Rheumatology

A recent analysis of the incidence of gout in men, published in JAMA Network Open, offers new insights on the role of lifestyle changes in preventing gout, particularly the importance of obesity and its modification.

Prior gout research, although it addressed lifestyle issues, had not quantified the impact of obesity on incident gout cases, noted first author Natalie McCormick, PhD, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “To date the proportion of actual gout itself that could potentially be prevented by modifying such risk factors remains unknown.” To address that lack of data, they set out to estimate the proportion of avoidable incident gout in a large database in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, initially of some 51,529 male health professionals who have completed a biannual personal health questionnaire since 1986. The follow-up rate for completing these questionnaires exceeds 90%.

For their analysis, the researchers tracked 44,654 of these men, with an average age of 54 at the 1986 baseline and no history of gout, through the year 2012. They looked at four lifestyle risk factors attributed to gout: body mass index; alcohol intake; adherence to a Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-style diet, which recommends less red meat and sweetened beverages and more fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products; and the absence of diuretic drugs, which are used to treat blood pressure or heart failure, in order to observe and compare their effects on new reports of gout. Over the subsequent 26 years, nearly 4% of the men developed gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis. Obese men had 2.65 times greater risk for developing gout than did those with a normal body mass index.

If one addressed all four risk factors – modifying obesity, having no alcohol intake, not taking diuretic drugs, and following a DASH-style, lower-fat diet – 77% of new gout cases would disappear, the study’s corresponding author, Hyon K. Choi, MD, DrPH, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “But we learned that if you don’t include modifying obesity as a targetable risk factor, none of the other factors alone reaches significance. We can’t make firm conclusions about cause and effect, but modifying obesity seems to be a prerequisite to preventing gout through lifestyle. It’s a very interesting finding that needs to be confirmed in further research,” he said.

A worldwide gout epidemic

Currently, there is a kind of worldwide gout epidemic linked to obesity, Dr. Choi said. The disease burden of gout is increasing worldwide. “This may be more of an issue for family practice or primary care physicians, who see 80%-90% of gout cases, rather than for rheumatologists, who are more likely to see advanced cases in need of drug therapy. But we would say: Don’t lose sight of the lifestyle risk factors, which are interrelated. This is not only the responsibility of one doctor or the other.”

The new findings should give practicing rheumatologists more confidence in addressing lifestyle issues, particularly weight loss, with their patients, said Angelo Gaffo, MD, section chief of rheumatology at the Birmingham VA Medical Center and associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Other studies have also looked at how weight loss led to serum urate reduction. This study adds to a growing body of literature emphasizing that the most important lifestyle factor relative to gout risk is weight gain, and the simplest, most effective intervention is counseling patients about weight loss, he said.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Choi reported receiving research support from Ironwood and Horizon and consulting fees from Ironwood, Selecta, Horizon, Takeda, Kowa, and Vaxart. No other relevant financial disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: McCormick N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2027421. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27421.

A recent analysis of the incidence of gout in men, published in JAMA Network Open, offers new insights on the role of lifestyle changes in preventing gout, particularly the importance of obesity and its modification.

Prior gout research, although it addressed lifestyle issues, had not quantified the impact of obesity on incident gout cases, noted first author Natalie McCormick, PhD, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “To date the proportion of actual gout itself that could potentially be prevented by modifying such risk factors remains unknown.” To address that lack of data, they set out to estimate the proportion of avoidable incident gout in a large database in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, initially of some 51,529 male health professionals who have completed a biannual personal health questionnaire since 1986. The follow-up rate for completing these questionnaires exceeds 90%.

For their analysis, the researchers tracked 44,654 of these men, with an average age of 54 at the 1986 baseline and no history of gout, through the year 2012. They looked at four lifestyle risk factors attributed to gout: body mass index; alcohol intake; adherence to a Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-style diet, which recommends less red meat and sweetened beverages and more fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products; and the absence of diuretic drugs, which are used to treat blood pressure or heart failure, in order to observe and compare their effects on new reports of gout. Over the subsequent 26 years, nearly 4% of the men developed gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis. Obese men had 2.65 times greater risk for developing gout than did those with a normal body mass index.

If one addressed all four risk factors – modifying obesity, having no alcohol intake, not taking diuretic drugs, and following a DASH-style, lower-fat diet – 77% of new gout cases would disappear, the study’s corresponding author, Hyon K. Choi, MD, DrPH, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “But we learned that if you don’t include modifying obesity as a targetable risk factor, none of the other factors alone reaches significance. We can’t make firm conclusions about cause and effect, but modifying obesity seems to be a prerequisite to preventing gout through lifestyle. It’s a very interesting finding that needs to be confirmed in further research,” he said.

A worldwide gout epidemic

Currently, there is a kind of worldwide gout epidemic linked to obesity, Dr. Choi said. The disease burden of gout is increasing worldwide. “This may be more of an issue for family practice or primary care physicians, who see 80%-90% of gout cases, rather than for rheumatologists, who are more likely to see advanced cases in need of drug therapy. But we would say: Don’t lose sight of the lifestyle risk factors, which are interrelated. This is not only the responsibility of one doctor or the other.”

The new findings should give practicing rheumatologists more confidence in addressing lifestyle issues, particularly weight loss, with their patients, said Angelo Gaffo, MD, section chief of rheumatology at the Birmingham VA Medical Center and associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Other studies have also looked at how weight loss led to serum urate reduction. This study adds to a growing body of literature emphasizing that the most important lifestyle factor relative to gout risk is weight gain, and the simplest, most effective intervention is counseling patients about weight loss, he said.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Choi reported receiving research support from Ironwood and Horizon and consulting fees from Ironwood, Selecta, Horizon, Takeda, Kowa, and Vaxart. No other relevant financial disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: McCormick N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2027421. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27421.

A recent analysis of the incidence of gout in men, published in JAMA Network Open, offers new insights on the role of lifestyle changes in preventing gout, particularly the importance of obesity and its modification.

Prior gout research, although it addressed lifestyle issues, had not quantified the impact of obesity on incident gout cases, noted first author Natalie McCormick, PhD, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “To date the proportion of actual gout itself that could potentially be prevented by modifying such risk factors remains unknown.” To address that lack of data, they set out to estimate the proportion of avoidable incident gout in a large database in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, initially of some 51,529 male health professionals who have completed a biannual personal health questionnaire since 1986. The follow-up rate for completing these questionnaires exceeds 90%.

For their analysis, the researchers tracked 44,654 of these men, with an average age of 54 at the 1986 baseline and no history of gout, through the year 2012. They looked at four lifestyle risk factors attributed to gout: body mass index; alcohol intake; adherence to a Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-style diet, which recommends less red meat and sweetened beverages and more fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products; and the absence of diuretic drugs, which are used to treat blood pressure or heart failure, in order to observe and compare their effects on new reports of gout. Over the subsequent 26 years, nearly 4% of the men developed gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis. Obese men had 2.65 times greater risk for developing gout than did those with a normal body mass index.

If one addressed all four risk factors – modifying obesity, having no alcohol intake, not taking diuretic drugs, and following a DASH-style, lower-fat diet – 77% of new gout cases would disappear, the study’s corresponding author, Hyon K. Choi, MD, DrPH, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “But we learned that if you don’t include modifying obesity as a targetable risk factor, none of the other factors alone reaches significance. We can’t make firm conclusions about cause and effect, but modifying obesity seems to be a prerequisite to preventing gout through lifestyle. It’s a very interesting finding that needs to be confirmed in further research,” he said.

A worldwide gout epidemic

Currently, there is a kind of worldwide gout epidemic linked to obesity, Dr. Choi said. The disease burden of gout is increasing worldwide. “This may be more of an issue for family practice or primary care physicians, who see 80%-90% of gout cases, rather than for rheumatologists, who are more likely to see advanced cases in need of drug therapy. But we would say: Don’t lose sight of the lifestyle risk factors, which are interrelated. This is not only the responsibility of one doctor or the other.”

The new findings should give practicing rheumatologists more confidence in addressing lifestyle issues, particularly weight loss, with their patients, said Angelo Gaffo, MD, section chief of rheumatology at the Birmingham VA Medical Center and associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Other studies have also looked at how weight loss led to serum urate reduction. This study adds to a growing body of literature emphasizing that the most important lifestyle factor relative to gout risk is weight gain, and the simplest, most effective intervention is counseling patients about weight loss, he said.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Choi reported receiving research support from Ironwood and Horizon and consulting fees from Ironwood, Selecta, Horizon, Takeda, Kowa, and Vaxart. No other relevant financial disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: McCormick N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2027421. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27421.

The pretreatment gut microbiome can determine response to methotrexate therapy in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, according to recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

About half of patients do not respond to methotrexate (MTX), despite it being a first-line therapy for RA, according to Alejandro Artacho of the Centro Superior de Investigación en Salud Pública in Valencia, Spain, and colleagues. In addition, there is currently no way to predict which patients will respond to MTX.

