Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).

Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.

Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
 

Practice already shifting to rituximab

“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.

“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.

Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.

Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.

“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”

Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?

There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.

“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”

Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
 

Data collections and secondary endpoint results

The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.

Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.

A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).

The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).

Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).

In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.

Take-home messages

While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.

There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.

What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”

The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.

More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).

Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.

Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
 

Practice already shifting to rituximab

“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.

“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.

Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.

Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.

“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”

Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?

There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.

“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”

Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
 

Data collections and secondary endpoint results

The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.

Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.

A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).

The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).

Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).

In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.

Take-home messages

While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.

There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.

What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”

The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.

More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).

Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.

Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
 

Practice already shifting to rituximab

“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.

“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.

Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.

Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.

“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”

Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?

There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.

“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”

Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
 

Data collections and secondary endpoint results

The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.

Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.

A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).

The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).

Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).

In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.

Take-home messages

While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.

There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.

What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”

The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – A draft update of criteria for classifying antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) incorporates a much broader spectrum of disease signs and symptoms, such as kidney disease and more variables for pregnancy, and meets a higher level of specificity than the existing Sapporo criteria, although at the expense of lower sensitivity.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Three members of the core planning group that wrote the update, jointly commissioned by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR), reviewed the proposed criteria at the annual meeting of the ACR.

If ACR and EULAR adopt the new criteria, it would be an update to the Sapporo classification criteria for APS, which was last updated in 2006. The pending criteria consist of the following eight domains encompassing clinical findings and laboratory test results:

• Macrovascular – venous thromboembolism (VTE) with and without high VTE risk profile.
• Macrovascular – arterial thrombosis with and without a high cardiovascular disease risk profile.
• Microvascular – additional categories for kidney disease, pulmonary embolism, and other conditions for both suspected and established APS.
• Obstetric – expanded definitions to account for the absence or presence of preeclampsia or premature birth with or without fetal death.
• Cardiac valve – accounts for thickening and vegetation.
• Hematologic – includes thrombocytopenia (defined as the lowest platelet count, 20-130 x 10⁹/L).
• Antiphospholipid (aPL) test – coagulation-based functional assay, assigning greater weight to persistent over one-time positive test results.
• aPL test by solid-phase assay – includes anticardiolipin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (aCL ELISA), and aCL/anti-beta 2 glycoprotein-I (aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI) tests, with greater weight assigned for moderate-to-high positive results depending on isotype, whether immunoglobulin G or M.

Changes from Sapporo criteria

The existing Sapporo criteria include two clinical categories, vascular thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity; and three laboratory categories, positive lupus anticoagulant, medium or high antibody titers, and high aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI measured by ELISA. All of these are included in the draft criteria under two domains.

“These novel clinical features will help us better stratify patients according to the risk factor profile,” Stéphane Zuily, MD, PhD, a vascular specialist and European co-principal investigator of the planning group, said in explaining the proposed updated domains.

“We well-defined the microvascular domain items further than the aPL nephropathy; we redefined pregnancy morbidities; we added cardiac valve disease and thrombocytopenia; and, through gathering novel laboratory features, we were able to quantify single, double, and triple aPL positivity based on different domains and weights,” said Dr. Zuily, professor of medicine at Lorraine University in Nancy, France.

Also noteworthy is the separation of aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI testing by IgG and IgM isotypes. “And we were also able to identify different thresholds in terms of aPL positivity,” Dr. Zuily said.
 

Rationale and methodology

Planning group member Medha Barbhaiya, MD, MPH, an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, explained the rationale for the update. “The existing criteria were drafted in 1999 and updated in 2006 and require one clinical criterion, either vascular thrombosis event or pregnancy morbidity along with antiphospholipid antibodies,” she said.

Those 16-year-old criteria also ignored heterogeneous manifestations such as heart valve disease or thrombocytopenia, failed to stratify thrombotic events as risk factors, and used an outdated definition of pregnancy morbidity related to APS, she said.

“These findings helped to support our rationale for new criteria development, along with the fact that over the last 1 to 2 decades there have been important advancements in the methodology of classification criteria development,” she said. ACR and EULAR both endorsed the new methodology for developing the classification criteria, Dr. Barbhaiya added.

