User login
Updated EULAR recommendations for AAV include new drugs, practices
The
The 2022 revision – which was unveiled at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology – includes guidance on using new drugs, such as avacopan (Tavneos) and mepolizumab (Nucala), as well as revised recommendations on the use of rituximab and glucocorticosteroids.
The overhaul also contains specific recommendations for treating eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), separating it out from granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) for the first time.
“Until now, EGPA has usually been managed in the same way as [the] other diseases,” Bernhard Hellmich, MD, of the University of Tübingen (Germany) said in an interview ahead of his presentation at the congress.
“But we now have data on each type specifically, so there is good reason to make separate recommendations,” he added.
Indeed, so much new data has become available in the past few years there are only three recommendations that remain unchanged from the previous iteration published in 2016.
Since then, “several high-impact studies in AAV have been published and the results of these studies required an update of the existing recommendations,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Developed in record time – just 7 months from start to finish – the process of updating the recommendations on AAV followed EULAR’s standard operating procedures. An important step in this process is to perform a systemic literature review. Perhaps crucially, and in contrast to the first U.S. vasculitis guidelines published only in 2021, the most recent literature search was able to include data on avacopan, which was approved for use in Europe in January as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active GPA and MPA.
The results of the literature review were reported separately at the EULAR 2022 Congress, with separate presentations highlighting the data behind the amended treatment and diagnostic and follow-up procedure recommendations.
Highlights of the changes
A key change is the introduction of four overarching principles, which weren’t included in the previous update, said Dr. Hellmich.
“We moved some of the existing recommendations with low level of evidence to overarching principles,” he added, stating that the first general principle was that all patients should be offered “the best care which must be based on shared decision-making between the patient and the physician considering efficacy, safety, and costs.”
The second principle states that patients should have access to education that covers the prognosis and impact of AAV, including recognizing warning symptoms and treatment options.
The third focuses on screening for adverse effects and comorbidities, recommending that patients are given appropriate prophylaxis and lifestyle advice.
Finally, the fourth general principle recognizes that AAV is a rare group of heterogenous and potentially life-threatening diseases that need multidisciplinary care, with access to specific vasculitis expertise.
New recommendations
Of the 17 recommendations made, 6 are completely new, including one on ANCA testing in patients who are suspected of having AAV.
“We recommend testing for both PR3- and MPO-ANCA using a high-quality antigen-specific assay as the primary method of testing,” Dr. Hellmich said. This is based on strong new evidence that antigen-specific assays have superior diagnostic accuracy, compared with indirect immunofluorescence.
“We also want to emphasize that ANCA testing should be done in patients with signs and symptoms in order to minimize the risk of false-positive results,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Also new is the recommendation to use oral steroids to induce remission in GPA/MPA, followed by a stepwise reduction in the dose, aiming for a dose of not more than 5 mg prednisolone per day by 4-5 months of treatment.
“Glucocorticoids are very effective, but also are the major trigger of infections in AAV,” said Dr. Hellmich. This is important since infections are a major driver of early mortality in AAV.
“Another possibility to reduce glucocorticoid exposure is avacopan,” he said. It’s recommended to be used in combination with rituximab or cyclophosphamide for remission induction in GPA/MPA as a strategy to basically “get rid of steroids.”
Indeed, “for patients who really have a high burden of glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects, especially relapsing patients, I think it would make sense just to give avacopan and no steroids,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Other new recommendations concern remission induction and maintenance therapy in new-onset EGPA. Regarding the latter, the choice of treatment depends on whether there is an organ- or life-threatening situation, with methotrexate, azathioprine, mepolizumab, or rituximab all recommended equally, or if there is no organ- or life-threatening situation, then mepolizumab is preferred.
Revised and unchanged recommendations
Eight of the recommendations have been revised, with rituximab being placed more prominently as a treatment in some. For remission induction in GPA and MPA with organ- or life threatening disease, rituximab is now the preferred option for relapsing disease. Rituximab also replaced methotrexate as the preferred option for maintaining remission, although methotrexate and azathioprine can still be considered as alternatives.
Another changed statement is on the duration of maintenance treatment in GPA and MPA, which now advocates 1-2 years of treatment after achieving remission. Longer therapy might be needed in relapsing cases, but the benefits and risks need to be carefully considered and patient preferences taken into account.
Prophylaxis against pneumonia and other infections is still recommended, with the revised guidance noting that patients receiving cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or high-dose steroids, should be treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).
“There are retrospective data in the AAV population that the administration of co-trimoxazole reduces not only the incidence of pneumocystis, but also of other infections. So, this is important recommendation for clinical practice,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Summing up
“For a rare disease group, I think this is very good progress,” said Dr. Hellmich, but “there are still many open questions, so we have a long research agenda.”
