Gout

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

[email protected]

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

[email protected]

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.

The greatest use of colchicine in the United States is for gout, which affects approximately 4 million Americans, but the drug is not used chronically, so a much smaller number of patients are using colchicine at any one time. Colchicine is also used for other inflammatory conditions, primarily calcium pyrophosphate crystal disease and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF is rare in the United States). Cardiologists also regularly prescribe colchicine in pericarditis for short-term use. Physicians may use it off label for other purposes, too.

Overall, the number of patients using colchicine is much larger than that for the use of hydroxychloroquine, for example, suggesting that the immediate risk of shortage could be lower. However, if individuals started using it off label, or prescribing inappropriately for the COVID-19 indication, the supply would rapidly run short.
 

Q: What other points are there to consider regarding the use of colchicine to treat COVID-19?

A: There is no evidence – zero – that colchicine has any benefit for COVID-19, not even case reports. There is some rationale that it might be beneficial, but that is exactly why the COLCORONA trial would be logical to try.

The COLCORONA trial is exactly the kind of trial that would be needed for assessing colchicine, and it is big enough and happening quickly enough to get an answer. But if people start to use colchicine off label, we may never know the truth.

While colchicine can be used safely in most people, it can be very problematic and requires an experienced doctor’s supervision. Overdoses can be fatal, and colchicine interacts with many drugs, all of which require dose adjustment and some of which must be stopped in order to use colchicine – it isn’t candy. Some of the other drugs being looked at for COVID-19 in fact may interact with colchicine.

Colchicine must also be dose adjusted for kidney disease, and, in some of the COVID-19 patients, kidney function changes rapidly. So again, its use would require expert supervision even if there were evidence for its utility.

The side effects of colchicine, if mis-dosed, can be very unpleasant, including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Even at the apparent right dose, some people will get these side effects, so colchicine has to be something that works to make the risk/benefit ratio worth it.

Some preparations of colchicine are made combined with probenecid, a gout drug. This is even more problematic because probenecid can raise the level of drugs excreted by the kidney and could affect other treatments.

So in sum, what may be a good idea in theory can turn out to be a disastrous idea in practice, and here we have nothing but theory. This is not an agent to use randomly; the studies will be rushed out quickly and hopefully will give us the knowledge to know what to do.

Dr. Izmirly and Dr. Buyon said they have research grants with the National Institutes of Health to study hydroxychloroquine in patients with lupus and in anti–SSA/Ro-positive pregnant women with a previous child with congenital heart block. Dr. Pillinger reports that he has an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma to study colchicine in osteoarthritis.

[email protected]

This article was reformatted on 3/30/2020 for clarity. 

Tart cherry concentrate had no impact on gout flares over a 28-day period, based on data from 50 adult patients.

lisaaMC/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Urate-lowering therapy is part of gout management, and previous studies have suggested that tart cherry concentrate lowers sodium urate within hours in healthy volunteers and to a nonsignificant extent over 120 days in patients with gout, but “the optimal dose of tart cherry concentrate for either a serum urate effect on or flare prevention is unknown,” wrote Lisa K. Stamp, MD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers randomized 50 adults with gout and baseline serum urate levels greater than 0.36 mmol/L (6 mg/dL) to receive one of four doses of tart cherry juice concentrate (7.5 mL, 15 mL, 22.5 mL, or 30 mL) or a placebo twice daily for 28 days. Half of the participants were taking allopurinol and half were not taking any urate-lowering therapy.

After 28 days, patients who received cherry juice showed no significant changes in serum urate regardless of whether they were also taking allopurinol. In addition, cherry juice at any dose had no significant effect on reducing the serum urate area under the curve and no apparent impact on measures including urine urate excretion, change in urinary anthocyanins, and frequency of gout flares, compared with placebo. However, the cherry juice was well tolerated, and 84% of the study participants said they would recommend it to a friend as a method of gout prevention.

The researchers collected blood samples at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 5 hours after consuming cherry juice, and on days 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28. “If there is an effect of cherry concentrate on gout flares over a longer time period, it is not likely to be mediated by reduction in serum urate,” the researchers said.

Of 24 adverse events reported during the study, 18 occurred in patients taking cherry juice at all dosage levels, and one case of hyperglycemia was potentially related to cherry concentrate. No serious adverse events associated with tart cherry concentrate occurred during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to blind the study because participants prepared their doses at home, and the lack of data on the exact contents of the cherry juice concentrate used in the study, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tart cherry concentrate has no effect on serum urate concentration or urinary urate excretion, which make it unlikely to be useful in reducing gout flares, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stamp LK et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Dec 31. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez606.

Tart cherry concentrate had no impact on gout flares over a 28-day period, based on data from 50 adult patients.

lisaaMC/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Urate-lowering therapy is part of gout management, and previous studies have suggested that tart cherry concentrate lowers sodium urate within hours in healthy volunteers and to a nonsignificant extent over 120 days in patients with gout, but “the optimal dose of tart cherry concentrate for either a serum urate effect on or flare prevention is unknown,” wrote Lisa K. Stamp, MD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers randomized 50 adults with gout and baseline serum urate levels greater than 0.36 mmol/L (6 mg/dL) to receive one of four doses of tart cherry juice concentrate (7.5 mL, 15 mL, 22.5 mL, or 30 mL) or a placebo twice daily for 28 days. Half of the participants were taking allopurinol and half were not taking any urate-lowering therapy.

After 28 days, patients who received cherry juice showed no significant changes in serum urate regardless of whether they were also taking allopurinol. In addition, cherry juice at any dose had no significant effect on reducing the serum urate area under the curve and no apparent impact on measures including urine urate excretion, change in urinary anthocyanins, and frequency of gout flares, compared with placebo. However, the cherry juice was well tolerated, and 84% of the study participants said they would recommend it to a friend as a method of gout prevention.

The researchers collected blood samples at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 5 hours after consuming cherry juice, and on days 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28. “If there is an effect of cherry concentrate on gout flares over a longer time period, it is not likely to be mediated by reduction in serum urate,” the researchers said.

Of 24 adverse events reported during the study, 18 occurred in patients taking cherry juice at all dosage levels, and one case of hyperglycemia was potentially related to cherry concentrate. No serious adverse events associated with tart cherry concentrate occurred during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to blind the study because participants prepared their doses at home, and the lack of data on the exact contents of the cherry juice concentrate used in the study, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tart cherry concentrate has no effect on serum urate concentration or urinary urate excretion, which make it unlikely to be useful in reducing gout flares, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stamp LK et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Dec 31. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez606.

Tart cherry concentrate had no impact on gout flares over a 28-day period, based on data from 50 adult patients.

lisaaMC/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Urate-lowering therapy is part of gout management, and previous studies have suggested that tart cherry concentrate lowers sodium urate within hours in healthy volunteers and to a nonsignificant extent over 120 days in patients with gout, but “the optimal dose of tart cherry concentrate for either a serum urate effect on or flare prevention is unknown,” wrote Lisa K. Stamp, MD, of the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand, and colleagues.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers randomized 50 adults with gout and baseline serum urate levels greater than 0.36 mmol/L (6 mg/dL) to receive one of four doses of tart cherry juice concentrate (7.5 mL, 15 mL, 22.5 mL, or 30 mL) or a placebo twice daily for 28 days. Half of the participants were taking allopurinol and half were not taking any urate-lowering therapy.

After 28 days, patients who received cherry juice showed no significant changes in serum urate regardless of whether they were also taking allopurinol. In addition, cherry juice at any dose had no significant effect on reducing the serum urate area under the curve and no apparent impact on measures including urine urate excretion, change in urinary anthocyanins, and frequency of gout flares, compared with placebo. However, the cherry juice was well tolerated, and 84% of the study participants said they would recommend it to a friend as a method of gout prevention.

The researchers collected blood samples at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 5 hours after consuming cherry juice, and on days 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28. “If there is an effect of cherry concentrate on gout flares over a longer time period, it is not likely to be mediated by reduction in serum urate,” the researchers said.