That methodology involved multidisciplinary international panels of experts and data-driven efforts, with the goal of identifying patients with a high likelihood of APS for research purposes. The planning group collected 568 cases from 29 international centers, dividing them into two validation cohorts of 284 cases each.
 

How classification criteria work

Doruk Erkan, MD, MPH, coprincipal investigator representing the United States on the planning group, an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and a professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, explained how the classification system works. “If you have a patient that you are considering for APS classification, the story starts with entry criteria, which are one documented clinical criterion plus a positive aPL [antiphospholipid] test within 3 years of observation of the clinical criteria,” he said.

Once the entry criteria for APS are met, there are the clinical and laboratory domains. Dr. Erkan explained that weighted point values are assigned to individual categories under each domain. For example, in the macrovascular VTE domain, VTE with a high VTE risk profile is worth 1 point, but VTE without a high VTE risk profile is worth 3 points.

“APS classification will be achieved with at least three points from clinical domains and at least three points from the laboratory domains,” he said.

The planning group conducted a sensitivity and specificity analysis of the draft classification system using the two validation cohorts. “Our goal was very high specificity to improve the homogeneity in APS research, and we achieved this in both cohorts with 99% specificity,” Dr. Erkan said. That compares to sensitivity of 91% and 86% of the Sapporo criteria in the validation cohorts.

“Our sensitivity was 83% and 84% capturing a broad spectrum of patients assessed with APS suspicion,” he added, vs. 100% and 99% with the Sapporo criteria.

These criteria are not absolute and are structured to permit future modifications, Dr. Erkan said. “When this work is completed, another chapter will start,” he said. “If a case doesn’t meet APS classification criteria, the case may still be uncertain or equivocal rather than not APS. Uncertain or controversial cases should be studied separately to guide future updates of the new criteria.”
 

Comment: Why these updates are needed

April Jorge, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and moderator of the session on the draft APS criteria, explained why these updated criteria are needed. “It’s very important to get the updated criteria because, as the speakers mentioned, the prior Sapporo criteria were limited to just large-vessel venous thrombosis or pregnancy complications, and so that makes it difficult to study the disease in other manifestations, such as kidney manifestations, if they’re not part of the criteria.”

She added, “I think there was a need for clear classification criteria that was thought to be highly specific for the disease so that future studies can be done in this population.”

Dr. Jorge called the 99% specificity described in the analysis “impressive” and “promising.”

Dr. Barbhaiya and Dr. Zuily have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Erkan disclosed relationships with Aurinia, Eli Lilly, Exagen, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Jorge has no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – A draft update of criteria for classifying antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) incorporates a much broader spectrum of disease signs and symptoms, such as kidney disease and more variables for pregnancy, and meets a higher level of specificity than the existing Sapporo criteria, although at the expense of lower sensitivity.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Three members of the core planning group that wrote the update, jointly commissioned by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR), reviewed the proposed criteria at the annual meeting of the ACR.

If ACR and EULAR adopt the new criteria, it would be an update to the Sapporo classification criteria for APS, which was last updated in 2006. The pending criteria consist of the following eight domains encompassing clinical findings and laboratory test results:

• Macrovascular – venous thromboembolism (VTE) with and without high VTE risk profile.
• Macrovascular – arterial thrombosis with and without a high cardiovascular disease risk profile.
• Microvascular – additional categories for kidney disease, pulmonary embolism, and other conditions for both suspected and established APS.
• Obstetric – expanded definitions to account for the absence or presence of preeclampsia or premature birth with or without fetal death.
• Cardiac valve – accounts for thickening and vegetation.
• Hematologic – includes thrombocytopenia (defined as the lowest platelet count, 20-130 x 10⁹/L).
• Antiphospholipid (aPL) test – coagulation-based functional assay, assigning greater weight to persistent over one-time positive test results.
• aPL test by solid-phase assay – includes anticardiolipin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (aCL ELISA), and aCL/anti-beta 2 glycoprotein-I (aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI) tests, with greater weight assigned for moderate-to-high positive results depending on isotype, whether immunoglobulin G or M.

Changes from Sapporo criteria

The existing Sapporo criteria include two clinical categories, vascular thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity; and three laboratory categories, positive lupus anticoagulant, medium or high antibody titers, and high aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI measured by ELISA. All of these are included in the draft criteria under two domains.