There is purposefully no recommendation on COVID-19, however, as “the conditions that impact COVID outcomes change rapidly and any recommendation made now is likely to be outdated soon; the AAV recommendations are intended to last for at least a couple of years.”
In a press release issued by the German Society for Rheumatology, which was unrelated to Dr. Hellmich’s talk, experts commented on vasculitis guidelines generally, noting that there has been a move toward using biologic therapies such as rituximab and mepolizumab as a new standard of therapy.
DGRh President and chief physician at the Immanuel Hospital in Berlin Andreas Krause, MD, observed that “cyclophosphamide, which was used in the past and which inhibits blood formation in the bone marrow and can lead to infertility, can now often be dispensed with.”
Julia Holle, MD, of Rheumazentrum Schleswig-Holstein Mitte in Neumünster, Germany, was also quoted in the press release, saying that, “for patients, the successful use of biologics and the reduction in the glucocorticoid dose is important progress.”
Dr. Holle was involved in the development of revised European guidelines. She is also the lead author of a recent publication on treatment of vasculitis on available evidence. Dr. Hellmich acknowledged having ties to multiple pharma companies, acting as speaker, consultant, or both to Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor.
The
The 2022 revision – which was unveiled at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology – includes guidance on using new drugs, such as avacopan (Tavneos) and mepolizumab (Nucala), as well as revised recommendations on the use of rituximab and glucocorticosteroids.
The overhaul also contains specific recommendations for treating eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), separating it out from granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) for the first time.
“Until now, EGPA has usually been managed in the same way as [the] other diseases,” Bernhard Hellmich, MD, of the University of Tübingen (Germany) said in an interview ahead of his presentation at the congress.
“But we now have data on each type specifically, so there is good reason to make separate recommendations,” he added.
Indeed, so much new data has become available in the past few years there are only three recommendations that remain unchanged from the previous iteration published in 2016.
Since then, “several high-impact studies in AAV have been published and the results of these studies required an update of the existing recommendations,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Developed in record time – just 7 months from start to finish – the process of updating the recommendations on AAV followed EULAR’s standard operating procedures. An important step in this process is to perform a systemic literature review. Perhaps crucially, and in contrast to the first U.S. vasculitis guidelines published only in 2021, the most recent literature search was able to include data on avacopan, which was approved for use in Europe in January as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active GPA and MPA.
The results of the literature review were reported separately at the EULAR 2022 Congress, with separate presentations highlighting the data behind the amended treatment and diagnostic and follow-up procedure recommendations.
Highlights of the changes
A key change is the introduction of four overarching principles, which weren’t included in the previous update, said Dr. Hellmich.
“We moved some of the existing recommendations with low level of evidence to overarching principles,” he added, stating that the first general principle was that all patients should be offered “the best care which must be based on shared decision-making between the patient and the physician considering efficacy, safety, and costs.”
The second principle states that patients should have access to education that covers the prognosis and impact of AAV, including recognizing warning symptoms and treatment options.
The third focuses on screening for adverse effects and comorbidities, recommending that patients are given appropriate prophylaxis and lifestyle advice.
Finally, the fourth general principle recognizes that AAV is a rare group of heterogenous and potentially life-threatening diseases that need multidisciplinary care, with access to specific vasculitis expertise.
New recommendations
Of the 17 recommendations made, 6 are completely new, including one on ANCA testing in patients who are suspected of having AAV.
“We recommend testing for both PR3- and MPO-ANCA using a high-quality antigen-specific assay as the primary method of testing,” Dr. Hellmich said. This is based on strong new evidence that antigen-specific assays have superior diagnostic accuracy, compared with indirect immunofluorescence.
“We also want to emphasize that ANCA testing should be done in patients with signs and symptoms in order to minimize the risk of false-positive results,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Also new is the recommendation to use oral steroids to induce remission in GPA/MPA, followed by a stepwise reduction in the dose, aiming for a dose of not more than 5 mg prednisolone per day by 4-5 months of treatment.
“Glucocorticoids are very effective, but also are the major trigger of infections in AAV,” said Dr. Hellmich. This is important since infections are a major driver of early mortality in AAV.
“Another possibility to reduce glucocorticoid exposure is avacopan,” he said. It’s recommended to be used in combination with rituximab or cyclophosphamide for remission induction in GPA/MPA as a strategy to basically “get rid of steroids.”