Of 24 adverse events reported during the study, 18 occurred in patients taking cherry juice at all dosage levels, and one case of hyperglycemia was potentially related to cherry concentrate. No serious adverse events associated with tart cherry concentrate occurred during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to blind the study because participants prepared their doses at home, and the lack of data on the exact contents of the cherry juice concentrate used in the study, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tart cherry concentrate has no effect on serum urate concentration or urinary urate excretion, which make it unlikely to be useful in reducing gout flares, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stamp LK et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Dec 31. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez606.

The incidence of gout was approximately 40% lower in diabetes patients who were prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) than it was in those who were prescribed glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists in a population-based new-user cohort study.

Hyperuricemia is a known cause of gout and common in type 2 diabetes patients. SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of gout by preventing the reabsorption of glucose and lowering serum uric acid levels; however, the impact on gout risk remains uncertain, wrote Michael Fralick, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers compared SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes to assess protection against gout.

The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had a new prescription for an SGTL2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. The average age of the patients was 54 years; approximately half were women. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the researchers found a relative risk reduction of approximately 40% and an absolute risk reduction of approximately three fewer cases per 1,000 person-years in patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those who received GLP-1 agonists. The incidence rate for gout in the SGLT2 and GLP-1 groups were 4.9 per 1,000 person-years and 7.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by the investigators’ inability to measure potential confounding variables such as body mass index, alcohol use, and high purine diet; incomplete lab data on creatinine and hemoglobin A; and a low baseline risk for gout in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results persisted across sensitivity analysis and, if replicated, suggest that “SGLT2 inhibitors might be an effective class of medication for the prevention of gout for patients with diabetes or metabolic disorders,” they wrote.

The study was supported in part by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; lead author Dr. Fralick disclosed funding from the Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program at the University of Toronto and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

SOURCE: Fralick M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.7326/M19-2610.

The incidence of gout was approximately 40% lower in diabetes patients who were prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) than it was in those who were prescribed glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists in a population-based new-user cohort study.

Hyperuricemia is a known cause of gout and common in type 2 diabetes patients. SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of gout by preventing the reabsorption of glucose and lowering serum uric acid levels; however, the impact on gout risk remains uncertain, wrote Michael Fralick, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers compared SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes to assess protection against gout.

The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had a new prescription for an SGTL2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. The average age of the patients was 54 years; approximately half were women. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the researchers found a relative risk reduction of approximately 40% and an absolute risk reduction of approximately three fewer cases per 1,000 person-years in patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those who received GLP-1 agonists. The incidence rate for gout in the SGLT2 and GLP-1 groups were 4.9 per 1,000 person-years and 7.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by the investigators’ inability to measure potential confounding variables such as body mass index, alcohol use, and high purine diet; incomplete lab data on creatinine and hemoglobin A; and a low baseline risk for gout in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results persisted across sensitivity analysis and, if replicated, suggest that “SGLT2 inhibitors might be an effective class of medication for the prevention of gout for patients with diabetes or metabolic disorders,” they wrote.

The study was supported in part by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; lead author Dr. Fralick disclosed funding from the Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program at the University of Toronto and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

SOURCE: Fralick M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.7326/M19-2610.

The incidence of gout was approximately 40% lower in diabetes patients who were prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) than it was in those who were prescribed glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists in a population-based new-user cohort study.

Hyperuricemia is a known cause of gout and common in type 2 diabetes patients. SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of gout by preventing the reabsorption of glucose and lowering serum uric acid levels; however, the impact on gout risk remains uncertain, wrote Michael Fralick, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers compared SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes to assess protection against gout.

The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had a new prescription for an SGTL2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. The average age of the patients was 54 years; approximately half were women. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the researchers found a relative risk reduction of approximately 40% and an absolute risk reduction of approximately three fewer cases per 1,000 person-years in patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those who received GLP-1 agonists. The incidence rate for gout in the SGLT2 and GLP-1 groups were 4.9 per 1,000 person-years and 7.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by the investigators’ inability to measure potential confounding variables such as body mass index, alcohol use, and high purine diet; incomplete lab data on creatinine and hemoglobin A; and a low baseline risk for gout in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results persisted across sensitivity analysis and, if replicated, suggest that “SGLT2 inhibitors might be an effective class of medication for the prevention of gout for patients with diabetes or metabolic disorders,” they wrote.

The study was supported in part by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; lead author Dr. Fralick disclosed funding from the Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program at the University of Toronto and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

SOURCE: Fralick M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.7326/M19-2610.

ATLANTA – Soon-to-be-published gout guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology will recommend dosing allopurinol above 300 mg/day to get serum urate below 6 mg/dL, even in people with renal impairment.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

It’s the same strong treat-to-target recommendation the group made in its last outing in 2012, but “we now have more evidence to support it,” said co–lead author, rheumatologist, and epidemiologist Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Boston University.

She gave a sneak preview of the new guidelines, which will be published in 2020, at the ACR annual meeting. They are under review, but she said the “major recommendations will remain the same.”

“There will still be controversy that we have not yet proven that a threshold of 6 mg/dL is better than a threshold of 7 mg/dL, but we know that” at physiologic pH and temperature, monosodium urate starts to crystallize out at 6.8 mg/dL. “Serum urate is not a perfect measure or total body urate, so we need to get urate to below at least 6 mg/dL,” she said, and perhaps lower in some.

A popular alternative in primary care – where most gout is managed – is to treat to avoid symptoms. It “has no evidence,” and people “end up getting tophaceous gout with joint destruction. Suppressive colchicine therapy does not manage underlying hyperuricemia,” Dr. Neogi said.

With the symptom approach, “patients are often [profoundly] dismayed” when they find out they have large tophi and joint damage because they weren’t managed properly. “Primary care physicians [don’t often] see that because those patients don’t go back to them,” she said.

Dr. Neogi suspects that, for rheumatologists, the biggest surprise in the new guidelines will be a deemphasis on lifestyle and dietary factors. They can be triggers, but “gout is increasingly recognized as largely genetically determined,” and the impact of other factors on serum urate is low. Plus, “patients are embarrassed” by gout, and even less comfortable being honest with physicians “if they think we are blaming them,” she said.

The new document will recommend allopurinol as the definitive first-line option for hyperuricemia. Febuxostat (Uloric) was put on pretty much equal footing in 2012, but now “we acknowledge” that allopurinol dosing in head-to-head trials – 300 mg/day or 200 mg/day with renal impairment – was too low for most people, “so to say febuxostat is equivalent or superior isn’t really fair.” The substantially higher cost of febuxostat was also taken into consideration, she said.

The ACR will broaden the indications for urate lowering beyond frequent flares, tophi, and radiologic joint damage to include conditional, shared decision-making recommendations for people who have less than two flares per year, those with kidney stones, and people with a first flare if they are particularly susceptible to a second – namely those with serum urate at or above 9 mg/dL and people with stage 3 or worse chronic kidney disease, who are less able to tolerate NSAIDs and colchicine for symptom treatment.

The group will also relax its advice against treating asymptomatic hyperuricemia. Febuxostat trials have shown a reduction in incident gout, but the number needed to treat was large, so the ACR will recommend shared decision making.

Inadequate allopurinol dosing, meanwhile, has been the bête noire of rheumatology for years, but there is still reluctance among many to go above 300 mg/day. Dr. Neogi said it’s because of a decades-old concern, “unsupported by any evidence, that higher doses may be detrimental in people with renal insufficiency.” It’s frustrating, she said, because “there is good data supporting the safety of increasing the dose above 300 mg/day even in those with renal impairment,” and not doing so opens the door to entirely preventable complications.

As for allopurinol hypersensitivity – another reason people shy away from higher dosing, especially in the renally impaired – the trick is to start low and slowly titrate allopurinol up to the target urate range. Asian and black people, especially, should be screened beforehand for the HLA-B*58:01 genetic variant that increases the risk of severe reactions. Both will be strong recommendations in the new guidelines.

Dr. Neogi didn’t have any relevant industry disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Soon-to-be-published gout guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology will recommend dosing allopurinol above 300 mg/day to get serum urate below 6 mg/dL, even in people with renal impairment.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

It’s the same strong treat-to-target recommendation the group made in its last outing in 2012, but “we now have more evidence to support it,” said co–lead author, rheumatologist, and epidemiologist Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Boston University.