“These novel clinical features will help us better stratify patients according to the risk factor profile,” Stéphane Zuily, MD, PhD, a vascular specialist and European co-principal investigator of the planning group, said in explaining the proposed updated domains.

“We well-defined the microvascular domain items further than the aPL nephropathy; we redefined pregnancy morbidities; we added cardiac valve disease and thrombocytopenia; and, through gathering novel laboratory features, we were able to quantify single, double, and triple aPL positivity based on different domains and weights,” said Dr. Zuily, professor of medicine at Lorraine University in Nancy, France.

Also noteworthy is the separation of aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI testing by IgG and IgM isotypes. “And we were also able to identify different thresholds in terms of aPL positivity,” Dr. Zuily said.
 

Rationale and methodology

Planning group member Medha Barbhaiya, MD, MPH, an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, explained the rationale for the update. “The existing criteria were drafted in 1999 and updated in 2006 and require one clinical criterion, either vascular thrombosis event or pregnancy morbidity along with antiphospholipid antibodies,” she said.

Those 16-year-old criteria also ignored heterogeneous manifestations such as heart valve disease or thrombocytopenia, failed to stratify thrombotic events as risk factors, and used an outdated definition of pregnancy morbidity related to APS, she said.

“These findings helped to support our rationale for new criteria development, along with the fact that over the last 1 to 2 decades there have been important advancements in the methodology of classification criteria development,” she said. ACR and EULAR both endorsed the new methodology for developing the classification criteria, Dr. Barbhaiya added.

That methodology involved multidisciplinary international panels of experts and data-driven efforts, with the goal of identifying patients with a high likelihood of APS for research purposes. The planning group collected 568 cases from 29 international centers, dividing them into two validation cohorts of 284 cases each.
 

How classification criteria work

Doruk Erkan, MD, MPH, coprincipal investigator representing the United States on the planning group, an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and a professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, explained how the classification system works. “If you have a patient that you are considering for APS classification, the story starts with entry criteria, which are one documented clinical criterion plus a positive aPL [antiphospholipid] test within 3 years of observation of the clinical criteria,” he said.

Once the entry criteria for APS are met, there are the clinical and laboratory domains. Dr. Erkan explained that weighted point values are assigned to individual categories under each domain. For example, in the macrovascular VTE domain, VTE with a high VTE risk profile is worth 1 point, but VTE without a high VTE risk profile is worth 3 points.

“APS classification will be achieved with at least three points from clinical domains and at least three points from the laboratory domains,” he said.

The planning group conducted a sensitivity and specificity analysis of the draft classification system using the two validation cohorts. “Our goal was very high specificity to improve the homogeneity in APS research, and we achieved this in both cohorts with 99% specificity,” Dr. Erkan said. That compares to sensitivity of 91% and 86% of the Sapporo criteria in the validation cohorts.

“Our sensitivity was 83% and 84% capturing a broad spectrum of patients assessed with APS suspicion,” he added, vs. 100% and 99% with the Sapporo criteria.

These criteria are not absolute and are structured to permit future modifications, Dr. Erkan said. “When this work is completed, another chapter will start,” he said. “If a case doesn’t meet APS classification criteria, the case may still be uncertain or equivocal rather than not APS. Uncertain or controversial cases should be studied separately to guide future updates of the new criteria.”
 

Comment: Why these updates are needed

April Jorge, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and moderator of the session on the draft APS criteria, explained why these updated criteria are needed. “It’s very important to get the updated criteria because, as the speakers mentioned, the prior Sapporo criteria were limited to just large-vessel venous thrombosis or pregnancy complications, and so that makes it difficult to study the disease in other manifestations, such as kidney manifestations, if they’re not part of the criteria.”

She added, “I think there was a need for clear classification criteria that was thought to be highly specific for the disease so that future studies can be done in this population.”

Dr. Jorge called the 99% specificity described in the analysis “impressive” and “promising.”