Dr. Veena Taneja, a researcher and associate professor in the Department of Immunology and Division of Rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

The role of the microbiome in drug response for patients with RA “has been known since it was discovered in 1972 that sulfasalazine requires gut bacteria for its activity,” Veena Taneja, PhD, a researcher and associate professor of immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The microbiome and how it functions “needs to be explored as biomarkers as well as for treatment options for RA and other diseases,” added Dr. Taneja, who was not involved with the study.

Using 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing, the researchers evaluated whether the gut microbiome of a patient newly diagnosed with RA (NORA) influenced their response to MTX. The researchers extracted DNA from fecal samples in 26 patients from New York University Langone Medical Center, Lutheran Hospital, Staten Island, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine rheumatology clinics 48 hours prior to treatment with MTX and determined the bacterial taxa, operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and ribosomal sequence variants in each sample. These patients then received oral MTX with an average dose of 20 mg per week (range, 15-25 mg). The patients were grouped based on whether they responded (39%) or did not respond (61%) to MTX based on improvement of at least 1.8 in their Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) after 4 months and no need to add a biologic.

Patients with a statistically significantly lower level of microbial diversity (P < .05) as measured by OTU level tended to respond better to MTX therapy. In patients who did not respond to MTX, there was a significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes, a significantly lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (P < .05), and a higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.

There was also a consistent difference between abundance of gut microbial genes in patients who did not respond to MTX. “Taken together, these results indicate that the gut microbiome of NORA patients that respond favorably to MTX is distinct from that of MTX-NR, prompting us to hypothesize that the pretreatment microbiome could be used to predict clinical nonresponse,” the researchers said.

Using machine learning, Mr. Artacho and colleagues developed a predictive model based on the initial training cohort of 26 patients to assess MTX response. When the researchers tested the model in a validation cohort of 21 patients, they found it correctly predicted 78% of MTX responders and 83.3% of patients who did not respond to MTX, with the percentage of correct predictions increasing “when considering only those patients with the highest probability score of belonging to either group.”

In a separate set of 20 patients with RA who were prescribed either different conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics or had not started any medications, the researchers’ model could not predict clinical response, “suggesting that the potential clinical utility of the model is restricted to RA patients that are both drug naive and exposed directly to MTX, but not to other drugs.”

“Our results open the possibility to rationally design microbiome-modulating strategies to improve oral absorption of MTX and its downstream immune effects, inform clinical decision-making or both,” they said.

Clinical application

Dr. Taneja said the findings of the study are novel and intriguing. “The observations suggest a strong influence of [the] host’s microbiome in response to MTX and in future may inform best treatment options for patients. The study speculates that certain microbial clades or microbes can be used to derive a favorable response in patients. This could explain why “one drug fits all” does not apply in treatment for RA,” she said.

The study is also a “step forward” in using the microbiome in regular clinical practice, she noted. “Since MTX is used as a first line of treatment and is one of the most affordable treatments for RA, the observations are definitely exciting.”

In an interview, Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, of the department of immunobiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chair of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Münster (Germany), explained that the prediction model has the potential to one day be a tool for clinicians to predict MTX response in patients with RA. However, he noted the researchers did not test a functional link between MTX and gut microbes in vivo.

“It would be useful to test mechanistic effects of MTX on gut microbial communities in vitro and in vivo,” he said. “In addition, it would be informative to apply the prediction model in other cohorts of RA with a different geographic background, possibly also a different duration of disease. If confirmed in a more heterogeneous group of patients, the tool could potentially be used in the clinic to tell some patients that they might not respond to MTX and therefore start therapy with another agent.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, various funds from the Spanish government, the UCSF Breakthrough Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis-related Research, and the Arthritis Foundation Center for Excellence. Four authors report consultancies and memberships on scientific advisory boards with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that do not overlap with the current study.

Dr. Taneja reported that her institution holds a patent for developing Prevotella histicola as an anti-inflammatory treatment, of which she is a coinventor. Evelo Biosciences is a licensee for the patent, and Dr. Taneja reported receiving research support from the company. Dr. Kriegel reported receiving salary, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funds from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell Applications, Eligo Bioscience, and Roche. He also holds a patent on the use of antibiotics and commensal vaccination to treat autoimmunity.

SOURCE: Artacho A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41622.

The pretreatment gut microbiome can determine response to methotrexate therapy in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, according to recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

About half of patients do not respond to methotrexate (MTX), despite it being a first-line therapy for RA, according to Alejandro Artacho of the Centro Superior de Investigación en Salud Pública in Valencia, Spain, and colleagues. In addition, there is currently no way to predict which patients will respond to MTX.

Dr. Veena Taneja, a researcher and associate professor in the Department of Immunology and Division of Rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

The role of the microbiome in drug response for patients with RA “has been known since it was discovered in 1972 that sulfasalazine requires gut bacteria for its activity,” Veena Taneja, PhD, a researcher and associate professor of immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The microbiome and how it functions “needs to be explored as biomarkers as well as for treatment options for RA and other diseases,” added Dr. Taneja, who was not involved with the study.

Using 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing, the researchers evaluated whether the gut microbiome of a patient newly diagnosed with RA (NORA) influenced their response to MTX. The researchers extracted DNA from fecal samples in 26 patients from New York University Langone Medical Center, Lutheran Hospital, Staten Island, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine rheumatology clinics 48 hours prior to treatment with MTX and determined the bacterial taxa, operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and ribosomal sequence variants in each sample. These patients then received oral MTX with an average dose of 20 mg per week (range, 15-25 mg). The patients were grouped based on whether they responded (39%) or did not respond (61%) to MTX based on improvement of at least 1.8 in their Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) after 4 months and no need to add a biologic.

Patients with a statistically significantly lower level of microbial diversity (P < .05) as measured by OTU level tended to respond better to MTX therapy. In patients who did not respond to MTX, there was a significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes, a significantly lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (P < .05), and a higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.

There was also a consistent difference between abundance of gut microbial genes in patients who did not respond to MTX. “Taken together, these results indicate that the gut microbiome of NORA patients that respond favorably to MTX is distinct from that of MTX-NR, prompting us to hypothesize that the pretreatment microbiome could be used to predict clinical nonresponse,” the researchers said.

Using machine learning, Mr. Artacho and colleagues developed a predictive model based on the initial training cohort of 26 patients to assess MTX response. When the researchers tested the model in a validation cohort of 21 patients, they found it correctly predicted 78% of MTX responders and 83.3% of patients who did not respond to MTX, with the percentage of correct predictions increasing “when considering only those patients with the highest probability score of belonging to either group.”

In a separate set of 20 patients with RA who were prescribed either different conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics or had not started any medications, the researchers’ model could not predict clinical response, “suggesting that the potential clinical utility of the model is restricted to RA patients that are both drug naive and exposed directly to MTX, but not to other drugs.”

“Our results open the possibility to rationally design microbiome-modulating strategies to improve oral absorption of MTX and its downstream immune effects, inform clinical decision-making or both,” they said.

Clinical application

Dr. Taneja said the findings of the study are novel and intriguing. “The observations suggest a strong influence of [the] host’s microbiome in response to MTX and in future may inform best treatment options for patients. The study speculates that certain microbial clades or microbes can be used to derive a favorable response in patients. This could explain why “one drug fits all” does not apply in treatment for RA,” she said.

The study is also a “step forward” in using the microbiome in regular clinical practice, she noted. “Since MTX is used as a first line of treatment and is one of the most affordable treatments for RA, the observations are definitely exciting.”

In an interview, Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, of the department of immunobiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chair of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Münster (Germany), explained that the prediction model has the potential to one day be a tool for clinicians to predict MTX response in patients with RA. However, he noted the researchers did not test a functional link between MTX and gut microbes in vivo.

“It would be useful to test mechanistic effects of MTX on gut microbial communities in vitro and in vivo,” he said. “In addition, it would be informative to apply the prediction model in other cohorts of RA with a different geographic background, possibly also a different duration of disease. If confirmed in a more heterogeneous group of patients, the tool could potentially be used in the clinic to tell some patients that they might not respond to MTX and therefore start therapy with another agent.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, various funds from the Spanish government, the UCSF Breakthrough Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis-related Research, and the Arthritis Foundation Center for Excellence. Four authors report consultancies and memberships on scientific advisory boards with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that do not overlap with the current study.

Dr. Taneja reported that her institution holds a patent for developing Prevotella histicola as an anti-inflammatory treatment, of which she is a coinventor. Evelo Biosciences is a licensee for the patent, and Dr. Taneja reported receiving research support from the company. Dr. Kriegel reported receiving salary, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funds from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell Applications, Eligo Bioscience, and Roche. He also holds a patent on the use of antibiotics and commensal vaccination to treat autoimmunity.

SOURCE: Artacho A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41622.

The pretreatment gut microbiome can determine response to methotrexate therapy in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, according to recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

About half of patients do not respond to methotrexate (MTX), despite it being a first-line therapy for RA, according to Alejandro Artacho of the Centro Superior de Investigación en Salud Pública in Valencia, Spain, and colleagues. In addition, there is currently no way to predict which patients will respond to MTX.

