User login
COVID-19 vaccination does not increase risk of flare in patients with lupus
COVID-19 vaccinations appear to be well tolerated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and come with a low risk of flare, according to the results of a global, web-based survey.
“Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increasing vaccine coverage in patients with SLE,” wrote lead author Renaud Felten, MD, of Strasbourg (France) University Hospital. Their results were published as a comment in Lancet Rheumatology.
To assess vaccine tolerability among lupus patients, the cross-sectional Tolerance and Consequences of Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Lupus Patients (VACOLUP) study analyzed a 43-question survey of 696 participants with a self-reported, medically confirmed diagnosis of SLE from 30 countries between March 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021. The cohort was 96% women, and their median age was 42 (interquartile range, 34-51). Nearly 36% of respondents were from Italy, 27% were from Chile, 13% were from France, and just under 9% were Americans. All participants received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and 49% received a second dose. The most common vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (57%), Sinovac (22%), AstraZeneca (10%), and Moderna (8%).
Only 21 participants (3%) reported a medically confirmed SLE flare after a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-29) post COVID vaccination, with most experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms (90%) and fatigue (86%). Of the 21 cases, 15 reported a subsequent change in SLE treatment and 4 were admitted to the hospital. A previous flare that occurred within a year before vaccination was associated with an increased risk of flare post vaccination (relative risk, 5.52; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-14.03; P < .0001).
Side effects – including swelling, soreness, fever, chills, fatigue, joint and muscle pain, nausea, and headache – were reported in 45% of participants (n = 316) after their first dose and in 53% of the 343 participants who received a second dose. There was no notable difference in the likelihood of side effects across gender and age or in patients who received mRNA vaccines, compared with vaccines with other modes of action. Patients who reported side effects after the first dose were more likely to also report them after the second, compared with those who reported none (109 [81%] of 135 vs. 72 [35%] of 205; RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.82; P < .0001).
In the majority of cases (2,232 of 2,683), the side effects were of minor or moderate intensity and did not affect the participants’ ability to perform daily tasks. The study found no significant association between side effects and a SLE flare and SLE medications or previous SLE disease manifestations.
When asked to comment on the study, Amit Saxena, MD, of the Lupus Center at New York University Langone Health, said: “What we are seeing is pretty mild to moderate in terms of follow-up side effects or lupus-related activity. Several studies have shown this amongst our autoimmune rheumatology cohort, as well as what I’ve seen clinically in my own patients. More than anything else, numbers are the most important, and this is a large study.”
He acknowledged the benefits of going directly to patients to gauge their responses and reactions, giving them the opportunity to share concerns that physicians may not think about.
“As rheumatologists, we tend to focus on certain things that might not necessarily be what the patients themselves focus on,” he said. “I think the fact that this questionnaire dealt with a lot of what people complain about – fatigue, sore arm, things that we know are part of getting the vaccine – they aren’t necessarily things we capture with tools that screen for lupus flares, for example.”
More than anything, Dr. Saxena commended the study’s timeliness. “Patients are constantly asking us about the vaccine, and there’s so much misinformation,” he said. “People say, ‘Because I have lupus, I was told not to get vaccinated.’ I don’t know where they get that information from; we are telling everyone to get it, especially our lupus patients.”
The authors recognized their study’s main limitation as the self-reported and subjective nature of the survey, which they attempted to mitigate by asking for medically confirmed flares only. They noted, however, that the short median time between vaccination and flare onset could be caused by patients confusing expected side effects for something more serious, meaning the 3% figure “could be an overestimation of the actual flare rate.”
“Vaccination is recommended for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases according to the American College of Rheumatology,” they added, “irrespective of disease activity and severity.”
Several authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consultancy fees and grants from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Janssen, all unrelated to the study.
COVID-19 vaccinations appear to be well tolerated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and come with a low risk of flare, according to the results of a global, web-based survey.
“Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increasing vaccine coverage in patients with SLE,” wrote lead author Renaud Felten, MD, of Strasbourg (France) University Hospital. Their results were published as a comment in Lancet Rheumatology.
To assess vaccine tolerability among lupus patients, the cross-sectional Tolerance and Consequences of Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Lupus Patients (VACOLUP) study analyzed a 43-question survey of 696 participants with a self-reported, medically confirmed diagnosis of SLE from 30 countries between March 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021. The cohort was 96% women, and their median age was 42 (interquartile range, 34-51). Nearly 36% of respondents were from Italy, 27% were from Chile, 13% were from France, and just under 9% were Americans. All participants received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and 49% received a second dose. The most common vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (57%), Sinovac (22%), AstraZeneca (10%), and Moderna (8%).
Only 21 participants (3%) reported a medically confirmed SLE flare after a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-29) post COVID vaccination, with most experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms (90%) and fatigue (86%). Of the 21 cases, 15 reported a subsequent change in SLE treatment and 4 were admitted to the hospital. A previous flare that occurred within a year before vaccination was associated with an increased risk of flare post vaccination (relative risk, 5.52; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-14.03; P < .0001).
Side effects – including swelling, soreness, fever, chills, fatigue, joint and muscle pain, nausea, and headache – were reported in 45% of participants (n = 316) after their first dose and in 53% of the 343 participants who received a second dose. There was no notable difference in the likelihood of side effects across gender and age or in patients who received mRNA vaccines, compared with vaccines with other modes of action. Patients who reported side effects after the first dose were more likely to also report them after the second, compared with those who reported none (109 [81%] of 135 vs. 72 [35%] of 205; RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.82; P < .0001).
In the majority of cases (2,232 of 2,683), the side effects were of minor or moderate intensity and did not affect the participants’ ability to perform daily tasks. The study found no significant association between side effects and a SLE flare and SLE medications or previous SLE disease manifestations.
When asked to comment on the study, Amit Saxena, MD, of the Lupus Center at New York University Langone Health, said: “What we are seeing is pretty mild to moderate in terms of follow-up side effects or lupus-related activity. Several studies have shown this amongst our autoimmune rheumatology cohort, as well as what I’ve seen clinically in my own patients. More than anything else, numbers are the most important, and this is a large study.”
He acknowledged the benefits of going directly to patients to gauge their responses and reactions, giving them the opportunity to share concerns that physicians may not think about.
“As rheumatologists, we tend to focus on certain things that might not necessarily be what the patients themselves focus on,” he said. “I think the fact that this questionnaire dealt with a lot of what people complain about – fatigue, sore arm, things that we know are part of getting the vaccine – they aren’t necessarily things we capture with tools that screen for lupus flares, for example.”
More than anything, Dr. Saxena commended the study’s timeliness. “Patients are constantly asking us about the vaccine, and there’s so much misinformation,” he said. “People say, ‘Because I have lupus, I was told not to get vaccinated.’ I don’t know where they get that information from; we are telling everyone to get it, especially our lupus patients.”
The authors recognized their study’s main limitation as the self-reported and subjective nature of the survey, which they attempted to mitigate by asking for medically confirmed flares only. They noted, however, that the short median time between vaccination and flare onset could be caused by patients confusing expected side effects for something more serious, meaning the 3% figure “could be an overestimation of the actual flare rate.”
“Vaccination is recommended for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases according to the American College of Rheumatology,” they added, “irrespective of disease activity and severity.”
Several authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consultancy fees and grants from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Janssen, all unrelated to the study.
COVID-19 vaccinations appear to be well tolerated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and come with a low risk of flare, according to the results of a global, web-based survey.
“Disseminating these reassuring data might prove crucial to increasing vaccine coverage in patients with SLE,” wrote lead author Renaud Felten, MD, of Strasbourg (France) University Hospital. Their results were published as a comment in Lancet Rheumatology.
To assess vaccine tolerability among lupus patients, the cross-sectional Tolerance and Consequences of Vaccination Against COVID-19 in Lupus Patients (VACOLUP) study analyzed a 43-question survey of 696 participants with a self-reported, medically confirmed diagnosis of SLE from 30 countries between March 22, 2021, and May 17, 2021. The cohort was 96% women, and their median age was 42 (interquartile range, 34-51). Nearly 36% of respondents were from Italy, 27% were from Chile, 13% were from France, and just under 9% were Americans. All participants received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and 49% received a second dose. The most common vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (57%), Sinovac (22%), AstraZeneca (10%), and Moderna (8%).
Only 21 participants (3%) reported a medically confirmed SLE flare after a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-29) post COVID vaccination, with most experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms (90%) and fatigue (86%). Of the 21 cases, 15 reported a subsequent change in SLE treatment and 4 were admitted to the hospital. A previous flare that occurred within a year before vaccination was associated with an increased risk of flare post vaccination (relative risk, 5.52; 95% confidence interval, 2.17-14.03; P < .0001).
Side effects – including swelling, soreness, fever, chills, fatigue, joint and muscle pain, nausea, and headache – were reported in 45% of participants (n = 316) after their first dose and in 53% of the 343 participants who received a second dose. There was no notable difference in the likelihood of side effects across gender and age or in patients who received mRNA vaccines, compared with vaccines with other modes of action. Patients who reported side effects after the first dose were more likely to also report them after the second, compared with those who reported none (109 [81%] of 135 vs. 72 [35%] of 205; RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.88-2.82; P < .0001).
In the majority of cases (2,232 of 2,683), the side effects were of minor or moderate intensity and did not affect the participants’ ability to perform daily tasks. The study found no significant association between side effects and a SLE flare and SLE medications or previous SLE disease manifestations.
When asked to comment on the study, Amit Saxena, MD, of the Lupus Center at New York University Langone Health, said: “What we are seeing is pretty mild to moderate in terms of follow-up side effects or lupus-related activity. Several studies have shown this amongst our autoimmune rheumatology cohort, as well as what I’ve seen clinically in my own patients. More than anything else, numbers are the most important, and this is a large study.”
He acknowledged the benefits of going directly to patients to gauge their responses and reactions, giving them the opportunity to share concerns that physicians may not think about.
“As rheumatologists, we tend to focus on certain things that might not necessarily be what the patients themselves focus on,” he said. “I think the fact that this questionnaire dealt with a lot of what people complain about – fatigue, sore arm, things that we know are part of getting the vaccine – they aren’t necessarily things we capture with tools that screen for lupus flares, for example.”
More than anything, Dr. Saxena commended the study’s timeliness. “Patients are constantly asking us about the vaccine, and there’s so much misinformation,” he said. “People say, ‘Because I have lupus, I was told not to get vaccinated.’ I don’t know where they get that information from; we are telling everyone to get it, especially our lupus patients.”
The authors recognized their study’s main limitation as the self-reported and subjective nature of the survey, which they attempted to mitigate by asking for medically confirmed flares only. They noted, however, that the short median time between vaccination and flare onset could be caused by patients confusing expected side effects for something more serious, meaning the 3% figure “could be an overestimation of the actual flare rate.”
“Vaccination is recommended for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases according to the American College of Rheumatology,” they added, “irrespective of disease activity and severity.”
Several authors reported potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consultancy fees and grants from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Janssen, all unrelated to the study.
FROM THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY
Autoinflammatory diseases ‘not so rare after all,’ expert says
Not long ago, after all.
“Patients with autoinflammatory diseases are all around us, but many go several years without a diagnosis,” Dr. Dissanayake, a rheumatologist at the Autoinflammatory Disease Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The median time to diagnosis has been estimated to be between 2.5 and 5 years. You can imagine that this type of delay can lead to significant issues, not only with quality of life but also morbidity due to unchecked inflammation that can cause organ damage, and in the most severe cases, can result in an early death.”
Effective treatment options such as biologic medications, however, can prevent these negative sequelae if the disease is recognized early. “Dermatologists are in a unique position because they will often be the first specialist to see these patients and therefore make the diagnosis early on and really alter the lives of these patients,” he said.
While it’s common to classify autoinflammatory diseases by presenting features, such as age of onset, associated symptoms, family history/ethnicity, and triggers/alleviating factors for episodes, Dr. Dissanayake prefers to classify them into one of three groups based on pathophysiology, the first being inflammasomopathies. “When activated, an inflammasome is responsible for processing cytokines from the [interleukin]-1 family from the pro form to the active form,” he explained. As a result, if there is dysregulation and overactivity of the inflammasome, there is excessive production of cytokines like IL-1 beta and IL-18 driving the disease.
Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably abdominal pain, nonvasculitic rashes, uveitis, arthritis, elevated white blood cell count/neutrophils, and highly elevated inflammatory markers. Potential treatments include IL-1 blockers.
The second category of autoinflammatory diseases are the interferonopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the antiviral side of the innate immune system. “For example, if you have overactivity of a sensor for a nucleic acid in your cytosol, the cell misinterprets this as a viral infection and will turn on type 1 interferon production,” said Dr. Dissanayake, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. “As a result, if you have dysregulation of these pathways, you will get excessive type 1 interferon that contributes to your disease manifestations.” Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably vasculitic rashes, interstitial lung disease, and intracranial calcifications. Inflammatory markers may not be as elevated, and autoantibodies may be present. Janus kinase inhibitors are a potential treatment, he said.
The third category of autoinflammatory diseases are the NF-kappaBopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the NF-kappaB signaling pathway. Clinical characteristics can include fevers with organ involvement that can be highly variable but may include mucocutaneous lesions or granulomatous disease as potential clues. Treatment options depend on the pathway that is involved but tumor necrosis factor blockers often play a role because of the importance of NF-KB in this signaling pathway.
From a skin perspective, most of the rashes Dr. Dissanayake and colleagues see in the rheumatology clinic consist of nonspecific dermohypodermatitis: macules, papules, patches, or plaques. The most common monogenic autoinflammatory disease is Familial Mediterranean Fever syndrome, which “commonly presents as an erysipelas-like rash of the lower extremities, typically below the knee, often over the malleolus,” he said.