Dr. Barbhaiya and Dr. Zuily have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Erkan disclosed relationships with Aurinia, Eli Lilly, Exagen, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Jorge has no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – A draft update of criteria for classifying antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) incorporates a much broader spectrum of disease signs and symptoms, such as kidney disease and more variables for pregnancy, and meets a higher level of specificity than the existing Sapporo criteria, although at the expense of lower sensitivity.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Three members of the core planning group that wrote the update, jointly commissioned by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR), reviewed the proposed criteria at the annual meeting of the ACR.

If ACR and EULAR adopt the new criteria, it would be an update to the Sapporo classification criteria for APS, which was last updated in 2006. The pending criteria consist of the following eight domains encompassing clinical findings and laboratory test results:

• Macrovascular – venous thromboembolism (VTE) with and without high VTE risk profile.
• Macrovascular – arterial thrombosis with and without a high cardiovascular disease risk profile.
• Microvascular – additional categories for kidney disease, pulmonary embolism, and other conditions for both suspected and established APS.
• Obstetric – expanded definitions to account for the absence or presence of preeclampsia or premature birth with or without fetal death.
• Cardiac valve – accounts for thickening and vegetation.
• Hematologic – includes thrombocytopenia (defined as the lowest platelet count, 20-130 x 10⁹/L).
• Antiphospholipid (aPL) test – coagulation-based functional assay, assigning greater weight to persistent over one-time positive test results.
• aPL test by solid-phase assay – includes anticardiolipin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (aCL ELISA), and aCL/anti-beta 2 glycoprotein-I (aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI) tests, with greater weight assigned for moderate-to-high positive results depending on isotype, whether immunoglobulin G or M.

Changes from Sapporo criteria

The existing Sapporo criteria include two clinical categories, vascular thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity; and three laboratory categories, positive lupus anticoagulant, medium or high antibody titers, and high aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI measured by ELISA. All of these are included in the draft criteria under two domains.

“These novel clinical features will help us better stratify patients according to the risk factor profile,” Stéphane Zuily, MD, PhD, a vascular specialist and European co-principal investigator of the planning group, said in explaining the proposed updated domains.

“We well-defined the microvascular domain items further than the aPL nephropathy; we redefined pregnancy morbidities; we added cardiac valve disease and thrombocytopenia; and, through gathering novel laboratory features, we were able to quantify single, double, and triple aPL positivity based on different domains and weights,” said Dr. Zuily, professor of medicine at Lorraine University in Nancy, France.

Also noteworthy is the separation of aCL/anti-beta 2 GPI testing by IgG and IgM isotypes. “And we were also able to identify different thresholds in terms of aPL positivity,” Dr. Zuily said.
 

Rationale and methodology

Planning group member Medha Barbhaiya, MD, MPH, an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, explained the rationale for the update. “The existing criteria were drafted in 1999 and updated in 2006 and require one clinical criterion, either vascular thrombosis event or pregnancy morbidity along with antiphospholipid antibodies,” she said.

Those 16-year-old criteria also ignored heterogeneous manifestations such as heart valve disease or thrombocytopenia, failed to stratify thrombotic events as risk factors, and used an outdated definition of pregnancy morbidity related to APS, she said.

“These findings helped to support our rationale for new criteria development, along with the fact that over the last 1 to 2 decades there have been important advancements in the methodology of classification criteria development,” she said. ACR and EULAR both endorsed the new methodology for developing the classification criteria, Dr. Barbhaiya added.

That methodology involved multidisciplinary international panels of experts and data-driven efforts, with the goal of identifying patients with a high likelihood of APS for research purposes. The planning group collected 568 cases from 29 international centers, dividing them into two validation cohorts of 284 cases each.
 

How classification criteria work

Doruk Erkan, MD, MPH, coprincipal investigator representing the United States on the planning group, an attending physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and a professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, explained how the classification system works. “If you have a patient that you are considering for APS classification, the story starts with entry criteria, which are one documented clinical criterion plus a positive aPL [antiphospholipid] test within 3 years of observation of the clinical criteria,” he said.

Once the entry criteria for APS are met, there are the clinical and laboratory domains. Dr. Erkan explained that weighted point values are assigned to individual categories under each domain. For example, in the macrovascular VTE domain, VTE with a high VTE risk profile is worth 1 point, but VTE without a high VTE risk profile is worth 3 points.