Indeed, “for patients who really have a high burden of glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects, especially relapsing patients, I think it would make sense just to give avacopan and no steroids,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Other new recommendations concern remission induction and maintenance therapy in new-onset EGPA. Regarding the latter, the choice of treatment depends on whether there is an organ- or life-threatening situation, with methotrexate, azathioprine, mepolizumab, or rituximab all recommended equally, or if there is no organ- or life-threatening situation, then mepolizumab is preferred.
Revised and unchanged recommendations
Eight of the recommendations have been revised, with rituximab being placed more prominently as a treatment in some. For remission induction in GPA and MPA with organ- or life threatening disease, rituximab is now the preferred option for relapsing disease. Rituximab also replaced methotrexate as the preferred option for maintaining remission, although methotrexate and azathioprine can still be considered as alternatives.
Another changed statement is on the duration of maintenance treatment in GPA and MPA, which now advocates 1-2 years of treatment after achieving remission. Longer therapy might be needed in relapsing cases, but the benefits and risks need to be carefully considered and patient preferences taken into account.
Prophylaxis against pneumonia and other infections is still recommended, with the revised guidance noting that patients receiving cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or high-dose steroids, should be treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).
“There are retrospective data in the AAV population that the administration of co-trimoxazole reduces not only the incidence of pneumocystis, but also of other infections. So, this is important recommendation for clinical practice,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Summing up
“For a rare disease group, I think this is very good progress,” said Dr. Hellmich, but “there are still many open questions, so we have a long research agenda.”
There is purposefully no recommendation on COVID-19, however, as “the conditions that impact COVID outcomes change rapidly and any recommendation made now is likely to be outdated soon; the AAV recommendations are intended to last for at least a couple of years.”
In a press release issued by the German Society for Rheumatology, which was unrelated to Dr. Hellmich’s talk, experts commented on vasculitis guidelines generally, noting that there has been a move toward using biologic therapies such as rituximab and mepolizumab as a new standard of therapy.
DGRh President and chief physician at the Immanuel Hospital in Berlin Andreas Krause, MD, observed that “cyclophosphamide, which was used in the past and which inhibits blood formation in the bone marrow and can lead to infertility, can now often be dispensed with.”
Julia Holle, MD, of Rheumazentrum Schleswig-Holstein Mitte in Neumünster, Germany, was also quoted in the press release, saying that, “for patients, the successful use of biologics and the reduction in the glucocorticoid dose is important progress.”
Dr. Holle was involved in the development of revised European guidelines. She is also the lead author of a recent publication on treatment of vasculitis on available evidence. Dr. Hellmich acknowledged having ties to multiple pharma companies, acting as speaker, consultant, or both to Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor.
The
The 2022 revision – which was unveiled at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology – includes guidance on using new drugs, such as avacopan (Tavneos) and mepolizumab (Nucala), as well as revised recommendations on the use of rituximab and glucocorticosteroids.
The overhaul also contains specific recommendations for treating eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), separating it out from granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) for the first time.
“Until now, EGPA has usually been managed in the same way as [the] other diseases,” Bernhard Hellmich, MD, of the University of Tübingen (Germany) said in an interview ahead of his presentation at the congress.
“But we now have data on each type specifically, so there is good reason to make separate recommendations,” he added.
Indeed, so much new data has become available in the past few years there are only three recommendations that remain unchanged from the previous iteration published in 2016.
Since then, “several high-impact studies in AAV have been published and the results of these studies required an update of the existing recommendations,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Developed in record time – just 7 months from start to finish – the process of updating the recommendations on AAV followed EULAR’s standard operating procedures. An important step in this process is to perform a systemic literature review. Perhaps crucially, and in contrast to the first U.S. vasculitis guidelines published only in 2021, the most recent literature search was able to include data on avacopan, which was approved for use in Europe in January as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active GPA and MPA.
The results of the literature review were reported separately at the EULAR 2022 Congress, with separate presentations highlighting the data behind the amended treatment and diagnostic and follow-up procedure recommendations.
Highlights of the changes
A key change is the introduction of four overarching principles, which weren’t included in the previous update, said Dr. Hellmich.
“We moved some of the existing recommendations with low level of evidence to overarching principles,” he added, stating that the first general principle was that all patients should be offered “the best care which must be based on shared decision-making between the patient and the physician considering efficacy, safety, and costs.”
The second principle states that patients should have access to education that covers the prognosis and impact of AAV, including recognizing warning symptoms and treatment options.
The third focuses on screening for adverse effects and comorbidities, recommending that patients are given appropriate prophylaxis and lifestyle advice.
Finally, the fourth general principle recognizes that AAV is a rare group of heterogenous and potentially life-threatening diseases that need multidisciplinary care, with access to specific vasculitis expertise.