She gave a sneak preview of the new guidelines, which will be published in 2020, at the ACR annual meeting. They are under review, but she said the “major recommendations will remain the same.”

“There will still be controversy that we have not yet proven that a threshold of 6 mg/dL is better than a threshold of 7 mg/dL, but we know that” at physiologic pH and temperature, monosodium urate starts to crystallize out at 6.8 mg/dL. “Serum urate is not a perfect measure or total body urate, so we need to get urate to below at least 6 mg/dL,” she said, and perhaps lower in some.

A popular alternative in primary care – where most gout is managed – is to treat to avoid symptoms. It “has no evidence,” and people “end up getting tophaceous gout with joint destruction. Suppressive colchicine therapy does not manage underlying hyperuricemia,” Dr. Neogi said.

With the symptom approach, “patients are often [profoundly] dismayed” when they find out they have large tophi and joint damage because they weren’t managed properly. “Primary care physicians [don’t often] see that because those patients don’t go back to them,” she said.

Dr. Neogi suspects that, for rheumatologists, the biggest surprise in the new guidelines will be a deemphasis on lifestyle and dietary factors. They can be triggers, but “gout is increasingly recognized as largely genetically determined,” and the impact of other factors on serum urate is low. Plus, “patients are embarrassed” by gout, and even less comfortable being honest with physicians “if they think we are blaming them,” she said.

The new document will recommend allopurinol as the definitive first-line option for hyperuricemia. Febuxostat (Uloric) was put on pretty much equal footing in 2012, but now “we acknowledge” that allopurinol dosing in head-to-head trials – 300 mg/day or 200 mg/day with renal impairment – was too low for most people, “so to say febuxostat is equivalent or superior isn’t really fair.” The substantially higher cost of febuxostat was also taken into consideration, she said.

The ACR will broaden the indications for urate lowering beyond frequent flares, tophi, and radiologic joint damage to include conditional, shared decision-making recommendations for people who have less than two flares per year, those with kidney stones, and people with a first flare if they are particularly susceptible to a second – namely those with serum urate at or above 9 mg/dL and people with stage 3 or worse chronic kidney disease, who are less able to tolerate NSAIDs and colchicine for symptom treatment.

The group will also relax its advice against treating asymptomatic hyperuricemia. Febuxostat trials have shown a reduction in incident gout, but the number needed to treat was large, so the ACR will recommend shared decision making.

Inadequate allopurinol dosing, meanwhile, has been the bête noire of rheumatology for years, but there is still reluctance among many to go above 300 mg/day. Dr. Neogi said it’s because of a decades-old concern, “unsupported by any evidence, that higher doses may be detrimental in people with renal insufficiency.” It’s frustrating, she said, because “there is good data supporting the safety of increasing the dose above 300 mg/day even in those with renal impairment,” and not doing so opens the door to entirely preventable complications.

As for allopurinol hypersensitivity – another reason people shy away from higher dosing, especially in the renally impaired – the trick is to start low and slowly titrate allopurinol up to the target urate range. Asian and black people, especially, should be screened beforehand for the HLA-B*58:01 genetic variant that increases the risk of severe reactions. Both will be strong recommendations in the new guidelines.

Dr. Neogi didn’t have any relevant industry disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Soon-to-be-published gout guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology will recommend dosing allopurinol above 300 mg/day to get serum urate below 6 mg/dL, even in people with renal impairment.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

It’s the same strong treat-to-target recommendation the group made in its last outing in 2012, but “we now have more evidence to support it,” said co–lead author, rheumatologist, and epidemiologist Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Boston University.

She gave a sneak preview of the new guidelines, which will be published in 2020, at the ACR annual meeting. They are under review, but she said the “major recommendations will remain the same.”

“There will still be controversy that we have not yet proven that a threshold of 6 mg/dL is better than a threshold of 7 mg/dL, but we know that” at physiologic pH and temperature, monosodium urate starts to crystallize out at 6.8 mg/dL. “Serum urate is not a perfect measure or total body urate, so we need to get urate to below at least 6 mg/dL,” she said, and perhaps lower in some.

A popular alternative in primary care – where most gout is managed – is to treat to avoid symptoms. It “has no evidence,” and people “end up getting tophaceous gout with joint destruction. Suppressive colchicine therapy does not manage underlying hyperuricemia,” Dr. Neogi said.

With the symptom approach, “patients are often [profoundly] dismayed” when they find out they have large tophi and joint damage because they weren’t managed properly. “Primary care physicians [don’t often] see that because those patients don’t go back to them,” she said.

Dr. Neogi suspects that, for rheumatologists, the biggest surprise in the new guidelines will be a deemphasis on lifestyle and dietary factors. They can be triggers, but “gout is increasingly recognized as largely genetically determined,” and the impact of other factors on serum urate is low. Plus, “patients are embarrassed” by gout, and even less comfortable being honest with physicians “if they think we are blaming them,” she said.

The new document will recommend allopurinol as the definitive first-line option for hyperuricemia. Febuxostat (Uloric) was put on pretty much equal footing in 2012, but now “we acknowledge” that allopurinol dosing in head-to-head trials – 300 mg/day or 200 mg/day with renal impairment – was too low for most people, “so to say febuxostat is equivalent or superior isn’t really fair.” The substantially higher cost of febuxostat was also taken into consideration, she said.

The ACR will broaden the indications for urate lowering beyond frequent flares, tophi, and radiologic joint damage to include conditional, shared decision-making recommendations for people who have less than two flares per year, those with kidney stones, and people with a first flare if they are particularly susceptible to a second – namely those with serum urate at or above 9 mg/dL and people with stage 3 or worse chronic kidney disease, who are less able to tolerate NSAIDs and colchicine for symptom treatment.

The group will also relax its advice against treating asymptomatic hyperuricemia. Febuxostat trials have shown a reduction in incident gout, but the number needed to treat was large, so the ACR will recommend shared decision making.

Inadequate allopurinol dosing, meanwhile, has been the bête noire of rheumatology for years, but there is still reluctance among many to go above 300 mg/day. Dr. Neogi said it’s because of a decades-old concern, “unsupported by any evidence, that higher doses may be detrimental in people with renal insufficiency.” It’s frustrating, she said, because “there is good data supporting the safety of increasing the dose above 300 mg/day even in those with renal impairment,” and not doing so opens the door to entirely preventable complications.

As for allopurinol hypersensitivity – another reason people shy away from higher dosing, especially in the renally impaired – the trick is to start low and slowly titrate allopurinol up to the target urate range. Asian and black people, especially, should be screened beforehand for the HLA-B*58:01 genetic variant that increases the risk of severe reactions. Both will be strong recommendations in the new guidelines.

Dr. Neogi didn’t have any relevant industry disclosures.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The proof of concept shown by the CANTOS study in 2017 that an anti-inflammatory drug could cut the incidence of cardiovascular events has now been replicated in a study with more than 4,700 post-MI patients who received the much more affordable oral anti-inflammatory drug colchicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Daily treatment with a single, 0.5-mg/day colchicine tablet cut cardiovascular disease events by a statistically significant 23%, compared with placebo patients during nearly 20 months on treatment when colchicine was added on top of a regimen that included aspirin, a second antiplatelet drug, a statin, and in many patients a beta-blocking drug, Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Adding colchicine to the treatment of patients within 30 days of having a MI led to an absolute reduction in the study’s primary endpoint of 1.6% during a median 19.6 months on treatment. In a secondary analysis that looked at total cardiovascular events and not just first events, adding colchicine to background therapy was associated with a relative 34% decline, said Dr. Tardif, professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and director of the Research Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute. In addition to his report at the meeting, the results also appeared concurrently in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1912388).

The dramatic efficacy and overall safety shown by colchicine in COLCOT (Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) appeared to replicate the benefit seen with the relatively expensive monoclonal antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) in CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), where a canakinumab injection every 3 months led to a 15% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo, during a median 3.7 years of follow-up in a study with just over 10,000 post-MI patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).