Other monogenic autoinflammatory diseases with similar rashes include TNF receptor–associated periodic syndrome, Hyper-IgD syndrome, and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Other patients present with urticarial rashes, most commonly cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). “This is a neutrophilic urticaria, so it tends not to be pruritic and can actually sometimes be tender,” he said. “It also tends not to be as transient as your typical urticaria.” Urticarial rashes can also appear with NLRP12-associated autoinflammatory syndrome (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome–2), PLCgamma2-associated antibody deficiency and immune dysregulation, and Schnitzler syndrome (monoclonal IgM gammopathy).
Patients can also present with pyogenic or pustular lesions, which can appear with pyoderma gangrenosum–related diseases, such as pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, arthritis (PAPA) syndrome; pyrin-associated inflammation with neutrophilic dermatosis; deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist; deficiency of IL-36 receptor antagonist; and Majeed syndrome, a mutation in the LPIN2 gene.
The mucocutaneous system can also be affected in autoinflammatory diseases, often presenting with symptoms such as periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, and pharyngitis. Cervical adenitis syndrome is the most common autoinflammatory disease in childhood and can present with aphthous stomatitis, he said, while Behcet’s disease typically presents with oral and genital ulcers. “More recently, monogenic forms of Behcet’s disease have been described, with haploinsufficiency of A20 and RelA, which are both part of the NF-KB pathway,” he said.
Finally, the presence of vasculitic lesions often suggest interferonopathies such as STING-associated vasculopathy in infancy, proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome and deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2.
Dr. Dissanayake noted that dermatologists should suspect an autoimmune disease if a patient has recurrent fevers, evidence of systemic inflammation on blood work, and if multiple organ systems are involved, especially the lungs, gut, joints, CNS system, and eyes. “Many of these patients have episodic and stereotypical attacks,” he said.
“One of the tools we use in the autoinflammatory clinic is to have patients and families keep a symptom diary where they track the dates of the various symptoms. We can review this during their appointment and try to come up with a diagnosis based on the pattern,” he said.
Since many of these diseases are due to a single gene defect, if there’s any evidence to suggest a monogenic cause, consider an autoinflammatory disease, he added. “If there’s a family history, if there’s consanguinity, or if there’s early age of onset – these may all lead you to think about monogenic autoinflammatory disease.”
During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee asked what type of workup he recommends when an autoinflammatory syndrome is suspected. “It partially depends on what organ systems you suspect to be involved,” Dr. Dissanayake said. “As a routine baseline, typically what we would check is CBC and differential, [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] and [C-reactive protein], and we screen for liver transaminases and creatinine to check for liver and kidney issues. A serum albumin will also tell you if the patient is hypoalbuminemic, that there’s been some chronic inflammation and they’re starting to leak the protein out. It’s good to check blood work during the flare and off the flare, to get a sense of the persistence of that inflammation.”
Dr. Dissanayake disclosed that he has received research finding from Gilead Sciences and speaker fees from Novartis.
*This story was updated on 9/20/2021.
Not long ago, after all.
“Patients with autoinflammatory diseases are all around us, but many go several years without a diagnosis,” Dr. Dissanayake, a rheumatologist at the Autoinflammatory Disease Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The median time to diagnosis has been estimated to be between 2.5 and 5 years. You can imagine that this type of delay can lead to significant issues, not only with quality of life but also morbidity due to unchecked inflammation that can cause organ damage, and in the most severe cases, can result in an early death.”
Effective treatment options such as biologic medications, however, can prevent these negative sequelae if the disease is recognized early. “Dermatologists are in a unique position because they will often be the first specialist to see these patients and therefore make the diagnosis early on and really alter the lives of these patients,” he said.
While it’s common to classify autoinflammatory diseases by presenting features, such as age of onset, associated symptoms, family history/ethnicity, and triggers/alleviating factors for episodes, Dr. Dissanayake prefers to classify them into one of three groups based on pathophysiology, the first being inflammasomopathies. “When activated, an inflammasome is responsible for processing cytokines from the [interleukin]-1 family from the pro form to the active form,” he explained. As a result, if there is dysregulation and overactivity of the inflammasome, there is excessive production of cytokines like IL-1 beta and IL-18 driving the disease.
Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably abdominal pain, nonvasculitic rashes, uveitis, arthritis, elevated white blood cell count/neutrophils, and highly elevated inflammatory markers. Potential treatments include IL-1 blockers.
The second category of autoinflammatory diseases are the interferonopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the antiviral side of the innate immune system. “For example, if you have overactivity of a sensor for a nucleic acid in your cytosol, the cell misinterprets this as a viral infection and will turn on type 1 interferon production,” said Dr. Dissanayake, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. “As a result, if you have dysregulation of these pathways, you will get excessive type 1 interferon that contributes to your disease manifestations.” Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably vasculitic rashes, interstitial lung disease, and intracranial calcifications. Inflammatory markers may not be as elevated, and autoantibodies may be present. Janus kinase inhibitors are a potential treatment, he said.
The third category of autoinflammatory diseases are the NF-kappaBopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the NF-kappaB signaling pathway. Clinical characteristics can include fevers with organ involvement that can be highly variable but may include mucocutaneous lesions or granulomatous disease as potential clues. Treatment options depend on the pathway that is involved but tumor necrosis factor blockers often play a role because of the importance of NF-KB in this signaling pathway.
From a skin perspective, most of the rashes Dr. Dissanayake and colleagues see in the rheumatology clinic consist of nonspecific dermohypodermatitis: macules, papules, patches, or plaques. The most common monogenic autoinflammatory disease is Familial Mediterranean Fever syndrome, which “commonly presents as an erysipelas-like rash of the lower extremities, typically below the knee, often over the malleolus,” he said.
Other monogenic autoinflammatory diseases with similar rashes include TNF receptor–associated periodic syndrome, Hyper-IgD syndrome, and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Other patients present with urticarial rashes, most commonly cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). “This is a neutrophilic urticaria, so it tends not to be pruritic and can actually sometimes be tender,” he said. “It also tends not to be as transient as your typical urticaria.” Urticarial rashes can also appear with NLRP12-associated autoinflammatory syndrome (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome–2), PLCgamma2-associated antibody deficiency and immune dysregulation, and Schnitzler syndrome (monoclonal IgM gammopathy).
Patients can also present with pyogenic or pustular lesions, which can appear with pyoderma gangrenosum–related diseases, such as pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, arthritis (PAPA) syndrome; pyrin-associated inflammation with neutrophilic dermatosis; deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist; deficiency of IL-36 receptor antagonist; and Majeed syndrome, a mutation in the LPIN2 gene.
The mucocutaneous system can also be affected in autoinflammatory diseases, often presenting with symptoms such as periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, and pharyngitis. Cervical adenitis syndrome is the most common autoinflammatory disease in childhood and can present with aphthous stomatitis, he said, while Behcet’s disease typically presents with oral and genital ulcers. “More recently, monogenic forms of Behcet’s disease have been described, with haploinsufficiency of A20 and RelA, which are both part of the NF-KB pathway,” he said.
Finally, the presence of vasculitic lesions often suggest interferonopathies such as STING-associated vasculopathy in infancy, proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome and deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2.
Dr. Dissanayake noted that dermatologists should suspect an autoimmune disease if a patient has recurrent fevers, evidence of systemic inflammation on blood work, and if multiple organ systems are involved, especially the lungs, gut, joints, CNS system, and eyes. “Many of these patients have episodic and stereotypical attacks,” he said.
“One of the tools we use in the autoinflammatory clinic is to have patients and families keep a symptom diary where they track the dates of the various symptoms. We can review this during their appointment and try to come up with a diagnosis based on the pattern,” he said.
Since many of these diseases are due to a single gene defect, if there’s any evidence to suggest a monogenic cause, consider an autoinflammatory disease, he added. “If there’s a family history, if there’s consanguinity, or if there’s early age of onset – these may all lead you to think about monogenic autoinflammatory disease.”
During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee asked what type of workup he recommends when an autoinflammatory syndrome is suspected. “It partially depends on what organ systems you suspect to be involved,” Dr. Dissanayake said. “As a routine baseline, typically what we would check is CBC and differential, [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] and [C-reactive protein], and we screen for liver transaminases and creatinine to check for liver and kidney issues. A serum albumin will also tell you if the patient is hypoalbuminemic, that there’s been some chronic inflammation and they’re starting to leak the protein out. It’s good to check blood work during the flare and off the flare, to get a sense of the persistence of that inflammation.”
Dr. Dissanayake disclosed that he has received research finding from Gilead Sciences and speaker fees from Novartis.
*This story was updated on 9/20/2021.
Not long ago, after all.
“Patients with autoinflammatory diseases are all around us, but many go several years without a diagnosis,” Dr. Dissanayake, a rheumatologist at the Autoinflammatory Disease Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The median time to diagnosis has been estimated to be between 2.5 and 5 years. You can imagine that this type of delay can lead to significant issues, not only with quality of life but also morbidity due to unchecked inflammation that can cause organ damage, and in the most severe cases, can result in an early death.”
Effective treatment options such as biologic medications, however, can prevent these negative sequelae if the disease is recognized early. “Dermatologists are in a unique position because they will often be the first specialist to see these patients and therefore make the diagnosis early on and really alter the lives of these patients,” he said.
While it’s common to classify autoinflammatory diseases by presenting features, such as age of onset, associated symptoms, family history/ethnicity, and triggers/alleviating factors for episodes, Dr. Dissanayake prefers to classify them into one of three groups based on pathophysiology, the first being inflammasomopathies. “When activated, an inflammasome is responsible for processing cytokines from the [interleukin]-1 family from the pro form to the active form,” he explained. As a result, if there is dysregulation and overactivity of the inflammasome, there is excessive production of cytokines like IL-1 beta and IL-18 driving the disease.
Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably abdominal pain, nonvasculitic rashes, uveitis, arthritis, elevated white blood cell count/neutrophils, and highly elevated inflammatory markers. Potential treatments include IL-1 blockers.
The second category of autoinflammatory diseases are the interferonopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the antiviral side of the innate immune system. “For example, if you have overactivity of a sensor for a nucleic acid in your cytosol, the cell misinterprets this as a viral infection and will turn on type 1 interferon production,” said Dr. Dissanayake, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto. “As a result, if you have dysregulation of these pathways, you will get excessive type 1 interferon that contributes to your disease manifestations.” Clinical characteristics include fevers and organ involvement, notably vasculitic rashes, interstitial lung disease, and intracranial calcifications. Inflammatory markers may not be as elevated, and autoantibodies may be present. Janus kinase inhibitors are a potential treatment, he said.
The third category of autoinflammatory diseases are the NF-kappaBopathies, which are caused by overactivity of the NF-kappaB signaling pathway. Clinical characteristics can include fevers with organ involvement that can be highly variable but may include mucocutaneous lesions or granulomatous disease as potential clues. Treatment options depend on the pathway that is involved but tumor necrosis factor blockers often play a role because of the importance of NF-KB in this signaling pathway.
From a skin perspective, most of the rashes Dr. Dissanayake and colleagues see in the rheumatology clinic consist of nonspecific dermohypodermatitis: macules, papules, patches, or plaques. The most common monogenic autoinflammatory disease is Familial Mediterranean Fever syndrome, which “commonly presents as an erysipelas-like rash of the lower extremities, typically below the knee, often over the malleolus,” he said.
Other monogenic autoinflammatory diseases with similar rashes include TNF receptor–associated periodic syndrome, Hyper-IgD syndrome, and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
Other patients present with urticarial rashes, most commonly cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). “This is a neutrophilic urticaria, so it tends not to be pruritic and can actually sometimes be tender,” he said. “It also tends not to be as transient as your typical urticaria.” Urticarial rashes can also appear with NLRP12-associated autoinflammatory syndrome (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome–2), PLCgamma2-associated antibody deficiency and immune dysregulation, and Schnitzler syndrome (monoclonal IgM gammopathy).
Patients can also present with pyogenic or pustular lesions, which can appear with pyoderma gangrenosum–related diseases, such as pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, arthritis (PAPA) syndrome; pyrin-associated inflammation with neutrophilic dermatosis; deficiency of the IL-1 receptor antagonist; deficiency of IL-36 receptor antagonist; and Majeed syndrome, a mutation in the LPIN2 gene.
The mucocutaneous system can also be affected in autoinflammatory diseases, often presenting with symptoms such as periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, and pharyngitis. Cervical adenitis syndrome is the most common autoinflammatory disease in childhood and can present with aphthous stomatitis, he said, while Behcet’s disease typically presents with oral and genital ulcers. “More recently, monogenic forms of Behcet’s disease have been described, with haploinsufficiency of A20 and RelA, which are both part of the NF-KB pathway,” he said.
Finally, the presence of vasculitic lesions often suggest interferonopathies such as STING-associated vasculopathy in infancy, proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome and deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2.
Dr. Dissanayake noted that dermatologists should suspect an autoimmune disease if a patient has recurrent fevers, evidence of systemic inflammation on blood work, and if multiple organ systems are involved, especially the lungs, gut, joints, CNS system, and eyes. “Many of these patients have episodic and stereotypical attacks,” he said.
“One of the tools we use in the autoinflammatory clinic is to have patients and families keep a symptom diary where they track the dates of the various symptoms. We can review this during their appointment and try to come up with a diagnosis based on the pattern,” he said.
Since many of these diseases are due to a single gene defect, if there’s any evidence to suggest a monogenic cause, consider an autoinflammatory disease, he added. “If there’s a family history, if there’s consanguinity, or if there’s early age of onset – these may all lead you to think about monogenic autoinflammatory disease.”