Dr. Veena Taneja, a researcher and associate professor in the Department of Immunology and Division of Rheumatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

The role of the microbiome in drug response for patients with RA “has been known since it was discovered in 1972 that sulfasalazine requires gut bacteria for its activity,” Veena Taneja, PhD, a researcher and associate professor of immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. The microbiome and how it functions “needs to be explored as biomarkers as well as for treatment options for RA and other diseases,” added Dr. Taneja, who was not involved with the study.

Using 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing, the researchers evaluated whether the gut microbiome of a patient newly diagnosed with RA (NORA) influenced their response to MTX. The researchers extracted DNA from fecal samples in 26 patients from New York University Langone Medical Center, Lutheran Hospital, Staten Island, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine rheumatology clinics 48 hours prior to treatment with MTX and determined the bacterial taxa, operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and ribosomal sequence variants in each sample. These patients then received oral MTX with an average dose of 20 mg per week (range, 15-25 mg). The patients were grouped based on whether they responded (39%) or did not respond (61%) to MTX based on improvement of at least 1.8 in their Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) after 4 months and no need to add a biologic.

Patients with a statistically significantly lower level of microbial diversity (P < .05) as measured by OTU level tended to respond better to MTX therapy. In patients who did not respond to MTX, there was a significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes, a significantly lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (P < .05), and a higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.

There was also a consistent difference between abundance of gut microbial genes in patients who did not respond to MTX. “Taken together, these results indicate that the gut microbiome of NORA patients that respond favorably to MTX is distinct from that of MTX-NR, prompting us to hypothesize that the pretreatment microbiome could be used to predict clinical nonresponse,” the researchers said.

Using machine learning, Mr. Artacho and colleagues developed a predictive model based on the initial training cohort of 26 patients to assess MTX response. When the researchers tested the model in a validation cohort of 21 patients, they found it correctly predicted 78% of MTX responders and 83.3% of patients who did not respond to MTX, with the percentage of correct predictions increasing “when considering only those patients with the highest probability score of belonging to either group.”

In a separate set of 20 patients with RA who were prescribed either different conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics or had not started any medications, the researchers’ model could not predict clinical response, “suggesting that the potential clinical utility of the model is restricted to RA patients that are both drug naive and exposed directly to MTX, but not to other drugs.”

“Our results open the possibility to rationally design microbiome-modulating strategies to improve oral absorption of MTX and its downstream immune effects, inform clinical decision-making or both,” they said.

Clinical application

Dr. Taneja said the findings of the study are novel and intriguing. “The observations suggest a strong influence of [the] host’s microbiome in response to MTX and in future may inform best treatment options for patients. The study speculates that certain microbial clades or microbes can be used to derive a favorable response in patients. This could explain why “one drug fits all” does not apply in treatment for RA,” she said.

The study is also a “step forward” in using the microbiome in regular clinical practice, she noted. “Since MTX is used as a first line of treatment and is one of the most affordable treatments for RA, the observations are definitely exciting.”

In an interview, Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, of the department of immunobiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chair of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Münster (Germany), explained that the prediction model has the potential to one day be a tool for clinicians to predict MTX response in patients with RA. However, he noted the researchers did not test a functional link between MTX and gut microbes in vivo.

“It would be useful to test mechanistic effects of MTX on gut microbial communities in vitro and in vivo,” he said. “In addition, it would be informative to apply the prediction model in other cohorts of RA with a different geographic background, possibly also a different duration of disease. If confirmed in a more heterogeneous group of patients, the tool could potentially be used in the clinic to tell some patients that they might not respond to MTX and therefore start therapy with another agent.”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, various funds from the Spanish government, the UCSF Breakthrough Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis-related Research, and the Arthritis Foundation Center for Excellence. Four authors report consultancies and memberships on scientific advisory boards with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that do not overlap with the current study.

Dr. Taneja reported that her institution holds a patent for developing Prevotella histicola as an anti-inflammatory treatment, of which she is a coinventor. Evelo Biosciences is a licensee for the patent, and Dr. Taneja reported receiving research support from the company. Dr. Kriegel reported receiving salary, consulting fees, honoraria, or research funds from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell Applications, Eligo Bioscience, and Roche. He also holds a patent on the use of antibiotics and commensal vaccination to treat autoimmunity.

SOURCE: Artacho A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 13. doi: 10.1002/art.41622.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for belimumab (Benlysta) to adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Roughly 40% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop lupus nephritis (LN), which causes inflammation in the kidneys and can lead to end-stage kidney disease.

“Benlysta is the first medicine approved to treat systemic lupus and adults with active lupus nephritis, an important treatment advance for patients with this incurable autoimmune disease,” Hal Barron, MD, GlaxoSmithKline’s chief scientific officer and president of research and development, said in a company news release.

Belimumab IV infusion was first approved in the United States in March 2011 for adults with SLE. The FDA approved belimumab IV infusion for use in children as young as age 5 years with SLE in 2019.

Both the IV and subcutaneous formulations are now indicated in the United States for adults with SLE and LN.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor that is thought to decrease the amount of abnormal B cells; the latter are thought to play a role in lupus.

The expanded indication for belimumab for patients with LN is based on findings from the BLISS-LN phase 3 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September.

“Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys” represents a “compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” the lead investigator of BLISS-LN, Richard Furie, MD, told the online annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases meeting recently.

“In the 4 decades I have been caring for people with lupus, we have not been able to achieve remission in more than just one-third of patients with lupus nephritis, and despite all of our efforts, 10%-30% of patients with lupus kidney disease still progress to end-stage kidney disease,” Dr. Furie, who is chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health, notes in the GSK statement.

“The data from the BLISS-LN study show that Benlysta added to standard therapy not only increased response rates over 2 years, but it also prevented worsening of kidney disease in patients with active lupus nephritis, compared to standard therapy alone,” he added.

BLISS-LN study: Belimumab effect seen mostly in those on MMF

BLISS-LN enrolled 448 adults with biopsy-confirmed active LN. Half were randomly allocated to receive IV belimumab (10 mg/kg) plus standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil for induction and maintenance or cyclophosphamide for induction followed by azathioprine for maintenance, with steroids) and half to receive placebo plus standard therapy.

At 2 years, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0- 2.3; P = .03).

This primary endpoint was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of ≤0.7, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the value before the renal flare or ≥60 mL per minute per 1.73 m² of body surface area, without use of rescue therapy.

The risk for a renal-related event or death was also significantly lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that observed in prior studies.

But in a commentary that accompanied the publication of BLISS-LN, editorialists noted that “most of the treatment effect was seen in patients who had received mycophenolate mofetil. No benefit was present in the subgroup of patients who received cyclophosphamide-azathioprine.”

In addition, induction treatment was not randomly assigned, editorialists Michael Ward, MD, MPH, and Maria Tektonidou, MD, PhD, noted.

“If patients with more severe nephritis were preferentially treated with cyclophosphamide, a likely inclination among most physicians, the trial may be telling us that belimumab enhances responses only among less severely affected patients,” observed Dr. Ward, who is with the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Tektonidou, of the National and Kopodistrian University, in Athens.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for belimumab (Benlysta) to adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Roughly 40% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop lupus nephritis (LN), which causes inflammation in the kidneys and can lead to end-stage kidney disease.

“Benlysta is the first medicine approved to treat systemic lupus and adults with active lupus nephritis, an important treatment advance for patients with this incurable autoimmune disease,” Hal Barron, MD, GlaxoSmithKline’s chief scientific officer and president of research and development, said in a company news release.

Belimumab IV infusion was first approved in the United States in March 2011 for adults with SLE. The FDA approved belimumab IV infusion for use in children as young as age 5 years with SLE in 2019.

Both the IV and subcutaneous formulations are now indicated in the United States for adults with SLE and LN.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor that is thought to decrease the amount of abnormal B cells; the latter are thought to play a role in lupus.

The expanded indication for belimumab for patients with LN is based on findings from the BLISS-LN phase 3 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September.

“Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys” represents a “compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” the lead investigator of BLISS-LN, Richard Furie, MD, told the online annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases meeting recently.

“In the 4 decades I have been caring for people with lupus, we have not been able to achieve remission in more than just one-third of patients with lupus nephritis, and despite all of our efforts, 10%-30% of patients with lupus kidney disease still progress to end-stage kidney disease,” Dr. Furie, who is chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health, notes in the GSK statement.

“The data from the BLISS-LN study show that Benlysta added to standard therapy not only increased response rates over 2 years, but it also prevented worsening of kidney disease in patients with active lupus nephritis, compared to standard therapy alone,” he added.

BLISS-LN study: Belimumab effect seen mostly in those on MMF

BLISS-LN enrolled 448 adults with biopsy-confirmed active LN. Half were randomly allocated to receive IV belimumab (10 mg/kg) plus standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil for induction and maintenance or cyclophosphamide for induction followed by azathioprine for maintenance, with steroids) and half to receive placebo plus standard therapy.