“APS classification will be achieved with at least three points from clinical domains and at least three points from the laboratory domains,” he said.

The planning group conducted a sensitivity and specificity analysis of the draft classification system using the two validation cohorts. “Our goal was very high specificity to improve the homogeneity in APS research, and we achieved this in both cohorts with 99% specificity,” Dr. Erkan said. That compares to sensitivity of 91% and 86% of the Sapporo criteria in the validation cohorts.

“Our sensitivity was 83% and 84% capturing a broad spectrum of patients assessed with APS suspicion,” he added, vs. 100% and 99% with the Sapporo criteria.

These criteria are not absolute and are structured to permit future modifications, Dr. Erkan said. “When this work is completed, another chapter will start,” he said. “If a case doesn’t meet APS classification criteria, the case may still be uncertain or equivocal rather than not APS. Uncertain or controversial cases should be studied separately to guide future updates of the new criteria.”
 

Comment: Why these updates are needed

April Jorge, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and moderator of the session on the draft APS criteria, explained why these updated criteria are needed. “It’s very important to get the updated criteria because, as the speakers mentioned, the prior Sapporo criteria were limited to just large-vessel venous thrombosis or pregnancy complications, and so that makes it difficult to study the disease in other manifestations, such as kidney manifestations, if they’re not part of the criteria.”

She added, “I think there was a need for clear classification criteria that was thought to be highly specific for the disease so that future studies can be done in this population.”

Dr. Jorge called the 99% specificity described in the analysis “impressive” and “promising.”

Dr. Barbhaiya and Dr. Zuily have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Erkan disclosed relationships with Aurinia, Eli Lilly, Exagen, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Jorge has no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

Boston dietitian Katarina Mollo, MEd, RDN, LDN, has virtually no memory of life without celiac disease (CD). Diagnosed at age 4, Dr. Mollo has been on a gluten-free diet for 41 years, which she says has kept her healthy and may also be why she hasn’t developed other autoimmune diseases. It’s also played a part in her thinking about screening patients with CD.

“I think [physicians] should definitely be screening people with celiac disease for autoimmune disorders, especially if they see things like anemia or if a child has dropped on the growth chart and has nutrient deficiencies,” said Dr. Mollo, whose daughter also has the disease. “I would recommend that they see someone who specializes in celiac disease so they can get monitored and have regular follow-up checks for nutrient deficiencies and other autoimmune disorders.”

Dr. Mollo’s views on screening are echoed by many CD specialists and physicians, who cite multiple studies that have found that people with the disease face higher risks for diabetes, thyroid conditions, arthritis, and other autoimmune disorders.

Gastroenterologist Alessio Fasano, MD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said there has been a “shift in the paradigm in thinking” about cross-screening for CD and autoimmune disorders. As result, he believes the answer to the question of whether to routinely do so is a no-brainer.

“The bottom line is, if you have CD, it [should be] routine that during your annual follow-ups you check for the possibility of the onset of other autoimmune disease. And people with other autoimmune diseases, like type 1 diabetes, should also be screened for CD because of the comorbidity,” said Dr. Fasano, professor of pediatrics and gastroenterology at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, both in Boston. “This is what we call good clinical practice.”
 

Screening, despite lack of consensus guidelines

Other CD specialists differ on the need for universal cross-screening but agree that, at least in some cases, people with one autoimmune disorder should be tested for others.

Jolanda Denham, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist affiliated with Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, routinely recommends that her patients with CD be screened for certain autoimmune disorders – such as type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid and liver diseases – even though medical organizations have not developed clear consensus or standard guidelines on cross-screening.

“There currently is no evidence to support the screening of celiac patients for all autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said. “It is true that celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder, and as such, there is a definite increased risk of these disorders in patients with celiac disease and vice versa.”

Echoing Dr. Denham, New York–based gastroenterologist Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, president of the Society for the Study of Celiac Disease, urges physicians to look beyond consensus guidelines and to err on the side of caution and make the best decisions for their patients on a case-by-case basis.

“Given the increased risk of certain autoimmune conditions in people with celiac disease, it behooves physicians to have a low threshold to evaluate for these conditions if any suggestive symptoms are present,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York.