“One of the limitations of CANTOS was that canakinumab is a very expensive, injectable drug. We followed in the footsteps of CANTOS with a less expensive, oral drug,” Dr. Tardif explained during a press briefing. “Colchicine is a known, potent anti-inflammatory drug,” and as of November 2019, the average U.S. cost of a 30-day supply of 0.6-mg capsules was $147. The colchicine formulation used in COLCOT delivered a 0.5-mg daily dose to patients, a formulation that’s not currently on the U.S. market.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Having a safe drug that’s easily available; it will be hard to hold this one back,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chairman of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “What the guidelines will need to wrestle with is there are five drugs” already recommended to use after an MI; “is colchicine number six?” The existing guideline-directed drugs for post-MI patients include aspirin, a second antiplatelet agent, a statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, Dr. Lloyd-Jones noted. The incremental benefit from adding colchicine to background regimen was “modest, but statistically significant,” he said, and “importantly, this was not an industry-sponsored trial.” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that he has recently heard from a patient of his in the Chicago area who takes colchicine for gout that the monthly cost for the drug has risen to as high as $270. By comparison, the price in Montreal is less than $9/month, Dr. Tardif said.

COLCOT enrolled 4,745 patients at a median of about 13.5 days following an acute MI at 167 centers in 12 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was the combination of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization in a time-to-event analysis. The combined endpoint occurred in 5.5% of the patients on colchicine and 7.1% of those on placebo during a median of nearly 20 months on treatment. The adverse effects data showed generally similarly rates among patients on colchicine and in the control group, including their rates of gastrointestinal effects. The one exception was the rate of serious pneumonias, which were more than double in the colchicine recipients, a statistically significant difference.

COLCOT received no commercial support. Dr. Tardif has received honoraria from Amarin, DalCor, Sanofi, and Servier; he has an ownership interest in DalCor; and he has received research funding from Amarin, AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, Ionis, RegenxBio, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tardif J-C et al. AHA 2019, Abstract.

PHILADELPHIA – The proof of concept shown by the CANTOS study in 2017 that an anti-inflammatory drug could cut the incidence of cardiovascular events has now been replicated in a study with more than 4,700 post-MI patients who received the much more affordable oral anti-inflammatory drug colchicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Daily treatment with a single, 0.5-mg/day colchicine tablet cut cardiovascular disease events by a statistically significant 23%, compared with placebo patients during nearly 20 months on treatment when colchicine was added on top of a regimen that included aspirin, a second antiplatelet drug, a statin, and in many patients a beta-blocking drug, Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Adding colchicine to the treatment of patients within 30 days of having a MI led to an absolute reduction in the study’s primary endpoint of 1.6% during a median 19.6 months on treatment. In a secondary analysis that looked at total cardiovascular events and not just first events, adding colchicine to background therapy was associated with a relative 34% decline, said Dr. Tardif, professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and director of the Research Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute. In addition to his report at the meeting, the results also appeared concurrently in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1912388).

The dramatic efficacy and overall safety shown by colchicine in COLCOT (Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) appeared to replicate the benefit seen with the relatively expensive monoclonal antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) in CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), where a canakinumab injection every 3 months led to a 15% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo, during a median 3.7 years of follow-up in a study with just over 10,000 post-MI patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).

“One of the limitations of CANTOS was that canakinumab is a very expensive, injectable drug. We followed in the footsteps of CANTOS with a less expensive, oral drug,” Dr. Tardif explained during a press briefing. “Colchicine is a known, potent anti-inflammatory drug,” and as of November 2019, the average U.S. cost of a 30-day supply of 0.6-mg capsules was $147. The colchicine formulation used in COLCOT delivered a 0.5-mg daily dose to patients, a formulation that’s not currently on the U.S. market.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Having a safe drug that’s easily available; it will be hard to hold this one back,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chairman of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “What the guidelines will need to wrestle with is there are five drugs” already recommended to use after an MI; “is colchicine number six?” The existing guideline-directed drugs for post-MI patients include aspirin, a second antiplatelet agent, a statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, Dr. Lloyd-Jones noted. The incremental benefit from adding colchicine to background regimen was “modest, but statistically significant,” he said, and “importantly, this was not an industry-sponsored trial.” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that he has recently heard from a patient of his in the Chicago area who takes colchicine for gout that the monthly cost for the drug has risen to as high as $270. By comparison, the price in Montreal is less than $9/month, Dr. Tardif said.

COLCOT enrolled 4,745 patients at a median of about 13.5 days following an acute MI at 167 centers in 12 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was the combination of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization in a time-to-event analysis. The combined endpoint occurred in 5.5% of the patients on colchicine and 7.1% of those on placebo during a median of nearly 20 months on treatment. The adverse effects data showed generally similarly rates among patients on colchicine and in the control group, including their rates of gastrointestinal effects. The one exception was the rate of serious pneumonias, which were more than double in the colchicine recipients, a statistically significant difference.

COLCOT received no commercial support. Dr. Tardif has received honoraria from Amarin, DalCor, Sanofi, and Servier; he has an ownership interest in DalCor; and he has received research funding from Amarin, AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, Ionis, RegenxBio, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tardif J-C et al. AHA 2019, Abstract.

PHILADELPHIA – The proof of concept shown by the CANTOS study in 2017 that an anti-inflammatory drug could cut the incidence of cardiovascular events has now been replicated in a study with more than 4,700 post-MI patients who received the much more affordable oral anti-inflammatory drug colchicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Daily treatment with a single, 0.5-mg/day colchicine tablet cut cardiovascular disease events by a statistically significant 23%, compared with placebo patients during nearly 20 months on treatment when colchicine was added on top of a regimen that included aspirin, a second antiplatelet drug, a statin, and in many patients a beta-blocking drug, Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Adding colchicine to the treatment of patients within 30 days of having a MI led to an absolute reduction in the study’s primary endpoint of 1.6% during a median 19.6 months on treatment. In a secondary analysis that looked at total cardiovascular events and not just first events, adding colchicine to background therapy was associated with a relative 34% decline, said Dr. Tardif, professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and director of the Research Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute. In addition to his report at the meeting, the results also appeared concurrently in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1912388).

The dramatic efficacy and overall safety shown by colchicine in COLCOT (Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) appeared to replicate the benefit seen with the relatively expensive monoclonal antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) in CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), where a canakinumab injection every 3 months led to a 15% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo, during a median 3.7 years of follow-up in a study with just over 10,000 post-MI patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).

“One of the limitations of CANTOS was that canakinumab is a very expensive, injectable drug. We followed in the footsteps of CANTOS with a less expensive, oral drug,” Dr. Tardif explained during a press briefing. “Colchicine is a known, potent anti-inflammatory drug,” and as of November 2019, the average U.S. cost of a 30-day supply of 0.6-mg capsules was $147. The colchicine formulation used in COLCOT delivered a 0.5-mg daily dose to patients, a formulation that’s not currently on the U.S. market.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Having a safe drug that’s easily available; it will be hard to hold this one back,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chairman of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “What the guidelines will need to wrestle with is there are five drugs” already recommended to use after an MI; “is colchicine number six?” The existing guideline-directed drugs for post-MI patients include aspirin, a second antiplatelet agent, a statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, Dr. Lloyd-Jones noted. The incremental benefit from adding colchicine to background regimen was “modest, but statistically significant,” he said, and “importantly, this was not an industry-sponsored trial.” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that he has recently heard from a patient of his in the Chicago area who takes colchicine for gout that the monthly cost for the drug has risen to as high as $270. By comparison, the price in Montreal is less than $9/month, Dr. Tardif said.

COLCOT enrolled 4,745 patients at a median of about 13.5 days following an acute MI at 167 centers in 12 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was the combination of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization in a time-to-event analysis. The combined endpoint occurred in 5.5% of the patients on colchicine and 7.1% of those on placebo during a median of nearly 20 months on treatment. The adverse effects data showed generally similarly rates among patients on colchicine and in the control group, including their rates of gastrointestinal effects. The one exception was the rate of serious pneumonias, which were more than double in the colchicine recipients, a statistically significant difference.