At 2 years, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0- 2.3; P = .03).

This primary endpoint was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of ≤0.7, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the value before the renal flare or ≥60 mL per minute per 1.73 m² of body surface area, without use of rescue therapy.

The risk for a renal-related event or death was also significantly lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that observed in prior studies.

But in a commentary that accompanied the publication of BLISS-LN, editorialists noted that “most of the treatment effect was seen in patients who had received mycophenolate mofetil. No benefit was present in the subgroup of patients who received cyclophosphamide-azathioprine.”

In addition, induction treatment was not randomly assigned, editorialists Michael Ward, MD, MPH, and Maria Tektonidou, MD, PhD, noted.

“If patients with more severe nephritis were preferentially treated with cyclophosphamide, a likely inclination among most physicians, the trial may be telling us that belimumab enhances responses only among less severely affected patients,” observed Dr. Ward, who is with the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Tektonidou, of the National and Kopodistrian University, in Athens.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for belimumab (Benlysta) to adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Roughly 40% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) develop lupus nephritis (LN), which causes inflammation in the kidneys and can lead to end-stage kidney disease.

“Benlysta is the first medicine approved to treat systemic lupus and adults with active lupus nephritis, an important treatment advance for patients with this incurable autoimmune disease,” Hal Barron, MD, GlaxoSmithKline’s chief scientific officer and president of research and development, said in a company news release.

Belimumab IV infusion was first approved in the United States in March 2011 for adults with SLE. The FDA approved belimumab IV infusion for use in children as young as age 5 years with SLE in 2019.

Both the IV and subcutaneous formulations are now indicated in the United States for adults with SLE and LN.

Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor that is thought to decrease the amount of abnormal B cells; the latter are thought to play a role in lupus.

The expanded indication for belimumab for patients with LN is based on findings from the BLISS-LN phase 3 trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in September.

“Neutralizing B-cell activating factor and down-regulating autoreactive B-cell function in kidneys” represents a “compelling therapeutic approach to lupus nephritis,” the lead investigator of BLISS-LN, Richard Furie, MD, told the online annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases meeting recently.

“In the 4 decades I have been caring for people with lupus, we have not been able to achieve remission in more than just one-third of patients with lupus nephritis, and despite all of our efforts, 10%-30% of patients with lupus kidney disease still progress to end-stage kidney disease,” Dr. Furie, who is chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health, notes in the GSK statement.

“The data from the BLISS-LN study show that Benlysta added to standard therapy not only increased response rates over 2 years, but it also prevented worsening of kidney disease in patients with active lupus nephritis, compared to standard therapy alone,” he added.

BLISS-LN study: Belimumab effect seen mostly in those on MMF

BLISS-LN enrolled 448 adults with biopsy-confirmed active LN. Half were randomly allocated to receive IV belimumab (10 mg/kg) plus standard therapy (mycophenolate mofetil for induction and maintenance or cyclophosphamide for induction followed by azathioprine for maintenance, with steroids) and half to receive placebo plus standard therapy.

At 2 years, significantly more patients in the belimumab group than in the placebo group had a primary efficacy renal response (43% vs. 32%; odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0- 2.3; P = .03).

This primary endpoint was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of ≤0.7, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the value before the renal flare or ≥60 mL per minute per 1.73 m² of body surface area, without use of rescue therapy.

The risk for a renal-related event or death was also significantly lower among patients who received belimumab than among those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .001). The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with that observed in prior studies.

But in a commentary that accompanied the publication of BLISS-LN, editorialists noted that “most of the treatment effect was seen in patients who had received mycophenolate mofetil. No benefit was present in the subgroup of patients who received cyclophosphamide-azathioprine.”

In addition, induction treatment was not randomly assigned, editorialists Michael Ward, MD, MPH, and Maria Tektonidou, MD, PhD, noted.

“If patients with more severe nephritis were preferentially treated with cyclophosphamide, a likely inclination among most physicians, the trial may be telling us that belimumab enhances responses only among less severely affected patients,” observed Dr. Ward, who is with the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Tektonidou, of the National and Kopodistrian University, in Athens.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.

“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.

Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.

Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).

Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”

Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.

“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.

Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.

Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).

Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”

Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who are on both oral glucocorticoids (CGs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, according to a retrospective study of RA patients in the United Kingdom.

“Considering the increasing life expectancies and high consumption of PPIs among elderly patients, fracture risk assessment could be considered when a patient with RA is co-prescribed oral GCs and PPIs,” wrote Shahab Abtahi, MD, of Maastricht (Netherlands) University Medical Centre and colleagues. The study was published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

To determine if concomitant use of the two medications – both already associated with osteoporotic fractures – would lead to a notable increase in fracture risk, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of RA patients aged 50 years or older who were diagnosed during 1997-2017. Patient data was gathered via the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database of millions of U.K. medical records.

Patients with a recent history of GC/PPI use or those with a previous osteoporotic fracture were excluded from the study. Osteoporotic fractures were defined as fractures of the hip, vertebrae, humerus, forearm, pelvis, or rib. The study population included 12,351 patients, roughly two-thirds of whom were women, with a mean age of 68 years. Of the population, 4,254 patients were concomitant users of oral GCs and PPIs, compared with 3,138 patients who were not on either medication.

Among all patients, 1,411 osteoporotic fractures occurred, 264 of which occurred in the concomitant users group. After adjustments for age and sex, patients on both medications had a higher risk of fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.27), compared to patients on oral GCs alone (aHR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.59) or PPIs alone (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). After full adjustment, concomitant users again had a higher risk of fracture (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89).

Regarding specific types of breaks, the concomitant users had a notably higher risk of hip (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91), vertebrae (aHR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.87-4.32), pelvis (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.41-4.34), and rib fractures (aHR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.13-7.63). No increased risk was found for either humerus or forearm fractures. The risk of fracture did not rise for concomitant users who had either increasing daily doses of PPI or a longer duration of use.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including having access to data on prescriptions only, not the actual use of medication, and a lack of information in the medical records regarding biologic therapies or certain indicators of RA disease activity. In addition, there was a likelihood that some patients who were improving might have stopped taking the drugs and lessened their risk of fracture, though the researchers attempted to account for this by “adjusting our analyses for six indicators of RA severity, including analgesics and csDMARDs.”

Two of the authors reported receiving research grants and speakers’ fees from various pharmaceutical companies. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Abtahi S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Dec 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218758.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.

scyther5/thinkstock

The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.

At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.

In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”

That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.

“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
 

Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”

Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”

However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.


 

COVID-19 vaccines

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.

But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.

In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.

The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”

Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.

It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.

According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.

As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?


 

Risk vs. benefit

Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.

“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”

The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”

That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”

Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”

So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.

“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
 

No waiting needed

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.

“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”

However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”

Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.

The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.

He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.

Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”

He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”


 

Boosting efficacy

Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”

With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”

As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”

There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”

The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”

Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”

Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”

Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”

Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”

He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”

The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
 

*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.

Treatment with etanercept does not appear to achieve significant clinical improvement in patients suspected of having nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) but without positive MRI signs of sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, research suggests.

A paper published in Arthritis & Rheumatology presents the outcomes of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a 16-week course of etanercept at 25 mg twice weekly in 80 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)–naive patients with suspected nr-axSpA. Patients all had chronic inflammatory back pain, at least two spondyloarthritis features – such as HLA-B27 positivity, asymmetrical arthritis, or family history of ankylosing spondylitis – as well as high disease activity and insufficient response to at least two NSAIDs. These patients meet the “clinical arm” of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for classifying axSpA at an early stage of disease but not “imaging-arm” requirements for the presence of active inflammatory lesions of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) on MRI and one additional SpA feature.

Whether these imaging criteria and objective evidence of elevated inflammation are necessary to fulfill when considering TNFi treatment for patients with suspected nr-axSpA in daily practice is an important question to address, the authors pointed out, because “in many studies, the presence of a positive MRI-SIJ is one of the prerequisites to start a TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with nr-axSpA.” In addition, starting a TNFi is dependent on failure of at least two NSAIDs and an elevated CRP level when the MRI is negative, which is problematic since in some studies raised CRP levels were found in only 30% of the nr-axSpA patients and 59%-64% of nr-axSpA patients with high disease activity do not have active inflammatory SIJ lesions on MRI. On top of these concerns is the fact that many people who do not have axSpA show false-positive results of bone marrow edema on MRI of the SIJ, such as postpartum women, recreational runners, professional athletes, and army recruits undergoing physical training, they added.

In the current study at the end of the 16-week course of treatment, researchers found no statistically significant difference between the treatment and placebo group in the number of patients who achieved a 20% improvement in ASAS response criteria (16.7% vs. 11.1%; P = .5), nor in those who had at least 40% improvement (8.3% in both groups). This was regardless of sex, age, NSAID or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, HLA-B27 status, or other clinical factors.

Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who met response criteria for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on CRP for either clinical improvement or major improvement.