New recommendations
Of the 17 recommendations made, 6 are completely new, including one on ANCA testing in patients who are suspected of having AAV.
“We recommend testing for both PR3- and MPO-ANCA using a high-quality antigen-specific assay as the primary method of testing,” Dr. Hellmich said. This is based on strong new evidence that antigen-specific assays have superior diagnostic accuracy, compared with indirect immunofluorescence.
“We also want to emphasize that ANCA testing should be done in patients with signs and symptoms in order to minimize the risk of false-positive results,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Also new is the recommendation to use oral steroids to induce remission in GPA/MPA, followed by a stepwise reduction in the dose, aiming for a dose of not more than 5 mg prednisolone per day by 4-5 months of treatment.
“Glucocorticoids are very effective, but also are the major trigger of infections in AAV,” said Dr. Hellmich. This is important since infections are a major driver of early mortality in AAV.
“Another possibility to reduce glucocorticoid exposure is avacopan,” he said. It’s recommended to be used in combination with rituximab or cyclophosphamide for remission induction in GPA/MPA as a strategy to basically “get rid of steroids.”
Indeed, “for patients who really have a high burden of glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects, especially relapsing patients, I think it would make sense just to give avacopan and no steroids,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Other new recommendations concern remission induction and maintenance therapy in new-onset EGPA. Regarding the latter, the choice of treatment depends on whether there is an organ- or life-threatening situation, with methotrexate, azathioprine, mepolizumab, or rituximab all recommended equally, or if there is no organ- or life-threatening situation, then mepolizumab is preferred.
Revised and unchanged recommendations
Eight of the recommendations have been revised, with rituximab being placed more prominently as a treatment in some. For remission induction in GPA and MPA with organ- or life threatening disease, rituximab is now the preferred option for relapsing disease. Rituximab also replaced methotrexate as the preferred option for maintaining remission, although methotrexate and azathioprine can still be considered as alternatives.
Another changed statement is on the duration of maintenance treatment in GPA and MPA, which now advocates 1-2 years of treatment after achieving remission. Longer therapy might be needed in relapsing cases, but the benefits and risks need to be carefully considered and patient preferences taken into account.
Prophylaxis against pneumonia and other infections is still recommended, with the revised guidance noting that patients receiving cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or high-dose steroids, should be treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).
“There are retrospective data in the AAV population that the administration of co-trimoxazole reduces not only the incidence of pneumocystis, but also of other infections. So, this is important recommendation for clinical practice,” Dr. Hellmich said.
Summing up
“For a rare disease group, I think this is very good progress,” said Dr. Hellmich, but “there are still many open questions, so we have a long research agenda.”
There is purposefully no recommendation on COVID-19, however, as “the conditions that impact COVID outcomes change rapidly and any recommendation made now is likely to be outdated soon; the AAV recommendations are intended to last for at least a couple of years.”
In a press release issued by the German Society for Rheumatology, which was unrelated to Dr. Hellmich’s talk, experts commented on vasculitis guidelines generally, noting that there has been a move toward using biologic therapies such as rituximab and mepolizumab as a new standard of therapy.
DGRh President and chief physician at the Immanuel Hospital in Berlin Andreas Krause, MD, observed that “cyclophosphamide, which was used in the past and which inhibits blood formation in the bone marrow and can lead to infertility, can now often be dispensed with.”
Julia Holle, MD, of Rheumazentrum Schleswig-Holstein Mitte in Neumünster, Germany, was also quoted in the press release, saying that, “for patients, the successful use of biologics and the reduction in the glucocorticoid dose is important progress.”
Dr. Holle was involved in the development of revised European guidelines. She is also the lead author of a recent publication on treatment of vasculitis on available evidence. Dr. Hellmich acknowledged having ties to multiple pharma companies, acting as speaker, consultant, or both to Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Abortion debate may affect Rx decisions for pregnant women
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Myositis guidelines aim to standardize adult and pediatric care
All patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) should be screened for swallowing difficulties, according to the first evidence-based guideline to be produced.
The guideline, which has been developed by a working group of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), also advises that all diagnosed patients should have their myositis antibody levels checked and have their overall well-being assessed. Other recommendations for all patients include the use of glucocorticoids to reduce muscle inflammation and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for long-term treatment.
“Finally, now, we’re able to standardize the way we treat adults and children with IIM,” senior guideline author Hector Chinoy, PhD, said at the society’s annual meeting.
It has been a long labor of love, however, taking 4 years to get the guideline published, said Dr. Chinoy, professor of rheumatology and neuromuscular disease at the University of Manchester (England), and a consultant at Salford (England) Royal Hospital.