COLCOT received no commercial support. Dr. Tardif has received honoraria from Amarin, DalCor, Sanofi, and Servier; he has an ownership interest in DalCor; and he has received research funding from Amarin, AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, Ionis, RegenxBio, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tardif J-C et al. AHA 2019, Abstract.

ATLANTA – Gout is associated with an increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, according to a large population-based health data linkage study in New Zealand.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“Overall, the survival was quite good within both cohorts, but ... there is a clear and statistically significant difference in the survival between the people with gout and those without gout,” Ken Cai, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, noting that a similarly “significant and clear” difference was seen in nonfatal CVD events between the groups.

Of 968,387 individuals included in the analysis, 34,056 had gout, said Dr. Cai, a rheumatology clinical fellow at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). After adjusting for population-level estimated 5-year CVD risk for cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other vascular event, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.20 for fatal and 1.32 for nonfatal first CVD events in patients with gout. The CVD risk score used in the analysis accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, level of social deprivation, diabetes status, previous hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, and baseline dispensing of blood pressure–lowering, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications.

“To allow for any other differences between the gout and nongout cohorts with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, and social deprivation, we further adjusted for these factors again, even though they had been accounted for within our CVD risk score,” he said, noting that “gout continued to demonstrate an increased adjusted hazard ratio” for fatal and nonfatal events after that adjustment (HRs, 1.40 and 1.35, respectively)

Additional analysis in the gout patients showed that CVD risk was similarly increased both in those who had been dispensed allopurinol at least once in the prior 5 years and those who had not (adjusted HRs for fatal events, 1.41 and 1.33; and for nonfatal, first CVD events, 1.34 and 1.38, respectively), and “there was no significant difference between these two groups, compared to people without gout,” he said.

Adjustment for serum urate levels in gout patients also showed similarly increased risk for fatal and nonfatal events for those with levels less than 6 mg/dL and those with levels of 6 mg/dL or greater (adjusted HRs of 1.32 and 1.42 for fatal events, and 1.27 and 1.43 for nonfatal first CVD events, respectively).

Again, no significant difference was seen in the risk of events between these two groups and those without gout, Dr. Cai said, noting that patients with no serum urate monitoring also had an increased risk of events (adjusted HR of 1.41 for fatal events and 1.29 for nonfatal, first CVD events).

Gout and hyperuricemia have previously been reported to be independent risk factors for CVD and CVD events, and urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol have been thought to potentially be associated with reduced risk of CVD, he said, noting that the relationships are of particular concern in New Zealand, where gout affects more than 4% of the adult population.

“Maori, who are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and Pasifika people are disproportionately affected by gout; 8.5% of Maori, and 13.9% of Pasifika adults have gout,” he said, adding that an estimated one-third of Maori and Pasifika adults over age 65 years have gout.

To further assess the relationships between gout and CVD risk, he and his colleagues used validated population-level risk-prediction equations and linked National Health Identifier (NHI) data, he said.

National registries of medicines dispensing data, hospitalization, and death were linked to the Auckland/Northland regional repository of laboratory results from Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2016.

“We included all New Zealand residents aged 20 years or older who were in contact with publicly funded services in 2011 and were alive at the end of December, 2011,” he said, adding that those with a previous hospitalization for CVD or heart failure prior to the end of December 2011 were excluded, as were those with primary residence outside of the region for the prior 3 years and those missing predictor variable data.

Although the findings are limited by an inability to adjust for smoking status, body mass index, and blood pressure – as such data are not collected at the national level, and by the population-based nature of the study, which does not allow determination about causation, they nevertheless reinforce the association between gout and an increased estimated risk of CVD events, Dr. Cai said.

“Even after adjustment for estimated 5-year CVD risk and the additional weighting of risk factors within it, gout independently increased the hazard ratio for fatal and nonfatal events,” he said. “In our study, this effect was not ameliorated by allopurinol use or serum urate lowering to treatment target.”

Similar studies are needed in other populations, he said.

Dr. Cai reported grant support from Arthritis Australia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2732.

ATLANTA – Gout is associated with an increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, according to a large population-based health data linkage study in New Zealand.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“Overall, the survival was quite good within both cohorts, but ... there is a clear and statistically significant difference in the survival between the people with gout and those without gout,” Ken Cai, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, noting that a similarly “significant and clear” difference was seen in nonfatal CVD events between the groups.

Of 968,387 individuals included in the analysis, 34,056 had gout, said Dr. Cai, a rheumatology clinical fellow at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). After adjusting for population-level estimated 5-year CVD risk for cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other vascular event, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.20 for fatal and 1.32 for nonfatal first CVD events in patients with gout. The CVD risk score used in the analysis accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, level of social deprivation, diabetes status, previous hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, and baseline dispensing of blood pressure–lowering, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications.

“To allow for any other differences between the gout and nongout cohorts with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, and social deprivation, we further adjusted for these factors again, even though they had been accounted for within our CVD risk score,” he said, noting that “gout continued to demonstrate an increased adjusted hazard ratio” for fatal and nonfatal events after that adjustment (HRs, 1.40 and 1.35, respectively)

Additional analysis in the gout patients showed that CVD risk was similarly increased both in those who had been dispensed allopurinol at least once in the prior 5 years and those who had not (adjusted HRs for fatal events, 1.41 and 1.33; and for nonfatal, first CVD events, 1.34 and 1.38, respectively), and “there was no significant difference between these two groups, compared to people without gout,” he said.

Adjustment for serum urate levels in gout patients also showed similarly increased risk for fatal and nonfatal events for those with levels less than 6 mg/dL and those with levels of 6 mg/dL or greater (adjusted HRs of 1.32 and 1.42 for fatal events, and 1.27 and 1.43 for nonfatal first CVD events, respectively).

Again, no significant difference was seen in the risk of events between these two groups and those without gout, Dr. Cai said, noting that patients with no serum urate monitoring also had an increased risk of events (adjusted HR of 1.41 for fatal events and 1.29 for nonfatal, first CVD events).

Gout and hyperuricemia have previously been reported to be independent risk factors for CVD and CVD events, and urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol have been thought to potentially be associated with reduced risk of CVD, he said, noting that the relationships are of particular concern in New Zealand, where gout affects more than 4% of the adult population.

“Maori, who are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and Pasifika people are disproportionately affected by gout; 8.5% of Maori, and 13.9% of Pasifika adults have gout,” he said, adding that an estimated one-third of Maori and Pasifika adults over age 65 years have gout.

To further assess the relationships between gout and CVD risk, he and his colleagues used validated population-level risk-prediction equations and linked National Health Identifier (NHI) data, he said.

National registries of medicines dispensing data, hospitalization, and death were linked to the Auckland/Northland regional repository of laboratory results from Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2016.

“We included all New Zealand residents aged 20 years or older who were in contact with publicly funded services in 2011 and were alive at the end of December, 2011,” he said, adding that those with a previous hospitalization for CVD or heart failure prior to the end of December 2011 were excluded, as were those with primary residence outside of the region for the prior 3 years and those missing predictor variable data.

Although the findings are limited by an inability to adjust for smoking status, body mass index, and blood pressure – as such data are not collected at the national level, and by the population-based nature of the study, which does not allow determination about causation, they nevertheless reinforce the association between gout and an increased estimated risk of CVD events, Dr. Cai said.

“Even after adjustment for estimated 5-year CVD risk and the additional weighting of risk factors within it, gout independently increased the hazard ratio for fatal and nonfatal events,” he said. “In our study, this effect was not ameliorated by allopurinol use or serum urate lowering to treatment target.”

Similar studies are needed in other populations, he said.

Dr. Cai reported grant support from Arthritis Australia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2732.

ATLANTA – Gout is associated with an increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, according to a large population-based health data linkage study in New Zealand.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“Overall, the survival was quite good within both cohorts, but ... there is a clear and statistically significant difference in the survival between the people with gout and those without gout,” Ken Cai, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, noting that a similarly “significant and clear” difference was seen in nonfatal CVD events between the groups.