During a question-and-answer session, a meeting attendee asked what type of workup he recommends when an autoinflammatory syndrome is suspected. “It partially depends on what organ systems you suspect to be involved,” Dr. Dissanayake said. “As a routine baseline, typically what we would check is CBC and differential, [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] and [C-reactive protein], and we screen for liver transaminases and creatinine to check for liver and kidney issues. A serum albumin will also tell you if the patient is hypoalbuminemic, that there’s been some chronic inflammation and they’re starting to leak the protein out. It’s good to check blood work during the flare and off the flare, to get a sense of the persistence of that inflammation.”
Dr. Dissanayake disclosed that he has received research finding from Gilead Sciences and speaker fees from Novartis.
*This story was updated on 9/20/2021.
FROM SPD 2021
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy still weighs heavy for some rheumatic disease patients
With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.
The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.
“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.
The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.
“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness
Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.
The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.
Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection
Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.
“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.
The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.
“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.
A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.
There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
Antibody tests not recommended
In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.
“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.
Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies
In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.
Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.
“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.
A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.
“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.
Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination
In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.
Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.
In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.
With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.
The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.
“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.
The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.
“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness
Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.
The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.
Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection
Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.
“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.
The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.
“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.
A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.
There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
Antibody tests not recommended
In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.
“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.
Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies
In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.
Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.
“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.
A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.
“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.
Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination
In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.
Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.
In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.
With 49% of the U.S. population fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a new study highlights the degree of vaccine hesitancy among patients with rheumatic disease to get the vaccine.
The international study, published in May 2021 in Rheumatology, suggests that, of 1,258 patients surveyed worldwide, approximately 40% of patients said they would decline the vaccine.
“Sometimes it’s helpful to talk through their concerns,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, a University of Alabama at Birmingham rheumatologist who leads the American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 vaccine task force. Dr. Curtis recently reviewed the current literature on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD) is not straightforward. The immune response can be blunted by existing treatments and disease flares can occur.
The latest version of COVID-19 vaccination guidance for patients with RMDs from the ACR addresses vaccine use and implementation strategies. The guidance was issued as conditional or provisional because of the lack of evidence. Its principals are largely based on accepted practice for other vaccines. The guidance is routinely updated as new evidence becomes available. In his presentation at GRAPPA, Dr. Curtis reviewed the latest version of the guidance, which he emphasized is a guidance only and not meant to replace clinical judgment or shared decision-making with patients.
“This is a platform for you to start from as you are thinking about and discussing with your patient what might be best for him or her,” he said.
Concerns about impact of disease activity, treatments on effectiveness
Dr. Curtis highlighted some controversial aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including heterogeneity of rheumatic diseases and treatment. Patients with AIIRD, including psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, RA, and lupus, are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19 and worse outcomes, and as such, they are prioritized for vaccination by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, for AIIRD patients, the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination can be “blunted,” according to one study. This may be because of glucocorticoid use or high disease activity. Immunomodulatory therapies, such as methotrexate, rituximab, and abatacept, are known to diminish vaccine response in general. The evidence is less clear for tumor necrosis factor and Janus kinase inhibitors, but they are thought to have the same impact on vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Curtis said. But in these cases, if the effect of a COVID-19 vaccine drops from 90% to 70%, the benefits of vaccination still far outweighs the risk of contracting COVID-19.
“Although we don’t have strong data with clinical outcomes for autoimmune disease or inflammatory disease patients, I’ll run a hypothetical and say: ‘Look, if this vaccine starts 90%-95% effective, even if it’s only 70% effective in somebody with lupus or vasculitis or someone who is taking a higher dose of steroids, I’ll take 70% over nothing if you chose to be vaccinated,’ ” he said.
The benefit of vaccination also outweighs the potential risk of disease flare, he said. The risk is real, but to date, no studies have pointed to a significant risk of disease flare or worsening. However, there have been reported cases of myocardial infarction.
Autoimmune manifestations after vaccination vs. after infection
Researchers writing in the June 29, 2021, issue of JAMA Cardiology described case reports of acute myocarditis in 23 people who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines. Plus, there been subsequent reports of myocarditis in other patients, wrote David K. Shay, MD, MPH, in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Shay is a member of the CDC COVID-19 Response Team.
“What do we know about this possible association between myocarditis and immunization with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, and what remains unclear? Acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism,” he said.
The cases of myocarditis are concerning, Dr. Curtis said, but the risk is very low with relatively few cases reported among 161 million fully vaccinated people in the United States.
“Certainly, we’re not seeking to minimize that, but the risk of getting COVID and some of the downstream sequelae (autoimmune manifestations) almost certainly outweigh the risks for some of the autoimmune manifestations or worsening [condition],” he said.
A nationwide cohort study from Denmark of 58,052 patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease published in December 2020 in Rheumatology, found that patients with COVID-19 who had an inflammatory rheumatic disease were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, compared with COVID-19 patients without rheumatic disease. Patients with rheumatic disease had a higher risk of a severe COVID-19 outcome, but it was not a statistically significant difference, said Dr. Curtis, adding that the individual factors such as age and treatment currently received largely determines the risk. The strongest associations between hospitalization for COVID-19 and rheumatic disease were found among patients with RA, vasculitis, and connective tissue disease. Dr. Curtis noted that his own new study results show that risk of death from a COVID-19 infection is higher for patients who have RA or psoriatic arthritis.
There have been published case reports of patients who have developed new-onset lupus, vasculitis, Kawasaki disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune cytopenias, and other manifestations after a COVID-19 infection. “These authors suggest that perhaps there is a transient influence on the immune system that leads to a loss of self-tolerance to antigens,” Dr. Curtis said. “Some patients may have an underlying predisposition to autoimmunity in which infections just unmask as we sometimes see with other infections – chronic hepatitis for example.”
Antibody tests not recommended
In its COVID-19 guidance, the ACR, like the Food and Drug Administration, recommends health care providers not to routinely order antibody tests for IgM or IgG to assess immunity after a person has been vaccinated or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. More research is needed to determine if antibodies provide protection, and if so, for how long and how much. Plus, the antibody testing process is not clear cut, so ordering the wrong test is possible, Dr. Curtis said. The tests should clearly differentiate between spike proteins or nucleocapsid proteins.
“The bottom line is that you might be ordering the wrong lab test. Even if you’re ordering the right lab test, I would assert that you probably don’t know what to do with the result. I would then ask you, ‘Does it mean they are protected? Does it mean they are not protected? What are you going to do with the results?’ ” he asked.
Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a specialist in infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that, at this point, it’s too early to know what antibody tests mean. “I think it is tempting to test some people, especially patients on B-cell depletion therapy and those on mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Outside of those two types of [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] users, I wouldn’t be tempted to test. We don’t know how well protected they are, but we assume they are protected to some extent,” he said. “They’re probably partially protected and as such, they should take the same precautions they were taking a year ago: masking and avoidance. I think that’s just how it’s going to be for those folks for another year until we get this thing sorted out.”
Modifications to existing rheumatic disease therapies
In its COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the ACR issued recommendations for some common rheumatic disease therapeutics before and/or after the COVID-19 vaccine is administered. The modifications are limited to MMF, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, subcutaneous abatacept, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs. The recommendations include: hold mycophenolate for 1 week after vaccination if disease is stable; for patients with well-controlled disease, hold methotrexate for 1 week after each of the two mRNA vaccine doses; for patients with well-controlled disease receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, hold methotrexate for 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine; hold JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each dose; for abatacept subcutaneous, hold treatment for 1 week before and after the first dose; and in patients with stable disease, hold acetaminophen and NSAIDs for 24 hours before vaccination, because taking either before vaccination could blunt the vaccine response, Dr. Curtis said.
Holding medication, such as methotrexate, could risk having a flare-up of disease. One study showed the rate of disease flare-up because of withholding standard treatment may be up to 11%, compared with 5.1% in patients who did not hold treatment, he said.
“The point is, if you hold some of these therapies, whether methotrexate or tofacitinib, arthritis will get a little bit worse,” Dr. Curtis said.
A study published on the preprint server medRxiv found that immunosuppressive therapies blunted the response of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, most significantly with glucocorticoids and B-cell therapies.
“That’s what’s led to a lot of the guidance statements about holding treatments for a week or 2 for rituximab. If you’re giving it at 6-month intervals, you want to schedule the vaccine dose or series at about month 5, or a month before the next cycle,” he said.
Talking with patients about COVID-19 vaccination
In talking with patients about vaccine safety, Dr. Curtis recommends addressing a few common misperceptions. First, COVID-19 viruses were not created with a live-attenuated virus (which would be contraindicated for immunosuppressed patients). “You can put patients’ mind at ease that none of the vaccine candidates or platforms – even those that say viral vector – put patients at risk for contracting the infection. These are nonreplicating. So, it’s like you extracted the engine that would allow this virus to replicate,” he said.
Of three COVID-19 vaccinations available in the United States, is one better than the other? The ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force did not reach a consensus on safety profiles of the vaccines because, without head-to-head comparisons, it’s impossible to know, he said.
In talking with patients, review the protocol for continuing with prescribed treatment modalities before the patient receives a COVID-19 vaccine. Safety concerns and concerns about the possibility of having a disease flare-up should be addressed, he said.
FROM THE GRAPPA 2021 ANNUAL MEETING
FDA approves intravenous immunoglobulin for dermatomyositis
, according to a statement from manufacturer Octapharma USA.
Dermatomyositis is a rare, idiopathic autoimmune disorder that affects approximately 10 out of every million people in the United States, mainly adults in their late 40s to early 60s, according to the company, but children aged 5-15 years can be affected. The disease is characterized by skin rashes, chronic muscle inflammation, progressive muscle weakness, and risk for mortality that is three times higher than for the general population.
There are no previously approved treatments for dermatomyositis prior to Octagam 10%, which also is indicated for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults.
The approval for dermatomyositis was based on the results of a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the ProDERM trial) that included 95 adult patients at 36 sites worldwide, with 17 sites in the United States. In the trial, 78.7% of patients with dermatomyositis who were randomized to receive 2 g/kg of Octagam 10% every 4 weeks showed response at 16 weeks, compared with 43.8% of patients who received placebo. Response was based on the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology myositis response criteria. Placebo patients who switched to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) during a trial extension had response rates at week 40 similar to the original patients at week 16.
“The study gives clinicians much more confidence in the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin and provides valuable information about what type of patient is best suited for the treatment,” Rohit Aggarwal, MD, medical director of the Arthritis and Autoimmunity Center at the University of Pittsburgh and a member of the ProDERM study Steering Committee, said in the Octapharma statement.
Safety and tolerability were similar to profiles seen with other IVIG medications, according to the statement. The medication does carry a boxed warning from its chronic ITP approval, cautioning about the potential for thrombosis, renal dysfunction, and acute renal failure.
The most common adverse reactions reported by dermatomyositis patients in the ProDERM trial were headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, increased blood pressure, chills, musculoskeletal pain, increased heart rate, dyspnea, and reactions at the infusion sites.
Read the full prescribing information here.
, according to a statement from manufacturer Octapharma USA.
Dermatomyositis is a rare, idiopathic autoimmune disorder that affects approximately 10 out of every million people in the United States, mainly adults in their late 40s to early 60s, according to the company, but children aged 5-15 years can be affected. The disease is characterized by skin rashes, chronic muscle inflammation, progressive muscle weakness, and risk for mortality that is three times higher than for the general population.
There are no previously approved treatments for dermatomyositis prior to Octagam 10%, which also is indicated for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults.
The approval for dermatomyositis was based on the results of a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the ProDERM trial) that included 95 adult patients at 36 sites worldwide, with 17 sites in the United States. In the trial, 78.7% of patients with dermatomyositis who were randomized to receive 2 g/kg of Octagam 10% every 4 weeks showed response at 16 weeks, compared with 43.8% of patients who received placebo. Response was based on the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology myositis response criteria. Placebo patients who switched to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) during a trial extension had response rates at week 40 similar to the original patients at week 16.
“The study gives clinicians much more confidence in the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin and provides valuable information about what type of patient is best suited for the treatment,” Rohit Aggarwal, MD, medical director of the Arthritis and Autoimmunity Center at the University of Pittsburgh and a member of the ProDERM study Steering Committee, said in the Octapharma statement.
Safety and tolerability were similar to profiles seen with other IVIG medications, according to the statement. The medication does carry a boxed warning from its chronic ITP approval, cautioning about the potential for thrombosis, renal dysfunction, and acute renal failure.
The most common adverse reactions reported by dermatomyositis patients in the ProDERM trial were headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, increased blood pressure, chills, musculoskeletal pain, increased heart rate, dyspnea, and reactions at the infusion sites.
Read the full prescribing information here.
, according to a statement from manufacturer Octapharma USA.
Dermatomyositis is a rare, idiopathic autoimmune disorder that affects approximately 10 out of every million people in the United States, mainly adults in their late 40s to early 60s, according to the company, but children aged 5-15 years can be affected. The disease is characterized by skin rashes, chronic muscle inflammation, progressive muscle weakness, and risk for mortality that is three times higher than for the general population.
There are no previously approved treatments for dermatomyositis prior to Octagam 10%, which also is indicated for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults.
The approval for dermatomyositis was based on the results of a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (the ProDERM trial) that included 95 adult patients at 36 sites worldwide, with 17 sites in the United States. In the trial, 78.7% of patients with dermatomyositis who were randomized to receive 2 g/kg of Octagam 10% every 4 weeks showed response at 16 weeks, compared with 43.8% of patients who received placebo. Response was based on the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology myositis response criteria. Placebo patients who switched to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) during a trial extension had response rates at week 40 similar to the original patients at week 16.