Participants underwent MRI at baseline and at 16 and 24 weeks, which revealed similar numbers of active inflammatory SIJ lesions in each group. The two groups also had similar Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada scores at baseline and 16 weeks, but a slightly – yet statistically significant – higher score in the etanercept group at 24 weeks.

However, during the first 16 weeks of the study, patients in the etanercept group showed greater improvements in pain and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), compared with those in the placebo group.

After the 16-week treatment course, participants were followed for another 8 weeks. During this time, participants in the etanercept group showed a worsening in their mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index score, CRP level, and ESR, compared with the placebo group.

While the number of participants who experienced an adverse event by 16 weeks was similar in both groups, more patients in the etanercept group experienced an adverse effect likely related to the study drug.

Study results in the context of previous findings

Commenting on their findings, first author Tamara Rusman, of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote that the results suggested early treatment with etanercept in patients without a positive MRI and raised CRP levels was not effective.

However, they acknowledged that two previous placebo-controlled studies had specifically included patients with nr-axSpA and found a significantly better treatment response to TNF inhibitors than to placebo. One of these studies included a significant number of patients with MRI-detected active inflammatory SIJ lesions at baseline, which is a known predictor of treatment response.

“The relatively low number of patients with either a positive MRI-SIJ (23%) and/or elevated CRP level (13%) at baseline in our study could be an explanation for the absence of a treatment effect in favor of etanercept,” they wrote.

They also raised the possibility that their choice of study population didn’t truly capture patients with nr-axSpA, and that it was not powered to compare patients with or without a positive MRI or raised CRP level at baseline.

“It would be interesting to know whether our study results will be replicated by others in comparable study populations with equal numbers of patients with and without a positive MRI-SIJ and raised CRP in the future,” they wrote.

The study was supported by an unrestricted financial grant from Pfizer and ReumaNederland. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Rusman T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41607.

Treatment with etanercept does not appear to achieve significant clinical improvement in patients suspected of having nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) but without positive MRI signs of sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, research suggests.

A paper published in Arthritis & Rheumatology presents the outcomes of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a 16-week course of etanercept at 25 mg twice weekly in 80 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)–naive patients with suspected nr-axSpA. Patients all had chronic inflammatory back pain, at least two spondyloarthritis features – such as HLA-B27 positivity, asymmetrical arthritis, or family history of ankylosing spondylitis – as well as high disease activity and insufficient response to at least two NSAIDs. These patients meet the “clinical arm” of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for classifying axSpA at an early stage of disease but not “imaging-arm” requirements for the presence of active inflammatory lesions of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) on MRI and one additional SpA feature.

Whether these imaging criteria and objective evidence of elevated inflammation are necessary to fulfill when considering TNFi treatment for patients with suspected nr-axSpA in daily practice is an important question to address, the authors pointed out, because “in many studies, the presence of a positive MRI-SIJ is one of the prerequisites to start a TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with nr-axSpA.” In addition, starting a TNFi is dependent on failure of at least two NSAIDs and an elevated CRP level when the MRI is negative, which is problematic since in some studies raised CRP levels were found in only 30% of the nr-axSpA patients and 59%-64% of nr-axSpA patients with high disease activity do not have active inflammatory SIJ lesions on MRI. On top of these concerns is the fact that many people who do not have axSpA show false-positive results of bone marrow edema on MRI of the SIJ, such as postpartum women, recreational runners, professional athletes, and army recruits undergoing physical training, they added.

In the current study at the end of the 16-week course of treatment, researchers found no statistically significant difference between the treatment and placebo group in the number of patients who achieved a 20% improvement in ASAS response criteria (16.7% vs. 11.1%; P = .5), nor in those who had at least 40% improvement (8.3% in both groups). This was regardless of sex, age, NSAID or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, HLA-B27 status, or other clinical factors.

Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who met response criteria for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on CRP for either clinical improvement or major improvement.

Participants underwent MRI at baseline and at 16 and 24 weeks, which revealed similar numbers of active inflammatory SIJ lesions in each group. The two groups also had similar Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada scores at baseline and 16 weeks, but a slightly – yet statistically significant – higher score in the etanercept group at 24 weeks.

However, during the first 16 weeks of the study, patients in the etanercept group showed greater improvements in pain and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), compared with those in the placebo group.

After the 16-week treatment course, participants were followed for another 8 weeks. During this time, participants in the etanercept group showed a worsening in their mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index score, CRP level, and ESR, compared with the placebo group.

While the number of participants who experienced an adverse event by 16 weeks was similar in both groups, more patients in the etanercept group experienced an adverse effect likely related to the study drug.

Study results in the context of previous findings

Commenting on their findings, first author Tamara Rusman, of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote that the results suggested early treatment with etanercept in patients without a positive MRI and raised CRP levels was not effective.

However, they acknowledged that two previous placebo-controlled studies had specifically included patients with nr-axSpA and found a significantly better treatment response to TNF inhibitors than to placebo. One of these studies included a significant number of patients with MRI-detected active inflammatory SIJ lesions at baseline, which is a known predictor of treatment response.

“The relatively low number of patients with either a positive MRI-SIJ (23%) and/or elevated CRP level (13%) at baseline in our study could be an explanation for the absence of a treatment effect in favor of etanercept,” they wrote.

They also raised the possibility that their choice of study population didn’t truly capture patients with nr-axSpA, and that it was not powered to compare patients with or without a positive MRI or raised CRP level at baseline.

“It would be interesting to know whether our study results will be replicated by others in comparable study populations with equal numbers of patients with and without a positive MRI-SIJ and raised CRP in the future,” they wrote.

The study was supported by an unrestricted financial grant from Pfizer and ReumaNederland. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Rusman T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41607.

Treatment with etanercept does not appear to achieve significant clinical improvement in patients suspected of having nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) but without positive MRI signs of sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, research suggests.

A paper published in Arthritis & Rheumatology presents the outcomes of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a 16-week course of etanercept at 25 mg twice weekly in 80 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)–naive patients with suspected nr-axSpA. Patients all had chronic inflammatory back pain, at least two spondyloarthritis features – such as HLA-B27 positivity, asymmetrical arthritis, or family history of ankylosing spondylitis – as well as high disease activity and insufficient response to at least two NSAIDs. These patients meet the “clinical arm” of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for classifying axSpA at an early stage of disease but not “imaging-arm” requirements for the presence of active inflammatory lesions of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) on MRI and one additional SpA feature.

Whether these imaging criteria and objective evidence of elevated inflammation are necessary to fulfill when considering TNFi treatment for patients with suspected nr-axSpA in daily practice is an important question to address, the authors pointed out, because “in many studies, the presence of a positive MRI-SIJ is one of the prerequisites to start a TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with nr-axSpA.” In addition, starting a TNFi is dependent on failure of at least two NSAIDs and an elevated CRP level when the MRI is negative, which is problematic since in some studies raised CRP levels were found in only 30% of the nr-axSpA patients and 59%-64% of nr-axSpA patients with high disease activity do not have active inflammatory SIJ lesions on MRI. On top of these concerns is the fact that many people who do not have axSpA show false-positive results of bone marrow edema on MRI of the SIJ, such as postpartum women, recreational runners, professional athletes, and army recruits undergoing physical training, they added.

In the current study at the end of the 16-week course of treatment, researchers found no statistically significant difference between the treatment and placebo group in the number of patients who achieved a 20% improvement in ASAS response criteria (16.7% vs. 11.1%; P = .5), nor in those who had at least 40% improvement (8.3% in both groups). This was regardless of sex, age, NSAID or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, HLA-B27 status, or other clinical factors.

Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients who met response criteria for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on CRP for either clinical improvement or major improvement.

Participants underwent MRI at baseline and at 16 and 24 weeks, which revealed similar numbers of active inflammatory SIJ lesions in each group. The two groups also had similar Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada scores at baseline and 16 weeks, but a slightly – yet statistically significant – higher score in the etanercept group at 24 weeks.

However, during the first 16 weeks of the study, patients in the etanercept group showed greater improvements in pain and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), compared with those in the placebo group.

After the 16-week treatment course, participants were followed for another 8 weeks. During this time, participants in the etanercept group showed a worsening in their mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index score, CRP level, and ESR, compared with the placebo group.

While the number of participants who experienced an adverse event by 16 weeks was similar in both groups, more patients in the etanercept group experienced an adverse effect likely related to the study drug.

Study results in the context of previous findings

Commenting on their findings, first author Tamara Rusman, of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote that the results suggested early treatment with etanercept in patients without a positive MRI and raised CRP levels was not effective.

However, they acknowledged that two previous placebo-controlled studies had specifically included patients with nr-axSpA and found a significantly better treatment response to TNF inhibitors than to placebo. One of these studies included a significant number of patients with MRI-detected active inflammatory SIJ lesions at baseline, which is a known predictor of treatment response.

“The relatively low number of patients with either a positive MRI-SIJ (23%) and/or elevated CRP level (13%) at baseline in our study could be an explanation for the absence of a treatment effect in favor of etanercept,” they wrote.