Of 968,387 individuals included in the analysis, 34,056 had gout, said Dr. Cai, a rheumatology clinical fellow at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). After adjusting for population-level estimated 5-year CVD risk for cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other vascular event, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.20 for fatal and 1.32 for nonfatal first CVD events in patients with gout. The CVD risk score used in the analysis accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, level of social deprivation, diabetes status, previous hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, and baseline dispensing of blood pressure–lowering, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications.

“To allow for any other differences between the gout and nongout cohorts with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, and social deprivation, we further adjusted for these factors again, even though they had been accounted for within our CVD risk score,” he said, noting that “gout continued to demonstrate an increased adjusted hazard ratio” for fatal and nonfatal events after that adjustment (HRs, 1.40 and 1.35, respectively)

Additional analysis in the gout patients showed that CVD risk was similarly increased both in those who had been dispensed allopurinol at least once in the prior 5 years and those who had not (adjusted HRs for fatal events, 1.41 and 1.33; and for nonfatal, first CVD events, 1.34 and 1.38, respectively), and “there was no significant difference between these two groups, compared to people without gout,” he said.

Adjustment for serum urate levels in gout patients also showed similarly increased risk for fatal and nonfatal events for those with levels less than 6 mg/dL and those with levels of 6 mg/dL or greater (adjusted HRs of 1.32 and 1.42 for fatal events, and 1.27 and 1.43 for nonfatal first CVD events, respectively).

Again, no significant difference was seen in the risk of events between these two groups and those without gout, Dr. Cai said, noting that patients with no serum urate monitoring also had an increased risk of events (adjusted HR of 1.41 for fatal events and 1.29 for nonfatal, first CVD events).

Gout and hyperuricemia have previously been reported to be independent risk factors for CVD and CVD events, and urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol have been thought to potentially be associated with reduced risk of CVD, he said, noting that the relationships are of particular concern in New Zealand, where gout affects more than 4% of the adult population.

“Maori, who are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and Pasifika people are disproportionately affected by gout; 8.5% of Maori, and 13.9% of Pasifika adults have gout,” he said, adding that an estimated one-third of Maori and Pasifika adults over age 65 years have gout.

To further assess the relationships between gout and CVD risk, he and his colleagues used validated population-level risk-prediction equations and linked National Health Identifier (NHI) data, he said.

National registries of medicines dispensing data, hospitalization, and death were linked to the Auckland/Northland regional repository of laboratory results from Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2016.

“We included all New Zealand residents aged 20 years or older who were in contact with publicly funded services in 2011 and were alive at the end of December, 2011,” he said, adding that those with a previous hospitalization for CVD or heart failure prior to the end of December 2011 were excluded, as were those with primary residence outside of the region for the prior 3 years and those missing predictor variable data.

Although the findings are limited by an inability to adjust for smoking status, body mass index, and blood pressure – as such data are not collected at the national level, and by the population-based nature of the study, which does not allow determination about causation, they nevertheless reinforce the association between gout and an increased estimated risk of CVD events, Dr. Cai said.

“Even after adjustment for estimated 5-year CVD risk and the additional weighting of risk factors within it, gout independently increased the hazard ratio for fatal and nonfatal events,” he said. “In our study, this effect was not ameliorated by allopurinol use or serum urate lowering to treatment target.”

Similar studies are needed in other populations, he said.

Dr. Cai reported grant support from Arthritis Australia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2732.

LAS VEGAS – Management of difficult-to-treat gout calls for a familiar therapeutic goal: lowering the serum urate level to less than 6 mg/dL. Underused treatment approaches, such as escalating the dose of allopurinol or adding probenecid, can help almost all patients reach this target, said Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatic and immunologic disease at the Cleveland Clinic.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“The major reason for treatment resistance has nothing to do with the drugs not working,” Dr. Mandell said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “And it does not even have to do ... with patient compliance. It is actually due to us and lack of appropriate monitoring and dosing of the medicines. We do not push the dose up.”

The urate saturation point in physiologic fluids with protein is about 6.8 mg/dL. Physicians and investigators have used 6 mg/dL as a target serum urate level in patients with gout for decades. “The bottom line is lowering the serum urate for 12 months reduces gout flares. There is absolutely no reason to question the physicochemical effect of lowering serum urate and dissolving the deposits and ultimately reducing attacks,” Dr. Mandell said. Urate lowering therapy takes time to reduce flare frequency and tophi, however. “It does not happen in 6 months in everyone,” he said.
 

Addressing intolerance and undertreatment

Clinicians may encounter various challenges when managing patients with gout. In cases of resistant gout, the target serum urate level may not be reached easily. At first, gout attacks and tophi may persist after levels decrease to less than 6 mg/dL. Complicated gout may occur when comorbidities limit treatment options or when tophi cause dramatic mechanical dysfunction.

“There is one way to manage all of these [scenarios], and that is to lower the serum urate,” Dr. Mandell said. “That is the management approach for chronic gout.”

Because this approach does not produce quick results, patients with limited life expectancy may not be appropriate candidates, although they still may benefit from prophylaxis against gout attacks, treatment of attacks, and surgery, he said.

Intolerance to a xanthine oxidase inhibitor is one potential treatment obstacle. If allopurinol causes gastrointestinal adverse effects or hypersensitivity reactions, switching to febuxostat (Uloric) may overcome this problem. Desensitizing patients with a mild allergy to allopurinol is another possible tactic. In addition, treating patients with a uricosuric such as probenecid as monotherapy or in combination with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor may help, Dr. Mandell said.

Increasing the dose of the xanthine oxidase inhibitor beyond the maximal dose listed by the Food and Drug Administration – 800 mg for allopurinol or 80 mg for febuxostat – is an option, Dr. Mandell said. In Europe, the maximal dose for allopurinol is 900 mg, and physicians have clinical experience pushing the dose of allopurinol to greater than 1,000 mg in rare instances, he noted. “There is not a dose-limiting toxicity to allopurinol,” he said. There is a bioavailability issue, however, and splitting the dose at doses greater than 300 mg probably is warranted, he added.

If these approaches fail to lower the serum urate level to below 6 mg/dL, rigid dietary changes may be a next step. Adjusting other medications also may be an option. For example, physicians might weigh using losartan as a blood pressure medicine instead of a thiazide.

Finally, physicians can debulk urate deposits with pegloticase. “Dramatically lower the body load of serum urate, and then come back and use your traditional drugs,” he said. After treatment with enzyme replacement therapy, patients almost invariably require lower doses of allopurinol or febuxostat, he said.

Also, in severe cases when the time necessary for traditional urate-lowering therapy to work may not make it the most appropriate route, aggressive therapy with pegloticase may be warranted, Dr. Mandell said.
 

The FAST trial

The ongoing Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) has provided data about undertreatment with allopurinol and the effects of increasing the dose. The prospective, randomized, open-label study is comparing the cardiovascular safety of allopurinol and febuxostat in patients with symptomatic hyperuricemia. It enrolled patients who were on allopurinol in normal clinical practice. To enter, patients had to have a serum urate level below 6 mg/dL. If patients’ levels were not below 6 mg/dL, investigators increased the dose of allopurinol to try to reach that target (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014 Aug;44[1]:25-30).

“Basically, this part of the study is a dose-escalation trial for efficacy,” Dr. Mandell said. “Of 400 patients taking allopurinol, 36% still had a urate above 6 [mg/dL]. ... If you uptitrated the dose, 97% of people were able to get to 6. Uptitration works. You just actually need to do it.” The results indicate that a 100-mg increase in allopurinol dose decreases serum urate by about 1 mg/dL.
 

Allopurinol hypersensitivity and chronic kidney disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease may have increased risk of allopurinol hypersensitivity. For a while, researchers postulated that oxypurinol, the active component of allopurinol, built up and caused toxicity in some patients with chronic kidney disease. As a result, researchers suggested adjusting the dose for patients with chronic kidney disease.

One problem with this approach is that only about 20% of patients with chronic kidney disease would reach the treatment target with the suggested doses, Dr. Mandell said. “You are exposing them to some potential risk with a very low chance of actually getting any efficacy at all,” he said.

Furthermore, allopurinol hypersensitivity behaves like an allergic reaction, not a toxicity reaction. Small studies suggest that starting allopurinol at a low dose and slowly increasing the dose may be safe in patients with chronic kidney disease. Allopurinol is not nephrotoxic, and some data indicate that it may be nephroprotective, he said.