“The study gives clinicians much more confidence in the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin and provides valuable information about what type of patient is best suited for the treatment,” Rohit Aggarwal, MD, medical director of the Arthritis and Autoimmunity Center at the University of Pittsburgh and a member of the ProDERM study Steering Committee, said in the Octapharma statement.
Safety and tolerability were similar to profiles seen with other IVIG medications, according to the statement. The medication does carry a boxed warning from its chronic ITP approval, cautioning about the potential for thrombosis, renal dysfunction, and acute renal failure.
The most common adverse reactions reported by dermatomyositis patients in the ProDERM trial were headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, increased blood pressure, chills, musculoskeletal pain, increased heart rate, dyspnea, and reactions at the infusion sites.
Read the full prescribing information here.
Vertebral fractures still a risk with low-dose oral glucocorticoids for RA
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis currently being treated with low doses of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) had a 59% increased risk of sustaining a vertebral fracture when compared with past users, results of a retrospective cohort study have shown.
Although the overall risk of an osteoporotic fracture was not increased when comparing current and past GC users, with a hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.33), the HR for sustaining a spinal fracture was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.11-2.29).
“Clinicians should be aware that, even in RA patients who receive low daily glucocorticoid doses, the risk of clinical vertebral fracture is increased,” Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University and coauthors reported in Rheumatology.
This is important considering around a quarter of RA patients are treated with GCs in the United Kingdom in accordance with European recommendations, they observed.
Conflicting randomized and observational findings on whether or not osteoporotic fractures might be linked to the use of low-dose GCs prompted Dr. Abtahi and associates to see if there were any signals in real-world data. To do so, they used data one of the world’s largest primary care databases – the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), which consists of anonymized patient data from a network of primary care practices across the United Kingdom.
Altogether, the records of more than 15,000 patients with RA aged 50 years and older who were held in the CRPD between 1997 and 2017 were pulled for analysis, and just half (n = 7,039) were receiving or had received GC therapy. Low-dose GC therapy was defined as a prednisolone equivalent dose (PED) of 7.5 mg or less per day.
The use of low-dose GCs use during three key time periods was considered: within the past 6 months (current users), within the past 7-12 months (recent users), and within the past year (past users).
The analyses involved time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards models to look for associations between GC use and all types of osteoporotic fracture, including the risk for incident hip, vertebral, humeral, forearm, pelvis, and rib fractures. They were adjusted for various lifestyle parameters, comorbidities, and the use of other medications.
“Current GC use was further broken down into subcategories based on average daily and cumulative dose,” Dr. Abtahi observed. As might be expected, doses even lower than 7.5 mg or less PED did not increase the chance of any osteoporotic fracture but there was an increased risk for some types with higher average daily doses, notably at the hip and pelvis, as well as the spine.
“Low-dose oral GC therapy was associated with an increased risk of clinical vertebral fracture, while the risk of other individual OP fracture sites was not increased,” said the team, adding that the main results remained unchanged regardless of short- or long-term use.
“We know that vertebral fracture risk is markedly increased in RA, and it is well known that GC therapy in particular affects trabecular bone, which is abundantly present in lumbar vertebrae,” Dr. Abtahi wrote.
“Therefore, we can hypothesize that the beneficial effect of low-dose GC therapy on suppressing the background inflammation of RA could probably be enough to offset its negative effect on bone synthesis in most fracture sites but not in vertebrae,” they suggested.
One of the limitations of the study is that the researchers lacked data on the disease activity of the patients or if they were being treated with biologic therapy. This means that confounding by disease severity might be an issue with only those with higher disease activity being treated with GCs and thus were at higher risk for fractures.
“Another limitation was a potential misclassification of exposure with oral GCs, as we had only prescribing information from CPRD, which is roughly two steps behind actual drug use by patients,” the researchers conceded. The average duration of GC use was estimated at 3.7 years, which is an indication of actual use.
A detection bias may also be involved with regard to vertebral fractures, with complaints of back pain maybe being discussed more often when prescribing GCs, leading to more referrals for possible fracture assessment.
Dr. Abtahi and a fellow coauthor disclosed receiving research and other funding from several pharmaceutical companies unrelated to this study. All other coauthors had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis currently being treated with low doses of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) had a 59% increased risk of sustaining a vertebral fracture when compared with past users, results of a retrospective cohort study have shown.
Although the overall risk of an osteoporotic fracture was not increased when comparing current and past GC users, with a hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.33), the HR for sustaining a spinal fracture was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.11-2.29).
“Clinicians should be aware that, even in RA patients who receive low daily glucocorticoid doses, the risk of clinical vertebral fracture is increased,” Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University and coauthors reported in Rheumatology.
This is important considering around a quarter of RA patients are treated with GCs in the United Kingdom in accordance with European recommendations, they observed.
Conflicting randomized and observational findings on whether or not osteoporotic fractures might be linked to the use of low-dose GCs prompted Dr. Abtahi and associates to see if there were any signals in real-world data. To do so, they used data one of the world’s largest primary care databases – the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), which consists of anonymized patient data from a network of primary care practices across the United Kingdom.
Altogether, the records of more than 15,000 patients with RA aged 50 years and older who were held in the CRPD between 1997 and 2017 were pulled for analysis, and just half (n = 7,039) were receiving or had received GC therapy. Low-dose GC therapy was defined as a prednisolone equivalent dose (PED) of 7.5 mg or less per day.
The use of low-dose GCs use during three key time periods was considered: within the past 6 months (current users), within the past 7-12 months (recent users), and within the past year (past users).
The analyses involved time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards models to look for associations between GC use and all types of osteoporotic fracture, including the risk for incident hip, vertebral, humeral, forearm, pelvis, and rib fractures. They were adjusted for various lifestyle parameters, comorbidities, and the use of other medications.
“Current GC use was further broken down into subcategories based on average daily and cumulative dose,” Dr. Abtahi observed. As might be expected, doses even lower than 7.5 mg or less PED did not increase the chance of any osteoporotic fracture but there was an increased risk for some types with higher average daily doses, notably at the hip and pelvis, as well as the spine.
“Low-dose oral GC therapy was associated with an increased risk of clinical vertebral fracture, while the risk of other individual OP fracture sites was not increased,” said the team, adding that the main results remained unchanged regardless of short- or long-term use.
“We know that vertebral fracture risk is markedly increased in RA, and it is well known that GC therapy in particular affects trabecular bone, which is abundantly present in lumbar vertebrae,” Dr. Abtahi wrote.
“Therefore, we can hypothesize that the beneficial effect of low-dose GC therapy on suppressing the background inflammation of RA could probably be enough to offset its negative effect on bone synthesis in most fracture sites but not in vertebrae,” they suggested.
One of the limitations of the study is that the researchers lacked data on the disease activity of the patients or if they were being treated with biologic therapy. This means that confounding by disease severity might be an issue with only those with higher disease activity being treated with GCs and thus were at higher risk for fractures.
“Another limitation was a potential misclassification of exposure with oral GCs, as we had only prescribing information from CPRD, which is roughly two steps behind actual drug use by patients,” the researchers conceded. The average duration of GC use was estimated at 3.7 years, which is an indication of actual use.
A detection bias may also be involved with regard to vertebral fractures, with complaints of back pain maybe being discussed more often when prescribing GCs, leading to more referrals for possible fracture assessment.
Dr. Abtahi and a fellow coauthor disclosed receiving research and other funding from several pharmaceutical companies unrelated to this study. All other coauthors had no conflicts of interest.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis currently being treated with low doses of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) had a 59% increased risk of sustaining a vertebral fracture when compared with past users, results of a retrospective cohort study have shown.
Although the overall risk of an osteoporotic fracture was not increased when comparing current and past GC users, with a hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.33), the HR for sustaining a spinal fracture was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.11-2.29).
“Clinicians should be aware that, even in RA patients who receive low daily glucocorticoid doses, the risk of clinical vertebral fracture is increased,” Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University and coauthors reported in Rheumatology.
This is important considering around a quarter of RA patients are treated with GCs in the United Kingdom in accordance with European recommendations, they observed.
Conflicting randomized and observational findings on whether or not osteoporotic fractures might be linked to the use of low-dose GCs prompted Dr. Abtahi and associates to see if there were any signals in real-world data. To do so, they used data one of the world’s largest primary care databases – the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), which consists of anonymized patient data from a network of primary care practices across the United Kingdom.
Altogether, the records of more than 15,000 patients with RA aged 50 years and older who were held in the CRPD between 1997 and 2017 were pulled for analysis, and just half (n = 7,039) were receiving or had received GC therapy. Low-dose GC therapy was defined as a prednisolone equivalent dose (PED) of 7.5 mg or less per day.
The use of low-dose GCs use during three key time periods was considered: within the past 6 months (current users), within the past 7-12 months (recent users), and within the past year (past users).
The analyses involved time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards models to look for associations between GC use and all types of osteoporotic fracture, including the risk for incident hip, vertebral, humeral, forearm, pelvis, and rib fractures. They were adjusted for various lifestyle parameters, comorbidities, and the use of other medications.
“Current GC use was further broken down into subcategories based on average daily and cumulative dose,” Dr. Abtahi observed. As might be expected, doses even lower than 7.5 mg or less PED did not increase the chance of any osteoporotic fracture but there was an increased risk for some types with higher average daily doses, notably at the hip and pelvis, as well as the spine.
“Low-dose oral GC therapy was associated with an increased risk of clinical vertebral fracture, while the risk of other individual OP fracture sites was not increased,” said the team, adding that the main results remained unchanged regardless of short- or long-term use.
“We know that vertebral fracture risk is markedly increased in RA, and it is well known that GC therapy in particular affects trabecular bone, which is abundantly present in lumbar vertebrae,” Dr. Abtahi wrote.
“Therefore, we can hypothesize that the beneficial effect of low-dose GC therapy on suppressing the background inflammation of RA could probably be enough to offset its negative effect on bone synthesis in most fracture sites but not in vertebrae,” they suggested.
One of the limitations of the study is that the researchers lacked data on the disease activity of the patients or if they were being treated with biologic therapy. This means that confounding by disease severity might be an issue with only those with higher disease activity being treated with GCs and thus were at higher risk for fractures.
“Another limitation was a potential misclassification of exposure with oral GCs, as we had only prescribing information from CPRD, which is roughly two steps behind actual drug use by patients,” the researchers conceded. The average duration of GC use was estimated at 3.7 years, which is an indication of actual use.
A detection bias may also be involved with regard to vertebral fractures, with complaints of back pain maybe being discussed more often when prescribing GCs, leading to more referrals for possible fracture assessment.
Dr. Abtahi and a fellow coauthor disclosed receiving research and other funding from several pharmaceutical companies unrelated to this study. All other coauthors had no conflicts of interest.
FROM RHEUMATOLOGY
Three new ACR guidelines recommend treatment for six forms of vasculitis
Three new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology, in partnership with the Vasculitis Foundation, offer evidence-based recommendations for managing and treating six different forms of systemic vasculitis.
“It’s not unusual for many rheumatologists to have fairly limited experience caring for patients with vasculitis,” coauthor Sharon Chung, MD, director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “And with limited experience comes anxiety and concerns about whether or not one is treating patients appropriately. First and foremost, these guidelines are to help rheumatologists who may not have experience treating patients with vasculitides, to provide them with a framework they can use.”
The guidelines – the first to be produced and endorsed by both the ACR and the Vasculitis Foundation – were published July 8 in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.
To assess the recent expansion in diagnostic and treatment options for various forms of vasculitis, the ACR assembled a literature review team, an 11-person patient panel, and a voting panel – made up of 9 adult rheumatologists, 5 pediatric rheumatologists, and 2 patients – to evaluate evidence, provide feedback, and formulate and vote on recommendations, respectively. The guidelines cover six types of vasculitis: one focusing on giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK); one on polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), and another on three forms of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV): granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA).
As with other ACR guidelines, these three were developed via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, which was used to rate the quality of the gathered evidence. For a recommendation to be published, it required 70% consensus or greater from the voting panel.
GCA and TAK guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of GCA and TAK, the guideline offers 42 recommendations and three ungraded position statements. Due to the low quality of evidence – “reflecting the paucity of randomized clinical trials in these diseases,” the authors noted – only one of the GCA recommendations and one of the TAK recommendations are strong; the rest are conditional.
For patients with GCA, the guideline strongly recommends long-term clinical monitoring over no clinical monitoring for anyone in apparent clinical remission. Other notable recommendations include favoring oral glucocorticoids (GCs) with tocilizumab (Actemra) over oral glucocorticoids alone in newly diagnosed GCA, adding a non-GC immunosuppressive agent to oral GCs for GCA patients with active extracranial large vessel involvement, and preferring temporary artery biopsy as their “diagnostic test of choice at this time.”
“The Europeans generally are more comfortable relying on temporal artery ultrasound,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “In this country, possibly in part due to less uniform expertise in performing these ultrasounds, we have not had as much success in terms of accuracy.
These ACR guidelines therefore recommended biopsy to establish the diagnosis in patients with cranial presentations, whereas in the EULAR guidelines, ultrasound was felt to be preferable to biopsy.”
“While we have temporal artery ultrasound available in the United States, we just don’t have the expertise at this point to perform or interpret that test like the European rheumatologists do,” Dr. Chung agreed. “But I think we’re all hopeful that experience with temporal artery ultrasound will improve in the future, so we can use that test instead of an invasive biopsy.”
Dr. Spiera, who was not a coauthor on any of the guidelines, also highlighted the conditional recommendation of noninvasive vascular imaging of the large vessels in patients with newly diagnosed GCA.