“Whether to screen for these conditions among people who are entirely without symptoms is less certain, and there is no consensus on that. But it is reasonable and common to include some basic tests with annual blood work, such as thyroid function and a liver profile, since both autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease can be silent early on and the patient would potentially benefit from identification and treatment of these conditions,” he said.

The American Diabetes Association and the International Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes do recommend that people with diabetes be screened for CD years after diagnosis, noted Robert Rapaport, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist, with Kravis Children’s Hospital, New York. But in a study published in 2021, he and colleagues found that this wasn’t occurring, which prompted them to recommend yearly screening.

“There is a consensus that in children with type 1 diabetes, we screen them for other autoimmune disorders, specifically for thyroid disease and celiac disease,” said Dr. Rapaport, who is also Emma Elizabeth Sullivan Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “But there is no consensus going the other way – for patients with celiac disease, what other autoimmune conditions they should be screened for.”

This hasn’t kept some doctors from extending cross-screening efforts to their patients.

“At our center, we screen ... for thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as part of routine healthcare maintenance for our celiac disease patients. We discuss symptoms of diabetes and send screening with [hemoglobin] A1c for anyone who has symptoms,” said Lui Edwin, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, who delivered a lecture on CD-autoimmune screening at the International Celiac Disease Symposium in October.

“It is definitely worth screening for celiac disease in [those with] other autoimmune disorders,” Dr. Edwin added.

“The symptoms can be very heterogeneous. Diagnosing and treating celiac disease can make a huge impact with respect to symptoms, quality of life, and preventing disease-related complications,” he said.
 

Mounting evidence linking CD to autoimmune disorders

Many studies have linked CD to a variety of other autoimmune disorders. The association could be due to common genetic factors or because CD might lead to such conditions. Researchers have found that people diagnosed with CD later in life are more likely to develop other autoimmune disorders.

Going gluten free has preventive advantages

In a landmark 2012 study, researchers with the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University stopped short of recommending routine screening for the general public or asymptomatic individuals in high-prevalence groups. But they concluded that more screening of symptomatic individuals – and close relatives – would speed treatment for those with more than one autoimmune disorder.

They also noted that some studies have found that a gluten-free diet might help prevent the development of other autoimmune disorders.

Marisa Gallant Stahl, MD, a gastroenterologist with Children’s Hospital Colorado, agreed that it is important that physicians keep gluten-free diets in mind when determining which patients to cross-screen.

“The literature is mixed, but some studies suggest that treating celiac disease with a gluten-free diet actually augments the treatment and control of other autoimmune disorders [and] adherence to a gluten-free diet does reduce the risk of cancer associated with celiac disease,” she said.

Dr. Denham agreed. “Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet definitely protects against the development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma but may be protective against non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and adenocarcinoma of the small intestine as well. All three are associated with long-term nonadherence to a gluten-free diet.”

She also noted that a gluten-free diet may help people with CD manage other autoimmune disorders, which can be complicated by CD.

“Good control of celiac disease will help prevent complications that can worsen symptoms and outcomes of concomitant autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders,” she said.
 

Other factors to consider

Dr. Fasano added that autoimmune disorders can be complicated by CD in cases in which oral medications or healthful foods are not properly absorbed in the intestines.

“For example, with Hashimoto’s disease, if you have hormone replacement with oral treatments and your intestines are not 100% functional because you have inflammation, then you may have a problem [with] the absorption of medications like levothyroxine,” he said.

“It’s the same story with diabetes. You don’t take insulin by mouth, but glucose [control] strongly depends on several factors, mostly what comes from the diet, and if it’s erratic, that can be a problem. ... So, the treatment of autoimmune diseases can be influenced by celiac disease,” he said.

In addition, Dr. Fasano and others believe that people with CD and other autoimmune disorders should be managed by a team of experts who can personalize the care on the basis of specific needs of the individual patient. These should include specialists, dietitians, mental health counselors, and family social workers.

“It has to be a multidisciplinary approach to maintain the good health of an individual,” Dr. Fasano said. “Celiac disease is the quintessential example in which the primary care physician needs to be the quarterback of the team, the patient is active in his or her health, and [specialists] not only deliver personalized care but also preventive intervention, particularly the prevention of comorbidities.”