Dr. Mandell reported that in recent years he was a clinical investigator and consultant for Horizon and a consultant for Takeda and Ardea/AstraZeneca/Ironwood.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Management of difficult-to-treat gout calls for a familiar therapeutic goal: lowering the serum urate level to less than 6 mg/dL. Underused treatment approaches, such as escalating the dose of allopurinol or adding probenecid, can help almost all patients reach this target, said Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatic and immunologic disease at the Cleveland Clinic.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“The major reason for treatment resistance has nothing to do with the drugs not working,” Dr. Mandell said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “And it does not even have to do ... with patient compliance. It is actually due to us and lack of appropriate monitoring and dosing of the medicines. We do not push the dose up.”

The urate saturation point in physiologic fluids with protein is about 6.8 mg/dL. Physicians and investigators have used 6 mg/dL as a target serum urate level in patients with gout for decades. “The bottom line is lowering the serum urate for 12 months reduces gout flares. There is absolutely no reason to question the physicochemical effect of lowering serum urate and dissolving the deposits and ultimately reducing attacks,” Dr. Mandell said. Urate lowering therapy takes time to reduce flare frequency and tophi, however. “It does not happen in 6 months in everyone,” he said.
 

Addressing intolerance and undertreatment

Clinicians may encounter various challenges when managing patients with gout. In cases of resistant gout, the target serum urate level may not be reached easily. At first, gout attacks and tophi may persist after levels decrease to less than 6 mg/dL. Complicated gout may occur when comorbidities limit treatment options or when tophi cause dramatic mechanical dysfunction.

“There is one way to manage all of these [scenarios], and that is to lower the serum urate,” Dr. Mandell said. “That is the management approach for chronic gout.”

Because this approach does not produce quick results, patients with limited life expectancy may not be appropriate candidates, although they still may benefit from prophylaxis against gout attacks, treatment of attacks, and surgery, he said.

Intolerance to a xanthine oxidase inhibitor is one potential treatment obstacle. If allopurinol causes gastrointestinal adverse effects or hypersensitivity reactions, switching to febuxostat (Uloric) may overcome this problem. Desensitizing patients with a mild allergy to allopurinol is another possible tactic. In addition, treating patients with a uricosuric such as probenecid as monotherapy or in combination with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor may help, Dr. Mandell said.

Increasing the dose of the xanthine oxidase inhibitor beyond the maximal dose listed by the Food and Drug Administration – 800 mg for allopurinol or 80 mg for febuxostat – is an option, Dr. Mandell said. In Europe, the maximal dose for allopurinol is 900 mg, and physicians have clinical experience pushing the dose of allopurinol to greater than 1,000 mg in rare instances, he noted. “There is not a dose-limiting toxicity to allopurinol,” he said. There is a bioavailability issue, however, and splitting the dose at doses greater than 300 mg probably is warranted, he added.

If these approaches fail to lower the serum urate level to below 6 mg/dL, rigid dietary changes may be a next step. Adjusting other medications also may be an option. For example, physicians might weigh using losartan as a blood pressure medicine instead of a thiazide.

Finally, physicians can debulk urate deposits with pegloticase. “Dramatically lower the body load of serum urate, and then come back and use your traditional drugs,” he said. After treatment with enzyme replacement therapy, patients almost invariably require lower doses of allopurinol or febuxostat, he said.

Also, in severe cases when the time necessary for traditional urate-lowering therapy to work may not make it the most appropriate route, aggressive therapy with pegloticase may be warranted, Dr. Mandell said.
 

The FAST trial

The ongoing Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) has provided data about undertreatment with allopurinol and the effects of increasing the dose. The prospective, randomized, open-label study is comparing the cardiovascular safety of allopurinol and febuxostat in patients with symptomatic hyperuricemia. It enrolled patients who were on allopurinol in normal clinical practice. To enter, patients had to have a serum urate level below 6 mg/dL. If patients’ levels were not below 6 mg/dL, investigators increased the dose of allopurinol to try to reach that target (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014 Aug;44[1]:25-30).

“Basically, this part of the study is a dose-escalation trial for efficacy,” Dr. Mandell said. “Of 400 patients taking allopurinol, 36% still had a urate above 6 [mg/dL]. ... If you uptitrated the dose, 97% of people were able to get to 6. Uptitration works. You just actually need to do it.” The results indicate that a 100-mg increase in allopurinol dose decreases serum urate by about 1 mg/dL.
 

Allopurinol hypersensitivity and chronic kidney disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease may have increased risk of allopurinol hypersensitivity. For a while, researchers postulated that oxypurinol, the active component of allopurinol, built up and caused toxicity in some patients with chronic kidney disease. As a result, researchers suggested adjusting the dose for patients with chronic kidney disease.

One problem with this approach is that only about 20% of patients with chronic kidney disease would reach the treatment target with the suggested doses, Dr. Mandell said. “You are exposing them to some potential risk with a very low chance of actually getting any efficacy at all,” he said.

Furthermore, allopurinol hypersensitivity behaves like an allergic reaction, not a toxicity reaction. Small studies suggest that starting allopurinol at a low dose and slowly increasing the dose may be safe in patients with chronic kidney disease. Allopurinol is not nephrotoxic, and some data indicate that it may be nephroprotective, he said.

Dr. Mandell reported that in recent years he was a clinical investigator and consultant for Horizon and a consultant for Takeda and Ardea/AstraZeneca/Ironwood.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Management of difficult-to-treat gout calls for a familiar therapeutic goal: lowering the serum urate level to less than 6 mg/dL. Underused treatment approaches, such as escalating the dose of allopurinol or adding probenecid, can help almost all patients reach this target, said Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatic and immunologic disease at the Cleveland Clinic.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“The major reason for treatment resistance has nothing to do with the drugs not working,” Dr. Mandell said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “And it does not even have to do ... with patient compliance. It is actually due to us and lack of appropriate monitoring and dosing of the medicines. We do not push the dose up.”

The urate saturation point in physiologic fluids with protein is about 6.8 mg/dL. Physicians and investigators have used 6 mg/dL as a target serum urate level in patients with gout for decades. “The bottom line is lowering the serum urate for 12 months reduces gout flares. There is absolutely no reason to question the physicochemical effect of lowering serum urate and dissolving the deposits and ultimately reducing attacks,” Dr. Mandell said. Urate lowering therapy takes time to reduce flare frequency and tophi, however. “It does not happen in 6 months in everyone,” he said.
 

Addressing intolerance and undertreatment

Clinicians may encounter various challenges when managing patients with gout. In cases of resistant gout, the target serum urate level may not be reached easily. At first, gout attacks and tophi may persist after levels decrease to less than 6 mg/dL. Complicated gout may occur when comorbidities limit treatment options or when tophi cause dramatic mechanical dysfunction.

“There is one way to manage all of these [scenarios], and that is to lower the serum urate,” Dr. Mandell said. “That is the management approach for chronic gout.”

Because this approach does not produce quick results, patients with limited life expectancy may not be appropriate candidates, although they still may benefit from prophylaxis against gout attacks, treatment of attacks, and surgery, he said.

Intolerance to a xanthine oxidase inhibitor is one potential treatment obstacle. If allopurinol causes gastrointestinal adverse effects or hypersensitivity reactions, switching to febuxostat (Uloric) may overcome this problem. Desensitizing patients with a mild allergy to allopurinol is another possible tactic. In addition, treating patients with a uricosuric such as probenecid as monotherapy or in combination with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor may help, Dr. Mandell said.

Increasing the dose of the xanthine oxidase inhibitor beyond the maximal dose listed by the Food and Drug Administration – 800 mg for allopurinol or 80 mg for febuxostat – is an option, Dr. Mandell said. In Europe, the maximal dose for allopurinol is 900 mg, and physicians have clinical experience pushing the dose of allopurinol to greater than 1,000 mg in rare instances, he noted. “There is not a dose-limiting toxicity to allopurinol,” he said. There is a bioavailability issue, however, and splitting the dose at doses greater than 300 mg probably is warranted, he added.