“It is well recognized that a substantial portion of patients with GCA have unrecognized evidence of large vessel involvement, and patients with GCA in general are at higher risk of aneurysms later in the disease course,” he said. “These guidelines suggest screening even patients with purely cranial presentations for large vessel involvement with imaging to possibly identify the patients at higher risk for those later complications.
“What they didn’t offer were recommendations on how to follow up on that imaging,” he added, “which is an important and as-yet-unanswered question.”
For patients with TAK, the guideline again strongly recommends long-term clinical monitoring over no clinical monitoring for anyone in apparent clinical remission. Other conditional recommendations include choosing a non-GC immunosuppressive agent such as methotrexate or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor over tocilizumab as initial therapy because “the efficacy of tocilizumab in TAK is not established at this time.”
AAV guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of GPA, MPA, and EGPA, the guideline offers 41 recommendations and 10 ungraded position statements. All recommendations were conditional, and many address GPA and MPA together because, as the authors noted, “pivotal trials have enrolled both groups and presented results for these diseases together.”
One notable recommendation is their preference for rituximab over cyclophosphamide for remission induction and for rituximab over methotrexate or azathioprine for remission maintenance in patients with severe GPA or MPA. “I don’t think this is a surprise to people, but I think it reaffirms where our current practice is moving,” Dr. Chung said.
“The literature supports that in patients with relapsing disease, rituximab works better than cyclophosphamide for remission induction,” Dr. Spiera said. “But in these guidelines, even in new disease, rituximab is suggested as the agent of choice to induce remission. I would say that that is reasonable, but you could make an argument that it’s maybe beyond what the literature supports, particularly in patients with advanced renal insufficiency attributable to that initial vasculitis flare.”
Other recommendations include being against routinely adding plasma exchange to remission induction therapy in GPA or MPA patients with active glomerulonephritis – although they added that it should be considered in patients at high risk of end-stage kidney disease – as well as preferring cyclophosphamide or rituximab over mepolizumab for remission induction in patients with severe EGPA.
“We, to the surprise of many, were more supportive for the use of rituximab in EGPA than others were expecting, given the limited evidence,” Dr. Chung said. “One of the reasons for that is the wide experience we’ve had with rituximab in GPA and MPA, and our recognition that there is a population of patients with EGPA who are ANCA positive who do seem to benefit from rituximab therapy.”
And although the voting panel strongly favored treatment with methotrexate or azathioprine over trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for GPA patients in remission, they ultimately labeled the recommendation as conditional “due to the lack of sufficient high-quality evidence comparing the two treatments.”
“There has been progress in terms of well-done clinical trials to inform our decision-making, particularly for ANCA-associated vasculitis, both in terms of how to induce and maintain remission,” Dr. Spiera said. “Though the recommendations were conditional, I think there’s very strong data to support many of them.”
PAN guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of PAN, the guideline offers 16 recommendations – all but one are conditional – and one ungraded position statement. Their strong recommendation was for treatment with TNF inhibitors over GCs in patients with clinical manifestations of deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2, which they asked doctors to consider “in the setting of a PAN-like syndrome with strokes.” Other conditional recommendations include treating patients with newly diagnosed, severe PAN with cyclophosphamide and GCs, as well as the use of abdominal vascular imaging and/or a deep-skin biopsy to help establish a diagnosis.
According to the authors, a fourth guideline on treating and managing Kawasaki syndrome will be released in the coming weeks.
The guidelines were supported by the ACR and the Vasculitis Foundation. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, research grants, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, InflaRx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen.
Three new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology, in partnership with the Vasculitis Foundation, offer evidence-based recommendations for managing and treating six different forms of systemic vasculitis.
“It’s not unusual for many rheumatologists to have fairly limited experience caring for patients with vasculitis,” coauthor Sharon Chung, MD, director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “And with limited experience comes anxiety and concerns about whether or not one is treating patients appropriately. First and foremost, these guidelines are to help rheumatologists who may not have experience treating patients with vasculitides, to provide them with a framework they can use.”
The guidelines – the first to be produced and endorsed by both the ACR and the Vasculitis Foundation – were published July 8 in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.
To assess the recent expansion in diagnostic and treatment options for various forms of vasculitis, the ACR assembled a literature review team, an 11-person patient panel, and a voting panel – made up of 9 adult rheumatologists, 5 pediatric rheumatologists, and 2 patients – to evaluate evidence, provide feedback, and formulate and vote on recommendations, respectively. The guidelines cover six types of vasculitis: one focusing on giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK); one on polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), and another on three forms of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV): granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA).
As with other ACR guidelines, these three were developed via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, which was used to rate the quality of the gathered evidence. For a recommendation to be published, it required 70% consensus or greater from the voting panel.
GCA and TAK guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of GCA and TAK, the guideline offers 42 recommendations and three ungraded position statements. Due to the low quality of evidence – “reflecting the paucity of randomized clinical trials in these diseases,” the authors noted – only one of the GCA recommendations and one of the TAK recommendations are strong; the rest are conditional.
For patients with GCA, the guideline strongly recommends long-term clinical monitoring over no clinical monitoring for anyone in apparent clinical remission. Other notable recommendations include favoring oral glucocorticoids (GCs) with tocilizumab (Actemra) over oral glucocorticoids alone in newly diagnosed GCA, adding a non-GC immunosuppressive agent to oral GCs for GCA patients with active extracranial large vessel involvement, and preferring temporary artery biopsy as their “diagnostic test of choice at this time.”
“The Europeans generally are more comfortable relying on temporal artery ultrasound,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “In this country, possibly in part due to less uniform expertise in performing these ultrasounds, we have not had as much success in terms of accuracy.
These ACR guidelines therefore recommended biopsy to establish the diagnosis in patients with cranial presentations, whereas in the EULAR guidelines, ultrasound was felt to be preferable to biopsy.”
“While we have temporal artery ultrasound available in the United States, we just don’t have the expertise at this point to perform or interpret that test like the European rheumatologists do,” Dr. Chung agreed. “But I think we’re all hopeful that experience with temporal artery ultrasound will improve in the future, so we can use that test instead of an invasive biopsy.”
Dr. Spiera, who was not a coauthor on any of the guidelines, also highlighted the conditional recommendation of noninvasive vascular imaging of the large vessels in patients with newly diagnosed GCA.
“It is well recognized that a substantial portion of patients with GCA have unrecognized evidence of large vessel involvement, and patients with GCA in general are at higher risk of aneurysms later in the disease course,” he said. “These guidelines suggest screening even patients with purely cranial presentations for large vessel involvement with imaging to possibly identify the patients at higher risk for those later complications.
“What they didn’t offer were recommendations on how to follow up on that imaging,” he added, “which is an important and as-yet-unanswered question.”
For patients with TAK, the guideline again strongly recommends long-term clinical monitoring over no clinical monitoring for anyone in apparent clinical remission. Other conditional recommendations include choosing a non-GC immunosuppressive agent such as methotrexate or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor over tocilizumab as initial therapy because “the efficacy of tocilizumab in TAK is not established at this time.”
AAV guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of GPA, MPA, and EGPA, the guideline offers 41 recommendations and 10 ungraded position statements. All recommendations were conditional, and many address GPA and MPA together because, as the authors noted, “pivotal trials have enrolled both groups and presented results for these diseases together.”
One notable recommendation is their preference for rituximab over cyclophosphamide for remission induction and for rituximab over methotrexate or azathioprine for remission maintenance in patients with severe GPA or MPA. “I don’t think this is a surprise to people, but I think it reaffirms where our current practice is moving,” Dr. Chung said.
“The literature supports that in patients with relapsing disease, rituximab works better than cyclophosphamide for remission induction,” Dr. Spiera said. “But in these guidelines, even in new disease, rituximab is suggested as the agent of choice to induce remission. I would say that that is reasonable, but you could make an argument that it’s maybe beyond what the literature supports, particularly in patients with advanced renal insufficiency attributable to that initial vasculitis flare.”
Other recommendations include being against routinely adding plasma exchange to remission induction therapy in GPA or MPA patients with active glomerulonephritis – although they added that it should be considered in patients at high risk of end-stage kidney disease – as well as preferring cyclophosphamide or rituximab over mepolizumab for remission induction in patients with severe EGPA.
“We, to the surprise of many, were more supportive for the use of rituximab in EGPA than others were expecting, given the limited evidence,” Dr. Chung said. “One of the reasons for that is the wide experience we’ve had with rituximab in GPA and MPA, and our recognition that there is a population of patients with EGPA who are ANCA positive who do seem to benefit from rituximab therapy.”
And although the voting panel strongly favored treatment with methotrexate or azathioprine over trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for GPA patients in remission, they ultimately labeled the recommendation as conditional “due to the lack of sufficient high-quality evidence comparing the two treatments.”
“There has been progress in terms of well-done clinical trials to inform our decision-making, particularly for ANCA-associated vasculitis, both in terms of how to induce and maintain remission,” Dr. Spiera said. “Though the recommendations were conditional, I think there’s very strong data to support many of them.”
PAN guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of PAN, the guideline offers 16 recommendations – all but one are conditional – and one ungraded position statement. Their strong recommendation was for treatment with TNF inhibitors over GCs in patients with clinical manifestations of deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2, which they asked doctors to consider “in the setting of a PAN-like syndrome with strokes.” Other conditional recommendations include treating patients with newly diagnosed, severe PAN with cyclophosphamide and GCs, as well as the use of abdominal vascular imaging and/or a deep-skin biopsy to help establish a diagnosis.
According to the authors, a fourth guideline on treating and managing Kawasaki syndrome will be released in the coming weeks.
The guidelines were supported by the ACR and the Vasculitis Foundation. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, research grants, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, InflaRx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen.
Three new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology, in partnership with the Vasculitis Foundation, offer evidence-based recommendations for managing and treating six different forms of systemic vasculitis.
“It’s not unusual for many rheumatologists to have fairly limited experience caring for patients with vasculitis,” coauthor Sharon Chung, MD, director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “And with limited experience comes anxiety and concerns about whether or not one is treating patients appropriately. First and foremost, these guidelines are to help rheumatologists who may not have experience treating patients with vasculitides, to provide them with a framework they can use.”
The guidelines – the first to be produced and endorsed by both the ACR and the Vasculitis Foundation – were published July 8 in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.
To assess the recent expansion in diagnostic and treatment options for various forms of vasculitis, the ACR assembled a literature review team, an 11-person patient panel, and a voting panel – made up of 9 adult rheumatologists, 5 pediatric rheumatologists, and 2 patients – to evaluate evidence, provide feedback, and formulate and vote on recommendations, respectively. The guidelines cover six types of vasculitis: one focusing on giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu arteritis (TAK); one on polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), and another on three forms of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV): granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA).
As with other ACR guidelines, these three were developed via the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, which was used to rate the quality of the gathered evidence. For a recommendation to be published, it required 70% consensus or greater from the voting panel.
GCA and TAK guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of GCA and TAK, the guideline offers 42 recommendations and three ungraded position statements. Due to the low quality of evidence – “reflecting the paucity of randomized clinical trials in these diseases,” the authors noted – only one of the GCA recommendations and one of the TAK recommendations are strong; the rest are conditional.
For patients with GCA, the guideline strongly recommends long-term clinical monitoring over no clinical monitoring for anyone in apparent clinical remission. Other notable recommendations include favoring oral glucocorticoids (GCs) with tocilizumab (Actemra) over oral glucocorticoids alone in newly diagnosed GCA, adding a non-GC immunosuppressive agent to oral GCs for GCA patients with active extracranial large vessel involvement, and preferring temporary artery biopsy as their “diagnostic test of choice at this time.”
“The Europeans generally are more comfortable relying on temporal artery ultrasound,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview. “In this country, possibly in part due to less uniform expertise in performing these ultrasounds, we have not had as much success in terms of accuracy.
These ACR guidelines therefore recommended biopsy to establish the diagnosis in patients with cranial presentations, whereas in the EULAR guidelines, ultrasound was felt to be preferable to biopsy.”
“While we have temporal artery ultrasound available in the United States, we just don’t have the expertise at this point to perform or interpret that test like the European rheumatologists do,” Dr. Chung agreed. “But I think we’re all hopeful that experience with temporal artery ultrasound will improve in the future, so we can use that test instead of an invasive biopsy.”
Dr. Spiera, who was not a coauthor on any of the guidelines, also highlighted the conditional recommendation of noninvasive vascular imaging of the large vessels in patients with newly diagnosed GCA.
“It is well recognized that a substantial portion of patients with GCA have unrecognized evidence of large vessel involvement, and patients with GCA in general are at higher risk of aneurysms later in the disease course,” he said. “These guidelines suggest screening even patients with purely cranial presentations for large vessel involvement with imaging to possibly identify the patients at higher risk for those later complications.
“What they didn’t offer were recommendations on how to follow up on that imaging,” he added, “which is an important and as-yet-unanswered question.”
For patients with TAK, the guideline again strongly recommends long-term clinical monitoring over no clinical monitoring for anyone in apparent clinical remission. Other conditional recommendations include choosing a non-GC immunosuppressive agent such as methotrexate or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor over tocilizumab as initial therapy because “the efficacy of tocilizumab in TAK is not established at this time.”
AAV guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of GPA, MPA, and EGPA, the guideline offers 41 recommendations and 10 ungraded position statements. All recommendations were conditional, and many address GPA and MPA together because, as the authors noted, “pivotal trials have enrolled both groups and presented results for these diseases together.”
One notable recommendation is their preference for rituximab over cyclophosphamide for remission induction and for rituximab over methotrexate or azathioprine for remission maintenance in patients with severe GPA or MPA. “I don’t think this is a surprise to people, but I think it reaffirms where our current practice is moving,” Dr. Chung said.