Financial disclosures for those quoted in this article were not available at the time of publication.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with lower doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had an increased risk for hospitalization for flares, according to study results presented during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Doses decreased with changing guidelines

Guidelines over the years have recommended decreasing doses of HCQ. In 2011, ophthalmology guidelines recommended limiting HCQ dosing to 6.5 mg/kg per day or less of ideal body weight to reduce the chance of retinopathy. For many patients, this required a dose lower than 400 mg/day, an amount frequently used to treat lupus.

In 2016, updated guidelines further lowered the dosage of HCQ, recommending 5 mg/kg or less of patient’s actual body weight.

The effects that lower dosing has had on SLE-associated hospitalizations was unknown, which inspired Dr. Nestor’s research.

The team conducted a case-crossover study within the Mass General Brigham SLE cohort.

Hospitalizations studied over a decade

Dr. Nestor and colleagues identified patients with SLE (via electronic health records) who had at least one visit for SLE and were prescribed HCQ between January 2011 and December 2021, the period over which the recommendations were made.

They identified patients who had been hospitalized during that decade with SLE as the primary discharge diagnosis.

Patients were excluded if they had non-SLE indications, such as kidney transplant or infection without a concomitant SLE flare.

Of 2,971 patients with SLE who used HCQ, 576 had at least one hospitalization with primary discharge diagnosis of SLE.

Of these, 108 were hospitalized for an SLE flare and had used HCQ prior to that hospitalization and had at least one control period with HCQ use during the study period.

All of the patients in the study had to have a case period and a control period, Dr. Nestor explained. The case period was 6 months on HCQ ending in hospitalization for lupus and the control period was 6 months on HCQ that did not end in hospitalization for lupus.
 

Significantly increased hospitalizations

Low-dose HCQ by weight-based dose (≤ 5 vs. > 5 mg/kg per day) and by non–weight-based dose (< 400 vs. 400 mg per day) were both associated with significantly increased hospitalizations for SLE (adjusted odds ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-12.98; and AOR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.33-9.13, respectively).

The average age of the hospitalized group was 36 years. Most patients (92%) were female, 43.5% were White, and 32.4% were Black.

In calling for reassessment of the dosing, Dr. Nestor said, “We are protecting our patients against a very long-term side effect of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. [It] typically takes 10-20 years to develop in our patients. But by doing that, we’re missing many of the short-term benefits from hydroxychloroquine in our patients, leading to more lupus flares, which leads to more end-organ damage.”

She said patients taking HCQ for lupus are asked to see an ophthalmologist once a year to monitor for the side effect, adding that rheumatologists and ophthalmologists could work together to adjust the guidelines.

Dr. Nestor suggested it’s possible that patients need higher doses of HCQ earlier in their disease and lower doses later. “Perhaps it’s just the patients who are particularly active who need the higher doses,” she said.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with lower doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had an increased risk for hospitalization for flares, according to study results presented during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Doses decreased with changing guidelines

Guidelines over the years have recommended decreasing doses of HCQ. In 2011, ophthalmology guidelines recommended limiting HCQ dosing to 6.5 mg/kg per day or less of ideal body weight to reduce the chance of retinopathy. For many patients, this required a dose lower than 400 mg/day, an amount frequently used to treat lupus.

In 2016, updated guidelines further lowered the dosage of HCQ, recommending 5 mg/kg or less of patient’s actual body weight.

The effects that lower dosing has had on SLE-associated hospitalizations was unknown, which inspired Dr. Nestor’s research.

The team conducted a case-crossover study within the Mass General Brigham SLE cohort.

Hospitalizations studied over a decade

Dr. Nestor and colleagues identified patients with SLE (via electronic health records) who had at least one visit for SLE and were prescribed HCQ between January 2011 and December 2021, the period over which the recommendations were made.

They identified patients who had been hospitalized during that decade with SLE as the primary discharge diagnosis.

Patients were excluded if they had non-SLE indications, such as kidney transplant or infection without a concomitant SLE flare.

Of 2,971 patients with SLE who used HCQ, 576 had at least one hospitalization with primary discharge diagnosis of SLE.