If these approaches fail to lower the serum urate level to below 6 mg/dL, rigid dietary changes may be a next step. Adjusting other medications also may be an option. For example, physicians might weigh using losartan as a blood pressure medicine instead of a thiazide.

Finally, physicians can debulk urate deposits with pegloticase. “Dramatically lower the body load of serum urate, and then come back and use your traditional drugs,” he said. After treatment with enzyme replacement therapy, patients almost invariably require lower doses of allopurinol or febuxostat, he said.

Also, in severe cases when the time necessary for traditional urate-lowering therapy to work may not make it the most appropriate route, aggressive therapy with pegloticase may be warranted, Dr. Mandell said.
 

The FAST trial

The ongoing Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) has provided data about undertreatment with allopurinol and the effects of increasing the dose. The prospective, randomized, open-label study is comparing the cardiovascular safety of allopurinol and febuxostat in patients with symptomatic hyperuricemia. It enrolled patients who were on allopurinol in normal clinical practice. To enter, patients had to have a serum urate level below 6 mg/dL. If patients’ levels were not below 6 mg/dL, investigators increased the dose of allopurinol to try to reach that target (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014 Aug;44[1]:25-30).

“Basically, this part of the study is a dose-escalation trial for efficacy,” Dr. Mandell said. “Of 400 patients taking allopurinol, 36% still had a urate above 6 [mg/dL]. ... If you uptitrated the dose, 97% of people were able to get to 6. Uptitration works. You just actually need to do it.” The results indicate that a 100-mg increase in allopurinol dose decreases serum urate by about 1 mg/dL.
 

Allopurinol hypersensitivity and chronic kidney disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease may have increased risk of allopurinol hypersensitivity. For a while, researchers postulated that oxypurinol, the active component of allopurinol, built up and caused toxicity in some patients with chronic kidney disease. As a result, researchers suggested adjusting the dose for patients with chronic kidney disease.

One problem with this approach is that only about 20% of patients with chronic kidney disease would reach the treatment target with the suggested doses, Dr. Mandell said. “You are exposing them to some potential risk with a very low chance of actually getting any efficacy at all,” he said.

Furthermore, allopurinol hypersensitivity behaves like an allergic reaction, not a toxicity reaction. Small studies suggest that starting allopurinol at a low dose and slowly increasing the dose may be safe in patients with chronic kidney disease. Allopurinol is not nephrotoxic, and some data indicate that it may be nephroprotective, he said.

Dr. Mandell reported that in recent years he was a clinical investigator and consultant for Horizon and a consultant for Takeda and Ardea/AstraZeneca/Ironwood.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

[email protected]

Researchers have found that patients with heart disease have an increased risk of hospitalization for severe cutaneous adverse reactions to allopurinol, with factors like chronic kidney disease and high initial dosage adding to that risk.

“Physicians who prescribe allopurinol should look for these risk factors so that they may consider initiating lower-dosage allopurinol and other precautions, which may prevent this rare but serious adverse reaction,” Chio Yokose, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and coauthors wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

To further investigate known associations between heart disease and severe cutaneous adverse reactions to allopurinol – including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis – the researchers used an administrative database known as Population Data BC to conduct a cohort study of allopurinol initiators in British Columbia between 1997 and 2015. Individuals with a history of severe cutaneous adverse reactions before starting allopurinol were excluded.

Of the 130,325 allopurinol users identified, 109 were hospitalized for allopurinol-associated severe cutaneous adverse reactions within 3 months of starting the drug. One in 655 allopurinol users with heart disease were admitted to the hospital for allopurinol-associated severe cutaneous adverse reaction (risk ratio = 1.53 per 1,000; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.06), compared with 1 in 1,548 allopurinol users without heart disease (risk ratio = 0.65 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82).

After multivariable analysis, other significant associations with hospital admission included chronic kidney disease (relative risk, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17-3.02) and an initial allopurinol dosage greater than 100 mg/day (RR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.75-4.43). In addition, patients with heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and an initial dosage greater than 100 mg/day had an 11-fold higher risk of hospital admission (RR, 11.13; 95% CI, 4.66-26.58).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including potential misclassification of reactions and comorbidities that can stem from a reliance on ICD codes. However, they also noted that “any misclassification is expected to be nondifferential” and bias results toward the null accordingly.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. One author reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health and research support from AstraZeneca, along with consulting fees from Takeda, Selecta Biosciences, and Horizon. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Yokose C et al. CMAJ. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190339.

Researchers have found that patients with heart disease have an increased risk of hospitalization for severe cutaneous adverse reactions to allopurinol, with factors like chronic kidney disease and high initial dosage adding to that risk.

“Physicians who prescribe allopurinol should look for these risk factors so that they may consider initiating lower-dosage allopurinol and other precautions, which may prevent this rare but serious adverse reaction,” Chio Yokose, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and coauthors wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

To further investigate known associations between heart disease and severe cutaneous adverse reactions to allopurinol – including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis – the researchers used an administrative database known as Population Data BC to conduct a cohort study of allopurinol initiators in British Columbia between 1997 and 2015. Individuals with a history of severe cutaneous adverse reactions before starting allopurinol were excluded.

Of the 130,325 allopurinol users identified, 109 were hospitalized for allopurinol-associated severe cutaneous adverse reactions within 3 months of starting the drug. One in 655 allopurinol users with heart disease were admitted to the hospital for allopurinol-associated severe cutaneous adverse reaction (risk ratio = 1.53 per 1,000; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.06), compared with 1 in 1,548 allopurinol users without heart disease (risk ratio = 0.65 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82).

After multivariable analysis, other significant associations with hospital admission included chronic kidney disease (relative risk, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17-3.02) and an initial allopurinol dosage greater than 100 mg/day (RR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.75-4.43). In addition, patients with heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and an initial dosage greater than 100 mg/day had an 11-fold higher risk of hospital admission (RR, 11.13; 95% CI, 4.66-26.58).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including potential misclassification of reactions and comorbidities that can stem from a reliance on ICD codes. However, they also noted that “any misclassification is expected to be nondifferential” and bias results toward the null accordingly.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. One author reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health and research support from AstraZeneca, along with consulting fees from Takeda, Selecta Biosciences, and Horizon. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Yokose C et al. CMAJ. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190339.

Researchers have found that patients with heart disease have an increased risk of hospitalization for severe cutaneous adverse reactions to allopurinol, with factors like chronic kidney disease and high initial dosage adding to that risk.

“Physicians who prescribe allopurinol should look for these risk factors so that they may consider initiating lower-dosage allopurinol and other precautions, which may prevent this rare but serious adverse reaction,” Chio Yokose, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and coauthors wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

To further investigate known associations between heart disease and severe cutaneous adverse reactions to allopurinol – including Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis – the researchers used an administrative database known as Population Data BC to conduct a cohort study of allopurinol initiators in British Columbia between 1997 and 2015. Individuals with a history of severe cutaneous adverse reactions before starting allopurinol were excluded.

Of the 130,325 allopurinol users identified, 109 were hospitalized for allopurinol-associated severe cutaneous adverse reactions within 3 months of starting the drug. One in 655 allopurinol users with heart disease were admitted to the hospital for allopurinol-associated severe cutaneous adverse reaction (risk ratio = 1.53 per 1,000; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.06), compared with 1 in 1,548 allopurinol users without heart disease (risk ratio = 0.65 per 1,000; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82).

After multivariable analysis, other significant associations with hospital admission included chronic kidney disease (relative risk, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17-3.02) and an initial allopurinol dosage greater than 100 mg/day (RR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.75-4.43). In addition, patients with heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and an initial dosage greater than 100 mg/day had an 11-fold higher risk of hospital admission (RR, 11.13; 95% CI, 4.66-26.58).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including potential misclassification of reactions and comorbidities that can stem from a reliance on ICD codes. However, they also noted that “any misclassification is expected to be nondifferential” and bias results toward the null accordingly.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. One author reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health and research support from AstraZeneca, along with consulting fees from Takeda, Selecta Biosciences, and Horizon. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Yokose C et al. CMAJ. 2019 Sep 30. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.190339.