“The literature supports that in patients with relapsing disease, rituximab works better than cyclophosphamide for remission induction,” Dr. Spiera said. “But in these guidelines, even in new disease, rituximab is suggested as the agent of choice to induce remission. I would say that that is reasonable, but you could make an argument that it’s maybe beyond what the literature supports, particularly in patients with advanced renal insufficiency attributable to that initial vasculitis flare.”
Other recommendations include being against routinely adding plasma exchange to remission induction therapy in GPA or MPA patients with active glomerulonephritis – although they added that it should be considered in patients at high risk of end-stage kidney disease – as well as preferring cyclophosphamide or rituximab over mepolizumab for remission induction in patients with severe EGPA.
“We, to the surprise of many, were more supportive for the use of rituximab in EGPA than others were expecting, given the limited evidence,” Dr. Chung said. “One of the reasons for that is the wide experience we’ve had with rituximab in GPA and MPA, and our recognition that there is a population of patients with EGPA who are ANCA positive who do seem to benefit from rituximab therapy.”
And although the voting panel strongly favored treatment with methotrexate or azathioprine over trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for GPA patients in remission, they ultimately labeled the recommendation as conditional “due to the lack of sufficient high-quality evidence comparing the two treatments.”
“There has been progress in terms of well-done clinical trials to inform our decision-making, particularly for ANCA-associated vasculitis, both in terms of how to induce and maintain remission,” Dr. Spiera said. “Though the recommendations were conditional, I think there’s very strong data to support many of them.”
PAN guideline
Regarding the management and treatment of PAN, the guideline offers 16 recommendations – all but one are conditional – and one ungraded position statement. Their strong recommendation was for treatment with TNF inhibitors over GCs in patients with clinical manifestations of deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2, which they asked doctors to consider “in the setting of a PAN-like syndrome with strokes.” Other conditional recommendations include treating patients with newly diagnosed, severe PAN with cyclophosphamide and GCs, as well as the use of abdominal vascular imaging and/or a deep-skin biopsy to help establish a diagnosis.
According to the authors, a fourth guideline on treating and managing Kawasaki syndrome will be released in the coming weeks.
The guidelines were supported by the ACR and the Vasculitis Foundation. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaking and consulting fees, research grants, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, InflaRx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Patients on methotrexate show T-cell response to Pfizer vaccine
People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.
The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.
The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.
“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”
Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.
Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.
Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.
All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.
The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”
A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.
‘Some protection is better than none’
These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.
It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.
“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.
“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.
“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
Temporarily stopping methotrexate
It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.
Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.
“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”
Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.
However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.
This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.
The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.
The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.
“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”
Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.
Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.
Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.
All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.
The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”
A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.
‘Some protection is better than none’
These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.
It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.
“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.
“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.
“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
Temporarily stopping methotrexate
It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.
Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.
“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”
Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.
However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.
This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People taking methotrexate had low antibody responses after the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but did show evidence of T-cell–mediated immune responses, findings from a small study show.
The common immunosuppressant has previously been linked to poor antibody responses to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, but this appears to be the first study to look at T-cell responses in people taking methotrexate.
The study findings were presented online July 11 at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and published in The Lancet Rheumatology.
“These findings indicate that seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression, and caution against routine use of seroconversion data in isolation in clinical practice,” Satveer K. Mahil, MBBChir, PhD, from St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and colleagues wrote.
“When taking into account functional humoral immunity and T-cell responses, our data suggest that targeted biologics do not impair vaccine responses and provide some reassurance to this vulnerable population,” they wrote. “Notably, although methotrexate attenuated humoral immunity, cellular responses were preserved.”
Dr. Mahil and colleagues assessed 84 consecutive patients from a psoriasis specialist clinic that serves London and southeast England. Median age of the cohort was 43 years, and 85% were White. All had a confirmed psoriasis diagnosis, received the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and were taking either methotrexate (17 patients) or a targeted biologic (27 were taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, 15 an interleukin-17 inhibitor, and 25 an IL-23 inhibitor). In addition, 17 healthy patients not receiving immunosuppression therapy who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine served as the control group.
Four weeks after the study participants received their first dose of the vaccine, 78% of the immunosuppressed patients underwent seroconversion – producing measurable antibodies – as did 100% of the control group. Patients taking methotrexate had the lowest seroconversion rate at 47%, compared with 79% with TNF inhibitors, 83% with IL-23 inhibitors, and 100% with IL-17 inhibitors.
Participants taking methotrexate also had lower neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 than control subjects and those taking a targeted biologic, who had similar levels of neutralizing activity.
All participants had low neutralizing titers against the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant.
The researchers also assessed cellular immunity, “defined as the presence of T cells secreting interferon-gamma, IL-2, or IL-21 in response to stimulation with two peptide pools spanning the entire length of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.”
A T-cell response was seen in 84% of participants taking immunosuppressants, including 93% of those in the methotrexate group and 69% of control subjects.
‘Some protection is better than none’
These findings regarding antibodies match what has been seen in other research, said Ignacio Sanz, MD, director of the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University, Atlanta.
It would be helpful to see antibody responses after the second doses, he added. Those data will be reported later, according to Dr. Mahil and colleagues.
“The authors make the valid point that T-cell immunity should also be measured. The information is meaningful and supports the idea that there could be protection still provided,” Dr. Sanz said in an interview, adding that it would have been helpful to see CD8 T-cell response as well.
“My message to patients, still, is that some protection is better than none, and that, indeed, protection may be afforded in different ways, including T-cell immunity, which, to the extent tested, seems to be induced,” he said. But discussion of B cells independent of their role in producing antibodies is missing.
“When it comes to B-cell responses, antibodies are the easier and more direct measurement. However, it is perfectly possible that the vaccine may fail to induce high antibody titers and still generate good B-cell immunity,” in the same way virus-specific memory B cells do, he explained. “They would not directly produce antibodies, yet they would be available for a good and quick response in the case of subsequent encounter with the virus and, incidentally, in the case of a booster dose. It is possible that the generation of antibody-producing plasma cells might be uncoupled from the generation of memory B cells.”
Temporarily stopping methotrexate
It is well known that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, write Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and Julie J. Paik, MD, both from the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying comment.
Research has also shown that temporarily stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks enhances response to the flu vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, which prompted the American College of Rheumatology to recommended temporary interruption of methotrexate for 1 week after each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pair notes.
“Although it is encouraging that cellular responses appear to be preserved even in patients with poor humoral responses, these findings are not consistent across study groups,” Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik explained. “During this period of clinical uncertainty, patients might remain vulnerable, especially after the first dose, and should engage in risk mitigation strategies.”
Mild adverse events after vaccination were reported by 75% of the immunosuppressed patients – most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue – and by 94% of control subjects. No participants reported moderate or severe adverse effects.
However, 11% of immunosuppressed patients reported a worsening of psoriasis symptoms after vaccination.
This research was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Mahil has received departmental income from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sano, and UCB unrelated to this study. Seven other authors have relationships with a wide range of pharmaceutical and other companies. Dr. Sanz, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. Paik disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Neuropsychiatric event etiology in lupus helps define predictors, outcomes
Different kinds of neuropsychiatric (NP) events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have substantial variability in their occurrence, resolution, and recurrence over time, as well as in their predictors, according to new research from a large, prospective, international, inception cohort study.
Because “multiple NP events due to different causes may present concurrently in individual patients, the findings emphasize the importance of recognizing attribution of NP events as a determinant of clinical outcome,” John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
In a previous study of the same group of 1,827 patients with SLE, NP events occurred in about half and approximately one-third of these events were deemed disease related. They also “occurred most frequently around the diagnosis of SLE and had a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life,” the researchers wrote.
Researchers involved with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics recruited the 1,827 adults with SLE over an 11-year period during 1999-2011 from a total of 31 sites in Europe, Asia, and North America. The average age of the patients at study enrollment was 35 years, 89% were women, and 49% were White. The mean disease duration was 5.6 months, and 70% of patients were taking corticosteroids at enrollment.
Over an average follow-up period of 7.6 years, 955 patients (52.3%) experienced a single neuropsychiatric event, and 493 (27.0%) experienced two or more events; the total number of unique NP events was 1,910. Most of these unique events (92%) involved the central nervous system, and 8.4% involved the peripheral nervous system.
The researchers used multistate models to attribute NP events to SLE based on factors that included the temporal onset of NP events in relation to SLE diagnosis, concurrent non-SLE factors, and NP events that are common in healthy controls. The four states in the multistate models were no NP events, no current NP event but a history of at least one event, new or ongoing NP events, and death. The results included a multivariate analysis of a model involving 492 observed transitions into new or ongoing NP events.
In the multivariate analysis, factors positively associated with SLE-attributed NP events included male sex (hazard ratio, 1.35; P = .028), concurrent non-SLE NP events excluding headache (HR, 1.83; P < .001), active SLE based on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (HR, 1.19; P = .012), and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.59; P = .008). The researchers also found that SLE-attributed NP events were negatively associated with Asian race/ethnicity, postsecondary education, and use of immunosuppressive drugs.
Another multivariate analysis found that non-SLE NP events were positively associated with only concurrent SLE-attributed NP events excluding headache (HR, 2.31; P < .001), but negative associations were seen with non-U.S. African race/ethnicity and Asian race/ethnicity.
The researchers found that SLE-attributed NP events had higher rates of resolution, compared with non-SLE NP events, with the exception of headache, which had similar resolution for both event groups.
“Resolution of SLE events was more likely in patients with Asian race/ethnicity and those with Central/Focal nervous system disease with no effect seen for age at diagnosis,” the researchers noted. “For non-SLE NP events, African race/ethnicity at non-U.S. sites and younger age at diagnosis was associated with a better outcome.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the predominantly White patient population and the clustering of NP events into limited categories, which may have reduced the identification of more specific associations, the researchers noted. Also, the assessment of NP event outcomes did not include patient perceptions, and the relatively short follow-up period does not allow for assessment of later NP events such as cerebrovascular disease. However, “despite these limitations the current study provides valuable data on the presentation, outcome and predictors of NP disease in SLE patients enrolled in a long-term, international, disease inception cohort,” the researchers concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hanly was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received grant support from various institutions, but not from industry, and had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Different kinds of neuropsychiatric (NP) events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have substantial variability in their occurrence, resolution, and recurrence over time, as well as in their predictors, according to new research from a large, prospective, international, inception cohort study.
Because “multiple NP events due to different causes may present concurrently in individual patients, the findings emphasize the importance of recognizing attribution of NP events as a determinant of clinical outcome,” John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
In a previous study of the same group of 1,827 patients with SLE, NP events occurred in about half and approximately one-third of these events were deemed disease related. They also “occurred most frequently around the diagnosis of SLE and had a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life,” the researchers wrote.
Researchers involved with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics recruited the 1,827 adults with SLE over an 11-year period during 1999-2011 from a total of 31 sites in Europe, Asia, and North America. The average age of the patients at study enrollment was 35 years, 89% were women, and 49% were White. The mean disease duration was 5.6 months, and 70% of patients were taking corticosteroids at enrollment.
Over an average follow-up period of 7.6 years, 955 patients (52.3%) experienced a single neuropsychiatric event, and 493 (27.0%) experienced two or more events; the total number of unique NP events was 1,910. Most of these unique events (92%) involved the central nervous system, and 8.4% involved the peripheral nervous system.
The researchers used multistate models to attribute NP events to SLE based on factors that included the temporal onset of NP events in relation to SLE diagnosis, concurrent non-SLE factors, and NP events that are common in healthy controls. The four states in the multistate models were no NP events, no current NP event but a history of at least one event, new or ongoing NP events, and death. The results included a multivariate analysis of a model involving 492 observed transitions into new or ongoing NP events.
In the multivariate analysis, factors positively associated with SLE-attributed NP events included male sex (hazard ratio, 1.35; P = .028), concurrent non-SLE NP events excluding headache (HR, 1.83; P < .001), active SLE based on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (HR, 1.19; P = .012), and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.59; P = .008). The researchers also found that SLE-attributed NP events were negatively associated with Asian race/ethnicity, postsecondary education, and use of immunosuppressive drugs.
Another multivariate analysis found that non-SLE NP events were positively associated with only concurrent SLE-attributed NP events excluding headache (HR, 2.31; P < .001), but negative associations were seen with non-U.S. African race/ethnicity and Asian race/ethnicity.
The researchers found that SLE-attributed NP events had higher rates of resolution, compared with non-SLE NP events, with the exception of headache, which had similar resolution for both event groups.
“Resolution of SLE events was more likely in patients with Asian race/ethnicity and those with Central/Focal nervous system disease with no effect seen for age at diagnosis,” the researchers noted. “For non-SLE NP events, African race/ethnicity at non-U.S. sites and younger age at diagnosis was associated with a better outcome.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the predominantly White patient population and the clustering of NP events into limited categories, which may have reduced the identification of more specific associations, the researchers noted. Also, the assessment of NP event outcomes did not include patient perceptions, and the relatively short follow-up period does not allow for assessment of later NP events such as cerebrovascular disease. However, “despite these limitations the current study provides valuable data on the presentation, outcome and predictors of NP disease in SLE patients enrolled in a long-term, international, disease inception cohort,” the researchers concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hanly was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received grant support from various institutions, but not from industry, and had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Different kinds of neuropsychiatric (NP) events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have substantial variability in their occurrence, resolution, and recurrence over time, as well as in their predictors, according to new research from a large, prospective, international, inception cohort study.