Of these, 108 were hospitalized for an SLE flare and had used HCQ prior to that hospitalization and had at least one control period with HCQ use during the study period.

All of the patients in the study had to have a case period and a control period, Dr. Nestor explained. The case period was 6 months on HCQ ending in hospitalization for lupus and the control period was 6 months on HCQ that did not end in hospitalization for lupus.
 

Significantly increased hospitalizations

Low-dose HCQ by weight-based dose (≤ 5 vs. > 5 mg/kg per day) and by non–weight-based dose (< 400 vs. 400 mg per day) were both associated with significantly increased hospitalizations for SLE (adjusted odds ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-12.98; and AOR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.33-9.13, respectively).

The average age of the hospitalized group was 36 years. Most patients (92%) were female, 43.5% were White, and 32.4% were Black.

In calling for reassessment of the dosing, Dr. Nestor said, “We are protecting our patients against a very long-term side effect of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. [It] typically takes 10-20 years to develop in our patients. But by doing that, we’re missing many of the short-term benefits from hydroxychloroquine in our patients, leading to more lupus flares, which leads to more end-organ damage.”

She said patients taking HCQ for lupus are asked to see an ophthalmologist once a year to monitor for the side effect, adding that rheumatologists and ophthalmologists could work together to adjust the guidelines.

Dr. Nestor suggested it’s possible that patients need higher doses of HCQ earlier in their disease and lower doses later. “Perhaps it’s just the patients who are particularly active who need the higher doses,” she said.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with lower doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had an increased risk for hospitalization for flares, according to study results presented during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Doses decreased with changing guidelines

Guidelines over the years have recommended decreasing doses of HCQ. In 2011, ophthalmology guidelines recommended limiting HCQ dosing to 6.5 mg/kg per day or less of ideal body weight to reduce the chance of retinopathy. For many patients, this required a dose lower than 400 mg/day, an amount frequently used to treat lupus.

In 2016, updated guidelines further lowered the dosage of HCQ, recommending 5 mg/kg or less of patient’s actual body weight.

The effects that lower dosing has had on SLE-associated hospitalizations was unknown, which inspired Dr. Nestor’s research.

The team conducted a case-crossover study within the Mass General Brigham SLE cohort.

Hospitalizations studied over a decade

Dr. Nestor and colleagues identified patients with SLE (via electronic health records) who had at least one visit for SLE and were prescribed HCQ between January 2011 and December 2021, the period over which the recommendations were made.

They identified patients who had been hospitalized during that decade with SLE as the primary discharge diagnosis.

Patients were excluded if they had non-SLE indications, such as kidney transplant or infection without a concomitant SLE flare.

Of 2,971 patients with SLE who used HCQ, 576 had at least one hospitalization with primary discharge diagnosis of SLE.

Of these, 108 were hospitalized for an SLE flare and had used HCQ prior to that hospitalization and had at least one control period with HCQ use during the study period.

All of the patients in the study had to have a case period and a control period, Dr. Nestor explained. The case period was 6 months on HCQ ending in hospitalization for lupus and the control period was 6 months on HCQ that did not end in hospitalization for lupus.
 

Significantly increased hospitalizations

Low-dose HCQ by weight-based dose (≤ 5 vs. > 5 mg/kg per day) and by non–weight-based dose (< 400 vs. 400 mg per day) were both associated with significantly increased hospitalizations for SLE (adjusted odds ratio, 4.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-12.98; and AOR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.33-9.13, respectively).

The average age of the hospitalized group was 36 years. Most patients (92%) were female, 43.5% were White, and 32.4% were Black.

In calling for reassessment of the dosing, Dr. Nestor said, “We are protecting our patients against a very long-term side effect of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. [It] typically takes 10-20 years to develop in our patients. But by doing that, we’re missing many of the short-term benefits from hydroxychloroquine in our patients, leading to more lupus flares, which leads to more end-organ damage.”

She said patients taking HCQ for lupus are asked to see an ophthalmologist once a year to monitor for the side effect, adding that rheumatologists and ophthalmologists could work together to adjust the guidelines.

Dr. Nestor suggested it’s possible that patients need higher doses of HCQ earlier in their disease and lower doses later. “Perhaps it’s just the patients who are particularly active who need the higher doses,” she said.

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