They also raised the possibility that their choice of study population didn’t truly capture patients with nr-axSpA, and that it was not powered to compare patients with or without a positive MRI or raised CRP level at baseline.

“It would be interesting to know whether our study results will be replicated by others in comparable study populations with equal numbers of patients with and without a positive MRI-SIJ and raised CRP in the future,” they wrote.

The study was supported by an unrestricted financial grant from Pfizer and ReumaNederland. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Rusman T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 5. doi: 10.1002/art.41607.

A small group of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have high costs and needs and frequent hospitalizations can be identified through a shared set of sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors that distinguish them from other patients, according to a retrospective analysis of hospitalization data from a tertiary care center.

“The identification of the HNHC [high-need, high-cost] cohort and the risk factors for hospitalizations for this cohort will help pave the way to develop programs that improve the quality of care for high-risk lupus patients and [at the same time] lower the cost of care for all lupus patients,” first author Allen Anandarajah, MBBS, and colleagues at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Hospitalizations and readmissions are known to be common in patients with SLE, the authors said, and they “account for a large proportion of the direct costs associated with the care of this disease.”

“While HNHC cohorts have been described with other chronic diseases, this report is the first to describe the existence of such a cohort in the SLE population,” the researchers said.

To see if a small group of SLE patients would constitute the majority of hospitalizations and consequently the costs of such care, Dr. Anandarajah and associates analyzed data from 202 SLE patients and their 467 hospitalizations at the University of Rochester–affiliated Strong Memorial Hospital during July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016. The patients had a mean age of 46 years and included 183 females. A total of 46.5% were White, 43.1% were African American, 6.9% were Hispanic, and 3.5% were of Asian descent. These patients had median lengths of stay of 7 days per SLE patient and 4 days per admission, with median costs of $19,271 per patient and $14,375 per admission.

The researchers identified 44 patients (22%) who accounted for 275 admissions (59%) during the 3-year period. This group’s median of 4 admissions per patient was significantly higher than the median of 1 recorded in all the other hospitalized SLE patients, as was its number of readmissions within 30 days (105 total and median of 1 vs. 11 total and median of 0). The high-risk SLE patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in the hospital than did other patients (median of 30 days vs. 5 days), and their median cost was more than six times as great ($95,262 vs. $14,360). High-risk patients’ median cost per admission also was significantly greater ($19,376 vs. $12,833).

Infections were the most common cause of hospitalization among both high-risk patients and others (28% vs. 23%, respectively) and the rate of involvement of different organ systems as a cause for hospitalization were similar between the groups, except that patients at lower risk significantly more often had gynecologic/obstetric concerns (10% vs. 2%) or nervous system involvement (16% vs. 5%), and high-risk patients were significantly more likely to have gastrointestinal complaints (20% vs. 8%).

Clinically, high-risk patients had significantly higher median scores on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index and the Comorbidity Index, as well as a significantly higher median level of double-stranded DNA. However, they had no differences in complement factor levels or body mass index.

The high-risk patients also were younger (mean of 42 vs. 46 years) and were diagnosed at a younger mean age (26 vs. 31 years). More high-risk patients were African American (55% vs. 40%) and were more likely to live in areas identified with poverty (50% vs. 29%).

A multivariate analysis that controlled for relevant confounders showed that high-risk patients had a 10 percentage point lower medication possession ratio, which is an indicator of whether a patient had adequate medication supply in a given time frame. High-risk patients overall had a higher average number of medications to treat lupus.

“Our findings underscore the importance of identifying HNHC SLE patients when designing and implementing interventions to lower hospitalizations and improve the quality of care for lupus patients. Furthermore, it is imperative that we develop programs to address the modifiable social and behavioral factors in addition to providing high-quality clinical care targeted for this group,” the researchers wrote.

Some of the limitations in the generalizability of the results include the use of data from a large tertiary medical center serving a large catchment area, with a consequently sicker group of patients, and the potential to miss readmissions to other nearby hospitals. However, “as one of the few centers [in the region] that provides in-patient rheumatology care ... it is less likely that patients would have sought care elsewhere,” they noted.

The study involved no outside source of funding, and the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Anandarajah A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24510.

A small group of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have high costs and needs and frequent hospitalizations can be identified through a shared set of sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors that distinguish them from other patients, according to a retrospective analysis of hospitalization data from a tertiary care center.

“The identification of the HNHC [high-need, high-cost] cohort and the risk factors for hospitalizations for this cohort will help pave the way to develop programs that improve the quality of care for high-risk lupus patients and [at the same time] lower the cost of care for all lupus patients,” first author Allen Anandarajah, MBBS, and colleagues at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Hospitalizations and readmissions are known to be common in patients with SLE, the authors said, and they “account for a large proportion of the direct costs associated with the care of this disease.”

“While HNHC cohorts have been described with other chronic diseases, this report is the first to describe the existence of such a cohort in the SLE population,” the researchers said.

To see if a small group of SLE patients would constitute the majority of hospitalizations and consequently the costs of such care, Dr. Anandarajah and associates analyzed data from 202 SLE patients and their 467 hospitalizations at the University of Rochester–affiliated Strong Memorial Hospital during July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016. The patients had a mean age of 46 years and included 183 females. A total of 46.5% were White, 43.1% were African American, 6.9% were Hispanic, and 3.5% were of Asian descent. These patients had median lengths of stay of 7 days per SLE patient and 4 days per admission, with median costs of $19,271 per patient and $14,375 per admission.

The researchers identified 44 patients (22%) who accounted for 275 admissions (59%) during the 3-year period. This group’s median of 4 admissions per patient was significantly higher than the median of 1 recorded in all the other hospitalized SLE patients, as was its number of readmissions within 30 days (105 total and median of 1 vs. 11 total and median of 0). The high-risk SLE patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in the hospital than did other patients (median of 30 days vs. 5 days), and their median cost was more than six times as great ($95,262 vs. $14,360). High-risk patients’ median cost per admission also was significantly greater ($19,376 vs. $12,833).

Infections were the most common cause of hospitalization among both high-risk patients and others (28% vs. 23%, respectively) and the rate of involvement of different organ systems as a cause for hospitalization were similar between the groups, except that patients at lower risk significantly more often had gynecologic/obstetric concerns (10% vs. 2%) or nervous system involvement (16% vs. 5%), and high-risk patients were significantly more likely to have gastrointestinal complaints (20% vs. 8%).

Clinically, high-risk patients had significantly higher median scores on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index and the Comorbidity Index, as well as a significantly higher median level of double-stranded DNA. However, they had no differences in complement factor levels or body mass index.

The high-risk patients also were younger (mean of 42 vs. 46 years) and were diagnosed at a younger mean age (26 vs. 31 years). More high-risk patients were African American (55% vs. 40%) and were more likely to live in areas identified with poverty (50% vs. 29%).

A multivariate analysis that controlled for relevant confounders showed that high-risk patients had a 10 percentage point lower medication possession ratio, which is an indicator of whether a patient had adequate medication supply in a given time frame. High-risk patients overall had a higher average number of medications to treat lupus.

“Our findings underscore the importance of identifying HNHC SLE patients when designing and implementing interventions to lower hospitalizations and improve the quality of care for lupus patients. Furthermore, it is imperative that we develop programs to address the modifiable social and behavioral factors in addition to providing high-quality clinical care targeted for this group,” the researchers wrote.

Some of the limitations in the generalizability of the results include the use of data from a large tertiary medical center serving a large catchment area, with a consequently sicker group of patients, and the potential to miss readmissions to other nearby hospitals. However, “as one of the few centers [in the region] that provides in-patient rheumatology care ... it is less likely that patients would have sought care elsewhere,” they noted.

The study involved no outside source of funding, and the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Anandarajah A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24510.

A small group of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have high costs and needs and frequent hospitalizations can be identified through a shared set of sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors that distinguish them from other patients, according to a retrospective analysis of hospitalization data from a tertiary care center.

“The identification of the HNHC [high-need, high-cost] cohort and the risk factors for hospitalizations for this cohort will help pave the way to develop programs that improve the quality of care for high-risk lupus patients and [at the same time] lower the cost of care for all lupus patients,” first author Allen Anandarajah, MBBS, and colleagues at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Hospitalizations and readmissions are known to be common in patients with SLE, the authors said, and they “account for a large proportion of the direct costs associated with the care of this disease.”

“While HNHC cohorts have been described with other chronic diseases, this report is the first to describe the existence of such a cohort in the SLE population,” the researchers said.

To see if a small group of SLE patients would constitute the majority of hospitalizations and consequently the costs of such care, Dr. Anandarajah and associates analyzed data from 202 SLE patients and their 467 hospitalizations at the University of Rochester–affiliated Strong Memorial Hospital during July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2016. The patients had a mean age of 46 years and included 183 females. A total of 46.5% were White, 43.1% were African American, 6.9% were Hispanic, and 3.5% were of Asian descent. These patients had median lengths of stay of 7 days per SLE patient and 4 days per admission, with median costs of $19,271 per patient and $14,375 per admission.

The researchers identified 44 patients (22%) who accounted for 275 admissions (59%) during the 3-year period. This group’s median of 4 admissions per patient was significantly higher than the median of 1 recorded in all the other hospitalized SLE patients, as was its number of readmissions within 30 days (105 total and median of 1 vs. 11 total and median of 0). The high-risk SLE patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in the hospital than did other patients (median of 30 days vs. 5 days), and their median cost was more than six times as great ($95,262 vs. $14,360). High-risk patients’ median cost per admission also was significantly greater ($19,376 vs. $12,833).

Infections were the most common cause of hospitalization among both high-risk patients and others (28% vs. 23%, respectively) and the rate of involvement of different organ systems as a cause for hospitalization were similar between the groups, except that patients at lower risk significantly more often had gynecologic/obstetric concerns (10% vs. 2%) or nervous system involvement (16% vs. 5%), and high-risk patients were significantly more likely to have gastrointestinal complaints (20% vs. 8%).

Clinically, high-risk patients had significantly higher median scores on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index and the Comorbidity Index, as well as a significantly higher median level of double-stranded DNA. However, they had no differences in complement factor levels or body mass index.

The high-risk patients also were younger (mean of 42 vs. 46 years) and were diagnosed at a younger mean age (26 vs. 31 years). More high-risk patients were African American (55% vs. 40%) and were more likely to live in areas identified with poverty (50% vs. 29%).

A multivariate analysis that controlled for relevant confounders showed that high-risk patients had a 10 percentage point lower medication possession ratio, which is an indicator of whether a patient had adequate medication supply in a given time frame. High-risk patients overall had a higher average number of medications to treat lupus.

“Our findings underscore the importance of identifying HNHC SLE patients when designing and implementing interventions to lower hospitalizations and improve the quality of care for lupus patients. Furthermore, it is imperative that we develop programs to address the modifiable social and behavioral factors in addition to providing high-quality clinical care targeted for this group,” the researchers wrote.

Some of the limitations in the generalizability of the results include the use of data from a large tertiary medical center serving a large catchment area, with a consequently sicker group of patients, and the potential to miss readmissions to other nearby hospitals. However, “as one of the few centers [in the region] that provides in-patient rheumatology care ... it is less likely that patients would have sought care elsewhere,” they noted.

The study involved no outside source of funding, and the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Anandarajah A et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1002/acr.24510.

Osteoarthritis patients report significant pain relief after treatment with cooled radiofrequency ablation, a new technique that “stuns” sensory nerves in shoulder and hip joints to reduce – and sometimes eliminate – pain.

“We send a small current to the sensory nerve to heat up the tissue and disrupt the fibers,” study lead author Felix Gonzalez, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “The effect is that the transmission of pain is significantly slowed or halted altogether.

“We damage something to fix something,” Dr. Gonzalez continued. “We target only the problematic nerve and get a very localized effect.”
 

Two-phase treatment

The treatment is performed in two phases. First, patients with shoulder pain are given an anesthetic to block their suprascapular, lateral pectoral, and axillary sensory articular nerves. Patients with hip pain have their obturator and femoral sensory articular nerves blocked.

A week or two later, the same nerves are treated with cooled radiofrequency ablation. Guided by x-ray imaging, a clinician heats up the affected nerve tissue using the tip of a needle, which is pointed at the nerve. “It’s a 22-gauge needle, slightly thicker than an acupuncture needle,” Dr. Gonzalez explained. “We heat up the nerve for about 2 minutes to about 60 degrees Celsius – it stuns the nerve,” he said.

“The result disrupts or slows down pain transmission while leaving the nerve intact.”

To test the efficacy of the technique, researchers treated 12 shoulders in patients with an average age of 61 years, and 11 hips in patients with an average age of 62 years.

Three months after treatment, patients with hip pain reported improvement in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) from a baseline of 17.0 to 52.9 (P < .0001).

Shoulder pain was also reduced significantly. Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, researchers reported an improvement from 17.2 (±6.6) at baseline to 65.7 (±5.9) at 3 months (P < .0001).

“We are targeting a subset of patients for this that don’t qualify for surgery,” Dr. Gonzalez noted. For patients with a body mass index above 35, or a history of hypertension, heart disease, or multiple strokes, opioids are the most common treatment, he said.

These patients “fall through the cracks,” he explained. Those who have mild to moderate pain are managed with physical therapy and injections, and those with severe pain go into surgery. “But what about the ones in the middle ... who are not eligible for surgery? They are at risk for opioid overuse,” he said. “So this treatment is a good option for them.”
 

Treats the symptoms, not the cause

“This study shows the efficacy of this method in taking care of shoulder and hip pain,” Luca Maria Sconfienza, MD, PhD, of Galeazzi Orthopedic Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. Dr. Sconfienza was not involved in Dr. Gonzalez’s study.

However, like corticosteroid injections, “the drawback of radiofrequency ablation is the fact that it only treats the symptoms and not the cause, and efficacy is usually limited over time,” she said.

Dr. Sconfienza said this study leaves her with three pertinent questions. “First, whether pain control extends beyond the 3-month follow-up reported by authors in the abstract; second, [what] is the efficacy of this method compared to other interventions (e.g., physical therapy, injections) or to doing nothing; and last, radiofrequency ablation is usually not a cheap treatment, thus a cost-efficacy analysis would be desirable, especially in comparison to other procedures.”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Sconfienza have nothing relevant to disclose.

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

Osteoarthritis patients report significant pain relief after treatment with cooled radiofrequency ablation, a new technique that “stuns” sensory nerves in shoulder and hip joints to reduce – and sometimes eliminate – pain.

“We send a small current to the sensory nerve to heat up the tissue and disrupt the fibers,” study lead author Felix Gonzalez, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “The effect is that the transmission of pain is significantly slowed or halted altogether.

“We damage something to fix something,” Dr. Gonzalez continued. “We target only the problematic nerve and get a very localized effect.”
 

Two-phase treatment

The treatment is performed in two phases. First, patients with shoulder pain are given an anesthetic to block their suprascapular, lateral pectoral, and axillary sensory articular nerves. Patients with hip pain have their obturator and femoral sensory articular nerves blocked.

A week or two later, the same nerves are treated with cooled radiofrequency ablation. Guided by x-ray imaging, a clinician heats up the affected nerve tissue using the tip of a needle, which is pointed at the nerve. “It’s a 22-gauge needle, slightly thicker than an acupuncture needle,” Dr. Gonzalez explained. “We heat up the nerve for about 2 minutes to about 60 degrees Celsius – it stuns the nerve,” he said.

“The result disrupts or slows down pain transmission while leaving the nerve intact.”

To test the efficacy of the technique, researchers treated 12 shoulders in patients with an average age of 61 years, and 11 hips in patients with an average age of 62 years.

Three months after treatment, patients with hip pain reported improvement in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) from a baseline of 17.0 to 52.9 (P < .0001).

Shoulder pain was also reduced significantly. Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, researchers reported an improvement from 17.2 (±6.6) at baseline to 65.7 (±5.9) at 3 months (P < .0001).

“We are targeting a subset of patients for this that don’t qualify for surgery,” Dr. Gonzalez noted. For patients with a body mass index above 35, or a history of hypertension, heart disease, or multiple strokes, opioids are the most common treatment, he said.

These patients “fall through the cracks,” he explained. Those who have mild to moderate pain are managed with physical therapy and injections, and those with severe pain go into surgery. “But what about the ones in the middle ... who are not eligible for surgery? They are at risk for opioid overuse,” he said. “So this treatment is a good option for them.”
 

Treats the symptoms, not the cause

“This study shows the efficacy of this method in taking care of shoulder and hip pain,” Luca Maria Sconfienza, MD, PhD, of Galeazzi Orthopedic Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. Dr. Sconfienza was not involved in Dr. Gonzalez’s study.

However, like corticosteroid injections, “the drawback of radiofrequency ablation is the fact that it only treats the symptoms and not the cause, and efficacy is usually limited over time,” she said.

Dr. Sconfienza said this study leaves her with three pertinent questions. “First, whether pain control extends beyond the 3-month follow-up reported by authors in the abstract; second, [what] is the efficacy of this method compared to other interventions (e.g., physical therapy, injections) or to doing nothing; and last, radiofrequency ablation is usually not a cheap treatment, thus a cost-efficacy analysis would be desirable, especially in comparison to other procedures.”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Sconfienza have nothing relevant to disclose.

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

Osteoarthritis patients report significant pain relief after treatment with cooled radiofrequency ablation, a new technique that “stuns” sensory nerves in shoulder and hip joints to reduce – and sometimes eliminate – pain.

“We send a small current to the sensory nerve to heat up the tissue and disrupt the fibers,” study lead author Felix Gonzalez, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “The effect is that the transmission of pain is significantly slowed or halted altogether.

“We damage something to fix something,” Dr. Gonzalez continued. “We target only the problematic nerve and get a very localized effect.”
 

Two-phase treatment

The treatment is performed in two phases. First, patients with shoulder pain are given an anesthetic to block their suprascapular, lateral pectoral, and axillary sensory articular nerves. Patients with hip pain have their obturator and femoral sensory articular nerves blocked.

A week or two later, the same nerves are treated with cooled radiofrequency ablation. Guided by x-ray imaging, a clinician heats up the affected nerve tissue using the tip of a needle, which is pointed at the nerve. “It’s a 22-gauge needle, slightly thicker than an acupuncture needle,” Dr. Gonzalez explained. “We heat up the nerve for about 2 minutes to about 60 degrees Celsius – it stuns the nerve,” he said.

“The result disrupts or slows down pain transmission while leaving the nerve intact.”

To test the efficacy of the technique, researchers treated 12 shoulders in patients with an average age of 61 years, and 11 hips in patients with an average age of 62 years.

Three months after treatment, patients with hip pain reported improvement in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) from a baseline of 17.0 to 52.9 (P < .0001).

Shoulder pain was also reduced significantly. Using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, researchers reported an improvement from 17.2 (±6.6) at baseline to 65.7 (±5.9) at 3 months (P < .0001).

“We are targeting a subset of patients for this that don’t qualify for surgery,” Dr. Gonzalez noted. For patients with a body mass index above 35, or a history of hypertension, heart disease, or multiple strokes, opioids are the most common treatment, he said.

These patients “fall through the cracks,” he explained. Those who have mild to moderate pain are managed with physical therapy and injections, and those with severe pain go into surgery. “But what about the ones in the middle ... who are not eligible for surgery? They are at risk for opioid overuse,” he said. “So this treatment is a good option for them.”
 

Treats the symptoms, not the cause

“This study shows the efficacy of this method in taking care of shoulder and hip pain,” Luca Maria Sconfienza, MD, PhD, of Galeazzi Orthopedic Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. Dr. Sconfienza was not involved in Dr. Gonzalez’s study.

However, like corticosteroid injections, “the drawback of radiofrequency ablation is the fact that it only treats the symptoms and not the cause, and efficacy is usually limited over time,” she said.

Dr. Sconfienza said this study leaves her with three pertinent questions. “First, whether pain control extends beyond the 3-month follow-up reported by authors in the abstract; second, [what] is the efficacy of this method compared to other interventions (e.g., physical therapy, injections) or to doing nothing; and last, radiofrequency ablation is usually not a cheap treatment, thus a cost-efficacy analysis would be desirable, especially in comparison to other procedures.”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Sconfienza have nothing relevant to disclose.

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

The widespread use of biologics extended life expectancy but also increased medical costs for adults with RA, based on insurance claims data from nearly 30,000 cases.

“With the advancement of treatment in recent decades, the mortality seems to decrease, while medical expenditures increase,” but previous studies estimating the life-years lost because of RA have shown large variations in results, wrote Ying-Ming Chiu, MD, PhD, of China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, and colleagues.

“Estimating long-term or lifetime costs could provide an overall figure of the future impact on the health care system after disease occurrence, and would be useful for cost-effectiveness analysis,” they added.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers identified 29,352 new cases of RA in Taiwan between 2003 and 2016, after the introduction of biologics in Taiwan in 2003. They estimate survival using an algorithm with matched controls and used the survival rates to calculate monthly and lifetime health care expenses.

Overall, the average estimated life expectancy after a diagnosis of RA was 26.3 years, and the average lifetime cost was $72,953 (USD). The average life expectancy was 23.4 years for women and 21.6 years for men. The average lifetime cost was higher for women than for men ($73,112 vs. $63,557), but the annual costs were similar for women and men ($3,123 vs. $2,942). However, “the older the age of diagnosis of RA, the higher the average annual cost for treating RA,” regardless of gender, the researchers noted.

Despite the reduced mortality during the study period, the researchers also identified some loss of life expectancy among RA patients, compared with the general population. The average loss of life expectancy was nearly 5 years during the 14-year study period. The loss of life expectancy ranged from 2 to 13 years (average 9.7 years) for women with RA and from 2 to 8 years (average 4.1 years) for men with RA, compared with those without RA after controlling for age, gender, and year of diagnosis.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on quality of life and functional disability, possible underestimation of life expectancy because of delayed RA diagnosis, and limited accuracy on follow-up of younger patients, the researchers noted.

However, the results support evidence from previous studies of an overall increase in life expectancy after the introduction of biologics, with increased expenses that should be monitored for cost-effectiveness, they concluded. More research is needed to determine the effect of biologics on functional disability, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness in a way that also incorporates productivity loss and the need for social services such as long-term care in order to inform decision-making for RA treatment.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and China Medical University Hospital. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Chiu Y-M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1002/ART.41597.

The widespread use of biologics extended life expectancy but also increased medical costs for adults with RA, based on insurance claims data from nearly 30,000 cases.

“With the advancement of treatment in recent decades, the mortality seems to decrease, while medical expenditures increase,” but previous studies estimating the life-years lost because of RA have shown large variations in results, wrote Ying-Ming Chiu, MD, PhD, of China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, and colleagues.

“Estimating long-term or lifetime costs could provide an overall figure of the future impact on the health care system after disease occurrence, and would be useful for cost-effectiveness analysis,” they added.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers identified 29,352 new cases of RA in Taiwan between 2003 and 2016, after the introduction of biologics in Taiwan in 2003. They estimate survival using an algorithm with matched controls and used the survival rates to calculate monthly and lifetime health care expenses.

Overall, the average estimated life expectancy after a diagnosis of RA was 26.3 years, and the average lifetime cost was $72,953 (USD). The average life expectancy was 23.4 years for women and 21.6 years for men. The average lifetime cost was higher for women than for men ($73,112 vs. $63,557), but the annual costs were similar for women and men ($3,123 vs. $2,942). However, “the older the age of diagnosis of RA, the higher the average annual cost for treating RA,” regardless of gender, the researchers noted.

Despite the reduced mortality during the study period, the researchers also identified some loss of life expectancy among RA patients, compared with the general population. The average loss of life expectancy was nearly 5 years during the 14-year study period. The loss of life expectancy ranged from 2 to 13 years (average 9.7 years) for women with RA and from 2 to 8 years (average 4.1 years) for men with RA, compared with those without RA after controlling for age, gender, and year of diagnosis.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on quality of life and functional disability, possible underestimation of life expectancy because of delayed RA diagnosis, and limited accuracy on follow-up of younger patients, the researchers noted.

However, the results support evidence from previous studies of an overall increase in life expectancy after the introduction of biologics, with increased expenses that should be monitored for cost-effectiveness, they concluded. More research is needed to determine the effect of biologics on functional disability, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness in a way that also incorporates productivity loss and the need for social services such as long-term care in order to inform decision-making for RA treatment.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and China Medical University Hospital. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Chiu Y-M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1002/ART.41597.

The widespread use of biologics extended life expectancy but also increased medical costs for adults with RA, based on insurance claims data from nearly 30,000 cases.

“With the advancement of treatment in recent decades, the mortality seems to decrease, while medical expenditures increase,” but previous studies estimating the life-years lost because of RA have shown large variations in results, wrote Ying-Ming Chiu, MD, PhD, of China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, and colleagues.

“Estimating long-term or lifetime costs could provide an overall figure of the future impact on the health care system after disease occurrence, and would be useful for cost-effectiveness analysis,” they added.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers identified 29,352 new cases of RA in Taiwan between 2003 and 2016, after the introduction of biologics in Taiwan in 2003. They estimate survival using an algorithm with matched controls and used the survival rates to calculate monthly and lifetime health care expenses.

Overall, the average estimated life expectancy after a diagnosis of RA was 26.3 years, and the average lifetime cost was $72,953 (USD). The average life expectancy was 23.4 years for women and 21.6 years for men. The average lifetime cost was higher for women than for men ($73,112 vs. $63,557), but the annual costs were similar for women and men ($3,123 vs. $2,942). However, “the older the age of diagnosis of RA, the higher the average annual cost for treating RA,” regardless of gender, the researchers noted.

Despite the reduced mortality during the study period, the researchers also identified some loss of life expectancy among RA patients, compared with the general population. The average loss of life expectancy was nearly 5 years during the 14-year study period. The loss of life expectancy ranged from 2 to 13 years (average 9.7 years) for women with RA and from 2 to 8 years (average 4.1 years) for men with RA, compared with those without RA after controlling for age, gender, and year of diagnosis.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on quality of life and functional disability, possible underestimation of life expectancy because of delayed RA diagnosis, and limited accuracy on follow-up of younger patients, the researchers noted.

However, the results support evidence from previous studies of an overall increase in life expectancy after the introduction of biologics, with increased expenses that should be monitored for cost-effectiveness, they concluded. More research is needed to determine the effect of biologics on functional disability, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness in a way that also incorporates productivity loss and the need for social services such as long-term care in order to inform decision-making for RA treatment.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and China Medical University Hospital. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Chiu Y-M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1002/ART.41597.

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.