Because “multiple NP events due to different causes may present concurrently in individual patients, the findings emphasize the importance of recognizing attribution of NP events as a determinant of clinical outcome,” John G. Hanly, MD, of Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
In a previous study of the same group of 1,827 patients with SLE, NP events occurred in about half and approximately one-third of these events were deemed disease related. They also “occurred most frequently around the diagnosis of SLE and had a significant negative impact on health-related quality of life,” the researchers wrote.
Researchers involved with the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics recruited the 1,827 adults with SLE over an 11-year period during 1999-2011 from a total of 31 sites in Europe, Asia, and North America. The average age of the patients at study enrollment was 35 years, 89% were women, and 49% were White. The mean disease duration was 5.6 months, and 70% of patients were taking corticosteroids at enrollment.
Over an average follow-up period of 7.6 years, 955 patients (52.3%) experienced a single neuropsychiatric event, and 493 (27.0%) experienced two or more events; the total number of unique NP events was 1,910. Most of these unique events (92%) involved the central nervous system, and 8.4% involved the peripheral nervous system.
The researchers used multistate models to attribute NP events to SLE based on factors that included the temporal onset of NP events in relation to SLE diagnosis, concurrent non-SLE factors, and NP events that are common in healthy controls. The four states in the multistate models were no NP events, no current NP event but a history of at least one event, new or ongoing NP events, and death. The results included a multivariate analysis of a model involving 492 observed transitions into new or ongoing NP events.
In the multivariate analysis, factors positively associated with SLE-attributed NP events included male sex (hazard ratio, 1.35; P = .028), concurrent non-SLE NP events excluding headache (HR, 1.83; P < .001), active SLE based on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (HR, 1.19; P = .012), and corticosteroid use (HR, 1.59; P = .008). The researchers also found that SLE-attributed NP events were negatively associated with Asian race/ethnicity, postsecondary education, and use of immunosuppressive drugs.
Another multivariate analysis found that non-SLE NP events were positively associated with only concurrent SLE-attributed NP events excluding headache (HR, 2.31; P < .001), but negative associations were seen with non-U.S. African race/ethnicity and Asian race/ethnicity.
The researchers found that SLE-attributed NP events had higher rates of resolution, compared with non-SLE NP events, with the exception of headache, which had similar resolution for both event groups.
“Resolution of SLE events was more likely in patients with Asian race/ethnicity and those with Central/Focal nervous system disease with no effect seen for age at diagnosis,” the researchers noted. “For non-SLE NP events, African race/ethnicity at non-U.S. sites and younger age at diagnosis was associated with a better outcome.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the predominantly White patient population and the clustering of NP events into limited categories, which may have reduced the identification of more specific associations, the researchers noted. Also, the assessment of NP event outcomes did not include patient perceptions, and the relatively short follow-up period does not allow for assessment of later NP events such as cerebrovascular disease. However, “despite these limitations the current study provides valuable data on the presentation, outcome and predictors of NP disease in SLE patients enrolled in a long-term, international, disease inception cohort,” the researchers concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Hanly was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received grant support from various institutions, but not from industry, and had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
New ACR guidance recommends COVID-19 vaccination in RMD patients
Newly updated COVID-19 vaccination guidance from the American College of Rheumatology offers detailed insight into how clinicians should proceed with use, timing, and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
“The task force advised health care providers to avoid being overly dogmatic in following these recommendations,” Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote. “The attempt to optimize vaccine response in relation to the use and timing of immunosuppressive medications should not compromise a willing patient’s ability to undergo vaccination in a timely manner and risk a missed vaccination opportunity.” The guidelines were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
To review the published literature and determine the safety and efficacy of the available COVID-19 vaccines for patients with RMDs, a task force made up of nine rheumatologists/immunologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health physicians was formed. The ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force considered vaccine clinical trial data and overall COVID-19 risk and outcomes among RMD patients, along with the immunogenicity of other vaccines in patients on immunomodulatory therapies and the safety profile of non-COVID vaccines in RMD patients.
Using a 9-point numeric scoring system, the task force developed 74 draft guidance statements that were rated with a median score of 7, 8, or 9. Consensus was deemed strong for 16 of the statements and moderate for the remaining 58.
Of the general considerations related to COVID-19 vaccination, the only statement to achieve strong consensus called for the rheumatology health care provider to take responsibility for assessing their patients’ COVID-19 vaccination status. Other notable statements asserted that patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19, compared with the general population, and should be prioritized for vaccination accordingly, even though a risk for disease flare or worsening exists and the expected vaccine response for patients on systemic immunomodulatory therapies is “likely to be blunted in its magnitude and duration.”
Takeaway advice
When asked about a top-line takeaway for rheumatologists, Dr. Curtis replied: “Make sure that your patients are getting vaccinated. Even though the vaccine in patients with compromised immune systems might not work quite as well and might not last quite as long, they still should get vaccinated. And vaccine hesitancy is a real thing.”
Citing unpublished survey data, he estimated that roughly 25% of people with rheumatic conditions remain unvaccinated, and more than half of them said they had no vaccination plans. “That’s a pretty important message when up to a quarter of your higher-risk people take a pass,” he said. “You’d expect it to be better in people at risk who are on steroids or immune medications. That’s something rheumatologists can help with the most.”
Regarding vaccine use, the task force strongly recommended that RMD patients be offered COVID-19 vaccinations consistent with the emergency use authorization’s current age restrictions and/or Food and Drug Administration approval. They also strongly recommended patients with AIIRDs receive the second dose of a multidose vaccine, even if the first dose led to nonserious adverse events, and that health care providers avoid ordering lab testing to assess COVID-19 immunity in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.
The issues around testing for immunity are ample, Dr. Curtis said. For starters, “there are different antibodies, and one of them wouldn’t be expected to go up after vaccination.” And even if you are testing for the correct antibodies, “now I get a number. Is my number high enough that says that I’m protected? That’s what clinicians want, that’s what patients want. Unfortunately, we don’t have that test. There’s an antibody test; you can test against the spike protein and get a number, but whether that number has clinical relevance that says you’re protected, and how much, and for how long, we definitely don’t have that information. You could be falsely reassured or falsely alarmed by the results.”
This statement, he added, has been particularly divisive. “A bunch of rheumatologists have said to me: ‘Look, we’re doing this routinely for our patients.’ My rejoinder was: ‘That’s great to know; what’s the evidence base for what you’re doing there? Because I haven’t read that paper.’ I fully acknowledge that, in groups of patients on certain therapies, the antibody response seems somewhat lower. But doctors don’t treat groups of patients; we treat patients one at a time. And I want to know how to help the patient in front of me, and I want to know what to tell him or her if I get the results of an antibody test.”
Finally, the task force emphasized that all AIIRD patients should receive the COVID-19 vaccinations, exempting only those with life-threatening disease, and they stated no preference for one COVID-19 vaccine over the other.
Vaccine choice
“Should you prefer one vaccine or vaccine platform to another? That’s been incredibly controversial,” Dr. Curtis said. Though the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines is often cited at 90%, compared with the roughly 60%-70% efficacy of the Johnson and & Johnson single-dose vaccine, “they’re not head-to-head studies. They weren’t done in the same countries; they weren’t done with the same viral variants. They’re not being evaluated under similar conditions; it’s not fair to hold them up and say: ‘Apples to apples, this one is better than that one.’ ”
“On the other hand,” he added, “if you were choosing, which would you want? If you are given a choice, you’re probably going to have a preference. The downside for a public health group – this group, which is trying to help rheumatologists and their patients make prudent decisions in light of very imperfect and evolving evidence – is that most people don’t have a choice. So if you send the message that one vaccine might be better than another, if that makes people wait for the one that supposedly might be better, you’ve probably done something bad. They’re delaying for what may be a marginal reason, and some vaccine protection is better than no vaccine protection.”
Regarding vaccination timing in patients who are on immunomodulatory therapies, the task force strongly recommended not delaying or adjusting the timing for anyone on hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, apremilast, or intravenous immunoglobulin. They moderately recommended the same for patients on numerous drugs, including methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, abatacept, and glucocorticoids. Patients on rituximab with a low COVID-19 risk were recommended to schedule their vaccination so that the vaccine series is initiated roughly 4 weeks before their next scheduled rituximab cycle.
Regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies in relation to vaccination, they strongly recommended no modifications for patients on hydroxychloroquine, apremilast, intravenous immunoglobulin, or glucocorticoids. They also moderately recommended no modifications for patients on numerous drugs, including sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine, oral cyclophosphamide, and TNF inhibitors.
Regarding limitations, the researchers noted that there is no direct evidence about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy yet in this subset of patients. They also acknowledged that they did not follow the rigorous methodology typically used by the ACR in developing formal clinical practice guidelines, calling it an “expected limitation” given the need to issue timely and potentially lifesaving guidance for the rheumatology community.
The authors acknowledged several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, and research grants from various pharmaceutical companies.
Newly updated COVID-19 vaccination guidance from the American College of Rheumatology offers detailed insight into how clinicians should proceed with use, timing, and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
“The task force advised health care providers to avoid being overly dogmatic in following these recommendations,” Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote. “The attempt to optimize vaccine response in relation to the use and timing of immunosuppressive medications should not compromise a willing patient’s ability to undergo vaccination in a timely manner and risk a missed vaccination opportunity.” The guidelines were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
To review the published literature and determine the safety and efficacy of the available COVID-19 vaccines for patients with RMDs, a task force made up of nine rheumatologists/immunologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health physicians was formed. The ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force considered vaccine clinical trial data and overall COVID-19 risk and outcomes among RMD patients, along with the immunogenicity of other vaccines in patients on immunomodulatory therapies and the safety profile of non-COVID vaccines in RMD patients.
Using a 9-point numeric scoring system, the task force developed 74 draft guidance statements that were rated with a median score of 7, 8, or 9. Consensus was deemed strong for 16 of the statements and moderate for the remaining 58.
Of the general considerations related to COVID-19 vaccination, the only statement to achieve strong consensus called for the rheumatology health care provider to take responsibility for assessing their patients’ COVID-19 vaccination status. Other notable statements asserted that patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19, compared with the general population, and should be prioritized for vaccination accordingly, even though a risk for disease flare or worsening exists and the expected vaccine response for patients on systemic immunomodulatory therapies is “likely to be blunted in its magnitude and duration.”
Takeaway advice
When asked about a top-line takeaway for rheumatologists, Dr. Curtis replied: “Make sure that your patients are getting vaccinated. Even though the vaccine in patients with compromised immune systems might not work quite as well and might not last quite as long, they still should get vaccinated. And vaccine hesitancy is a real thing.”
Citing unpublished survey data, he estimated that roughly 25% of people with rheumatic conditions remain unvaccinated, and more than half of them said they had no vaccination plans. “That’s a pretty important message when up to a quarter of your higher-risk people take a pass,” he said. “You’d expect it to be better in people at risk who are on steroids or immune medications. That’s something rheumatologists can help with the most.”
Regarding vaccine use, the task force strongly recommended that RMD patients be offered COVID-19 vaccinations consistent with the emergency use authorization’s current age restrictions and/or Food and Drug Administration approval. They also strongly recommended patients with AIIRDs receive the second dose of a multidose vaccine, even if the first dose led to nonserious adverse events, and that health care providers avoid ordering lab testing to assess COVID-19 immunity in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.
The issues around testing for immunity are ample, Dr. Curtis said. For starters, “there are different antibodies, and one of them wouldn’t be expected to go up after vaccination.” And even if you are testing for the correct antibodies, “now I get a number. Is my number high enough that says that I’m protected? That’s what clinicians want, that’s what patients want. Unfortunately, we don’t have that test. There’s an antibody test; you can test against the spike protein and get a number, but whether that number has clinical relevance that says you’re protected, and how much, and for how long, we definitely don’t have that information. You could be falsely reassured or falsely alarmed by the results.”
This statement, he added, has been particularly divisive. “A bunch of rheumatologists have said to me: ‘Look, we’re doing this routinely for our patients.’ My rejoinder was: ‘That’s great to know; what’s the evidence base for what you’re doing there? Because I haven’t read that paper.’ I fully acknowledge that, in groups of patients on certain therapies, the antibody response seems somewhat lower. But doctors don’t treat groups of patients; we treat patients one at a time. And I want to know how to help the patient in front of me, and I want to know what to tell him or her if I get the results of an antibody test.”
Finally, the task force emphasized that all AIIRD patients should receive the COVID-19 vaccinations, exempting only those with life-threatening disease, and they stated no preference for one COVID-19 vaccine over the other.
Vaccine choice
“Should you prefer one vaccine or vaccine platform to another? That’s been incredibly controversial,” Dr. Curtis said. Though the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines is often cited at 90%, compared with the roughly 60%-70% efficacy of the Johnson and & Johnson single-dose vaccine, “they’re not head-to-head studies. They weren’t done in the same countries; they weren’t done with the same viral variants. They’re not being evaluated under similar conditions; it’s not fair to hold them up and say: ‘Apples to apples, this one is better than that one.’ ”
“On the other hand,” he added, “if you were choosing, which would you want? If you are given a choice, you’re probably going to have a preference. The downside for a public health group – this group, which is trying to help rheumatologists and their patients make prudent decisions in light of very imperfect and evolving evidence – is that most people don’t have a choice. So if you send the message that one vaccine might be better than another, if that makes people wait for the one that supposedly might be better, you’ve probably done something bad. They’re delaying for what may be a marginal reason, and some vaccine protection is better than no vaccine protection.”
Regarding vaccination timing in patients who are on immunomodulatory therapies, the task force strongly recommended not delaying or adjusting the timing for anyone on hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, apremilast, or intravenous immunoglobulin. They moderately recommended the same for patients on numerous drugs, including methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, abatacept, and glucocorticoids. Patients on rituximab with a low COVID-19 risk were recommended to schedule their vaccination so that the vaccine series is initiated roughly 4 weeks before their next scheduled rituximab cycle.
Regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies in relation to vaccination, they strongly recommended no modifications for patients on hydroxychloroquine, apremilast, intravenous immunoglobulin, or glucocorticoids. They also moderately recommended no modifications for patients on numerous drugs, including sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine, oral cyclophosphamide, and TNF inhibitors.
Regarding limitations, the researchers noted that there is no direct evidence about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy yet in this subset of patients. They also acknowledged that they did not follow the rigorous methodology typically used by the ACR in developing formal clinical practice guidelines, calling it an “expected limitation” given the need to issue timely and potentially lifesaving guidance for the rheumatology community.
The authors acknowledged several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, and research grants from various pharmaceutical companies.
Newly updated COVID-19 vaccination guidance from the American College of Rheumatology offers detailed insight into how clinicians should proceed with use, timing, and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
“The task force advised health care providers to avoid being overly dogmatic in following these recommendations,” Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote. “The attempt to optimize vaccine response in relation to the use and timing of immunosuppressive medications should not compromise a willing patient’s ability to undergo vaccination in a timely manner and risk a missed vaccination opportunity.” The guidelines were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
To review the published literature and determine the safety and efficacy of the available COVID-19 vaccines for patients with RMDs, a task force made up of nine rheumatologists/immunologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health physicians was formed. The ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force considered vaccine clinical trial data and overall COVID-19 risk and outcomes among RMD patients, along with the immunogenicity of other vaccines in patients on immunomodulatory therapies and the safety profile of non-COVID vaccines in RMD patients.
Using a 9-point numeric scoring system, the task force developed 74 draft guidance statements that were rated with a median score of 7, 8, or 9. Consensus was deemed strong for 16 of the statements and moderate for the remaining 58.
Of the general considerations related to COVID-19 vaccination, the only statement to achieve strong consensus called for the rheumatology health care provider to take responsibility for assessing their patients’ COVID-19 vaccination status. Other notable statements asserted that patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) are at higher risk for hospitalized COVID-19, compared with the general population, and should be prioritized for vaccination accordingly, even though a risk for disease flare or worsening exists and the expected vaccine response for patients on systemic immunomodulatory therapies is “likely to be blunted in its magnitude and duration.”
Takeaway advice
When asked about a top-line takeaway for rheumatologists, Dr. Curtis replied: “Make sure that your patients are getting vaccinated. Even though the vaccine in patients with compromised immune systems might not work quite as well and might not last quite as long, they still should get vaccinated. And vaccine hesitancy is a real thing.”
Citing unpublished survey data, he estimated that roughly 25% of people with rheumatic conditions remain unvaccinated, and more than half of them said they had no vaccination plans. “That’s a pretty important message when up to a quarter of your higher-risk people take a pass,” he said. “You’d expect it to be better in people at risk who are on steroids or immune medications. That’s something rheumatologists can help with the most.”
Regarding vaccine use, the task force strongly recommended that RMD patients be offered COVID-19 vaccinations consistent with the emergency use authorization’s current age restrictions and/or Food and Drug Administration approval. They also strongly recommended patients with AIIRDs receive the second dose of a multidose vaccine, even if the first dose led to nonserious adverse events, and that health care providers avoid ordering lab testing to assess COVID-19 immunity in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.
The issues around testing for immunity are ample, Dr. Curtis said. For starters, “there are different antibodies, and one of them wouldn’t be expected to go up after vaccination.” And even if you are testing for the correct antibodies, “now I get a number. Is my number high enough that says that I’m protected? That’s what clinicians want, that’s what patients want. Unfortunately, we don’t have that test. There’s an antibody test; you can test against the spike protein and get a number, but whether that number has clinical relevance that says you’re protected, and how much, and for how long, we definitely don’t have that information. You could be falsely reassured or falsely alarmed by the results.”
This statement, he added, has been particularly divisive. “A bunch of rheumatologists have said to me: ‘Look, we’re doing this routinely for our patients.’ My rejoinder was: ‘That’s great to know; what’s the evidence base for what you’re doing there? Because I haven’t read that paper.’ I fully acknowledge that, in groups of patients on certain therapies, the antibody response seems somewhat lower. But doctors don’t treat groups of patients; we treat patients one at a time. And I want to know how to help the patient in front of me, and I want to know what to tell him or her if I get the results of an antibody test.”
Finally, the task force emphasized that all AIIRD patients should receive the COVID-19 vaccinations, exempting only those with life-threatening disease, and they stated no preference for one COVID-19 vaccine over the other.
Vaccine choice
“Should you prefer one vaccine or vaccine platform to another? That’s been incredibly controversial,” Dr. Curtis said. Though the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines is often cited at 90%, compared with the roughly 60%-70% efficacy of the Johnson and & Johnson single-dose vaccine, “they’re not head-to-head studies. They weren’t done in the same countries; they weren’t done with the same viral variants. They’re not being evaluated under similar conditions; it’s not fair to hold them up and say: ‘Apples to apples, this one is better than that one.’ ”
“On the other hand,” he added, “if you were choosing, which would you want? If you are given a choice, you’re probably going to have a preference. The downside for a public health group – this group, which is trying to help rheumatologists and their patients make prudent decisions in light of very imperfect and evolving evidence – is that most people don’t have a choice. So if you send the message that one vaccine might be better than another, if that makes people wait for the one that supposedly might be better, you’ve probably done something bad. They’re delaying for what may be a marginal reason, and some vaccine protection is better than no vaccine protection.”
Regarding vaccination timing in patients who are on immunomodulatory therapies, the task force strongly recommended not delaying or adjusting the timing for anyone on hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, apremilast, or intravenous immunoglobulin. They moderately recommended the same for patients on numerous drugs, including methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, abatacept, and glucocorticoids. Patients on rituximab with a low COVID-19 risk were recommended to schedule their vaccination so that the vaccine series is initiated roughly 4 weeks before their next scheduled rituximab cycle.
Regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies in relation to vaccination, they strongly recommended no modifications for patients on hydroxychloroquine, apremilast, intravenous immunoglobulin, or glucocorticoids. They also moderately recommended no modifications for patients on numerous drugs, including sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine, oral cyclophosphamide, and TNF inhibitors.
Regarding limitations, the researchers noted that there is no direct evidence about COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy yet in this subset of patients. They also acknowledged that they did not follow the rigorous methodology typically used by the ACR in developing formal clinical practice guidelines, calling it an “expected limitation” given the need to issue timely and potentially lifesaving guidance for the rheumatology community.
The authors acknowledged several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, and research grants from various pharmaceutical companies.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Lupus images fall short on diverse examples
Lupus images in medical resource materials underrepresent patients with skin of color, based on data from a review of more than 1,400 images published between 2014 and 2019 in materials from a university’s online medical library.
Patients with skin of color who develop lupus tend to present earlier and with more severe cases, and often experience worse outcomes, compared with other populations, wrote Amaad Rana, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues. Medical resources in general have historically underrepresented patients of color, and the researchers reviewed lupus materials for a similar publication bias.
In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 1,417 images in rheumatology, dermatology, and internal medicine resources, including 119 medical textbooks, 15 medical journals, 2 online image libraries, and the online image collections of Google and UpToDate. An additional 24 images came from skin of color atlases.
Excluding the skin of color atlases, 56.4% of the images represented light skin, 35.1% showed medium skin, and 8.5% showed dark skin. Overall, publishers were more than twice as likely to portray light skin tones and were significantly less likely to portray dark skin tones (odds ratios, 2.59 and 0.19, respectively), compared with an equal representation of skin tones; however, the difference was not significant for portrayal of medium skin tones (OR, 1.08).
By specialty, dermatology was more inclusive of skin of color images than rheumatology or internal medicine, although the internal medicine sample size was too small for comparable analysis, the researchers noted. Dermatology textbooks were 2.42 times more likely and rheumatology textbooks were 4.87 times more likely to depict light skin tones than an equal representation of light, medium, and dark skin tones.
The researchers rated the skin color in the images using the New Immigrant Survey Skin Color Scale and categorized the images as representing light (NISSCS scores, 1-2), medium (NISSCS scores, 3-5), or dark skin (NISSCS scores, 6-10). Medical journals had the most images of dark skin, excluding skin of color atlases. In a comparison of specialties, dermatology materials included the most images of medium and darker skin tones.
The underrepresentation of skin of color patients can contribute to a limited knowledge of lupus presentation that could lead to disparate health outcomes, the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the review of only the online textbooks and journals available through the medical library of a single university, the researchers noted. In addition, definitions of light, medium, and dark skin tones were variable among studies, and the researchers did not distinguish among lupus pathologies.
“Further research is needed to quantitatively assess the influence these materials have on healthcare providers’ ability to care for patients with lupus and SOC, and new material and strategies will be required to correct this disparity and promote equitable representation,” the researchers emphasized. “Ultimately, this will arm practitioners with the resources to competently treat patients with any skin color and work towards reducing disparities in health outcomes.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Lupus images in medical resource materials underrepresent patients with skin of color, based on data from a review of more than 1,400 images published between 2014 and 2019 in materials from a university’s online medical library.
Patients with skin of color who develop lupus tend to present earlier and with more severe cases, and often experience worse outcomes, compared with other populations, wrote Amaad Rana, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues. Medical resources in general have historically underrepresented patients of color, and the researchers reviewed lupus materials for a similar publication bias.
In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 1,417 images in rheumatology, dermatology, and internal medicine resources, including 119 medical textbooks, 15 medical journals, 2 online image libraries, and the online image collections of Google and UpToDate. An additional 24 images came from skin of color atlases.
Excluding the skin of color atlases, 56.4% of the images represented light skin, 35.1% showed medium skin, and 8.5% showed dark skin. Overall, publishers were more than twice as likely to portray light skin tones and were significantly less likely to portray dark skin tones (odds ratios, 2.59 and 0.19, respectively), compared with an equal representation of skin tones; however, the difference was not significant for portrayal of medium skin tones (OR, 1.08).
By specialty, dermatology was more inclusive of skin of color images than rheumatology or internal medicine, although the internal medicine sample size was too small for comparable analysis, the researchers noted. Dermatology textbooks were 2.42 times more likely and rheumatology textbooks were 4.87 times more likely to depict light skin tones than an equal representation of light, medium, and dark skin tones.
The researchers rated the skin color in the images using the New Immigrant Survey Skin Color Scale and categorized the images as representing light (NISSCS scores, 1-2), medium (NISSCS scores, 3-5), or dark skin (NISSCS scores, 6-10). Medical journals had the most images of dark skin, excluding skin of color atlases. In a comparison of specialties, dermatology materials included the most images of medium and darker skin tones.
The underrepresentation of skin of color patients can contribute to a limited knowledge of lupus presentation that could lead to disparate health outcomes, the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the review of only the online textbooks and journals available through the medical library of a single university, the researchers noted. In addition, definitions of light, medium, and dark skin tones were variable among studies, and the researchers did not distinguish among lupus pathologies.
“Further research is needed to quantitatively assess the influence these materials have on healthcare providers’ ability to care for patients with lupus and SOC, and new material and strategies will be required to correct this disparity and promote equitable representation,” the researchers emphasized. “Ultimately, this will arm practitioners with the resources to competently treat patients with any skin color and work towards reducing disparities in health outcomes.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Lupus images in medical resource materials underrepresent patients with skin of color, based on data from a review of more than 1,400 images published between 2014 and 2019 in materials from a university’s online medical library.
Patients with skin of color who develop lupus tend to present earlier and with more severe cases, and often experience worse outcomes, compared with other populations, wrote Amaad Rana, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues. Medical resources in general have historically underrepresented patients of color, and the researchers reviewed lupus materials for a similar publication bias.
In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 1,417 images in rheumatology, dermatology, and internal medicine resources, including 119 medical textbooks, 15 medical journals, 2 online image libraries, and the online image collections of Google and UpToDate. An additional 24 images came from skin of color atlases.
Excluding the skin of color atlases, 56.4% of the images represented light skin, 35.1% showed medium skin, and 8.5% showed dark skin. Overall, publishers were more than twice as likely to portray light skin tones and were significantly less likely to portray dark skin tones (odds ratios, 2.59 and 0.19, respectively), compared with an equal representation of skin tones; however, the difference was not significant for portrayal of medium skin tones (OR, 1.08).
By specialty, dermatology was more inclusive of skin of color images than rheumatology or internal medicine, although the internal medicine sample size was too small for comparable analysis, the researchers noted. Dermatology textbooks were 2.42 times more likely and rheumatology textbooks were 4.87 times more likely to depict light skin tones than an equal representation of light, medium, and dark skin tones.
The researchers rated the skin color in the images using the New Immigrant Survey Skin Color Scale and categorized the images as representing light (NISSCS scores, 1-2), medium (NISSCS scores, 3-5), or dark skin (NISSCS scores, 6-10). Medical journals had the most images of dark skin, excluding skin of color atlases. In a comparison of specialties, dermatology materials included the most images of medium and darker skin tones.
The underrepresentation of skin of color patients can contribute to a limited knowledge of lupus presentation that could lead to disparate health outcomes, the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the review of only the online textbooks and journals available through the medical library of a single university, the researchers noted. In addition, definitions of light, medium, and dark skin tones were variable among studies, and the researchers did not distinguish among lupus pathologies.
“Further research is needed to quantitatively assess the influence these materials have on healthcare providers’ ability to care for patients with lupus and SOC, and new material and strategies will be required to correct this disparity and promote equitable representation,” the researchers emphasized. “Ultimately, this will arm practitioners with the resources to competently treat patients with any skin color and work towards reducing disparities in health outcomes.”
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH