due to limited treatment alternatives,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational study design and changes in guidelines over the course of the study, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to adjust for certain variables, such as antibody status, body weight, and smoking, because of missing data, and a lack of data on the underlying reasons for drug discontinuation, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients and completeness of the registries, the researchers emphasized. The range in responses to different drug types across diseases supports the need for individualized treatments with attention to underlying disease, patient profile, and treatment history, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Eight coauthors reported financial ties to a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.