“We’re not covering diagnosis, classification, or the investigation of suspected IIM,” said Dr. Chinoy. Inclusion body myositis also is not included.
Altogether, there are 13 recommendations that have been developed using a PICO (patient or population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format, graded based on the quality of the available evidence, and then voted on by the working group members to give a score of the strength of agreement. Dr. Chinoy noted that there was a checklist included in the Supplementary Data section of the guideline to help follow the recommendations.
“The target audience for the guideline reflects the variety of clinicians caring for patients with IIM,” Dr. Chinoy said. So that is not just pediatric and adult rheumatologists, but also neurologists, dermatologists, respiratory physicians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and of course other health care professionals. This includes rheumatology and neurology nurses, psychologists, speech and language therapists, and podiatrists, as well as rheumatology specialist pharmacists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.
With reference to the latter, Liza McCann, MBBS, who co-led the development of the guideline, said in a statement released by the BSR that the guideline “highlights the importance of exercise, led and monitored by specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists.”
Dr. McCann, a consultant pediatric rheumatologist at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, England, and Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the University of Liverpool, added that the guidelines also cover “the need to address psychological wellbeing as an integral part of treatment, in parallel with pharmacological therapies.”
Recommendation highlights
Some of the highlights of the recommendations include the use of high-dose glucocorticoids to manage skeletal muscle inflammation at the time of treatment induction, with specific guidance on the different doses to use in adults and in children. There also is guidance on the use of csDMARDs in both populations and what to use if there is refractory disease – with the strongest evidence supporting the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or cyclophosphamide, and possibly rituximab and abatacept.
“There is insufficient evidence to recommend JAK inhibition,” Dr. Chinoy said. The data search used to develop the guideline had a cutoff of October 2020, but even now there is only anecdotal evidence from case studies, he added.
Importantly, the guidelines recognize that childhood IIM differs from adult disease and call for children to be managed by pediatric specialists.
“Routine assessment of dysphagia should be considered in all patients,” Dr. Chinoy said, “so ask the question.” The recommendation is that a swallowing assessment should involve a speech and language therapist or gastroenterologist, and that IVIG be considered for active disease and dysphagia that is resistant to other treatments.
There also are recommendations to screen adult patients for interstitial lung disease, consider fracture risk, and screen adult patients for cancer if they have specific risk factors that include older age at onset, male gender, dysphagia, and rapid disease onset, among others.
Separate cancer screening guidelines on cards
“Around one in four patients with myositis will develop cancer within the 3 years either before or after myositis onset,” Alexander Oldroyd, MBChB, PhD, said in a separate presentation at the BSR annual meeting.
“It’s a hugely increased risk compared to the general population, and a great worry for patients,” he added. Exactly why there is an increased risk is not known, but “there’s a big link between the biological onset of cancer and myositis.”
Dr. Oldroyd, who is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Manchester in England and a coauthor of the BSR myositis guideline, is part of a special interest group set up by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) that is in the process of developing separate guidelines for cancer screening in people newly diagnosed with IIM.
The aim was to produce evidence-based recommendations that were both “pragmatic and practical,” that could help clinicians answer patient’s questions on their risk and how best and how often to screen them, Dr. Oldroyd explained. Importantly, IMACS has endeavored to create recommendations that should be applicable across different countries and health care systems.
“We had to acknowledge that there’s not a lot of evidence base there,” Dr. Oldroyd said, noting that he and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis and used a Delphi process to draft 20 recommendations. These cover identifying risk factors for cancer in people with myositis and categorizing people into low, medium, and high-risk categories. The recommendations also cover what should constitute basic and enhanced screening, and how often someone should be screened.
Moreover, the authors make recommendations on the use of imaging modalities such as PET and CT scans, as well as upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and naso-endoscopy.
“As rheumatologists, we don’t talk about cancer a lot,” Dr. Oldroyd said. “We pick up a lot of incidental cancers, but we don’t usually talk about cancer screening with patients.” That’s something that needs to change, he said.
“It’s important – just get it out in the open, talk to people about it,” Dr. Oldroyd said.
“Tell them what you’re wanting to do, how you’re wanting to investigate for it, clearly communicate their risk,” he said. “But also acknowledge the limited evidence as well, and clearly communicate the results.”
Dr. Chinoy acknowledged he had received fees for presentations (UCB, Biogen), consultancy (Alexion, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, AstraZeneca), or grant support (Eli Lilly, UCB) that had been paid via his institution for the purpose of furthering myositis research. Dr. Oldroyd had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
All patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) should be screened for swallowing difficulties, according to the first evidence-based guideline to be produced.
The guideline, which has been developed by a working group of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), also advises that all diagnosed patients should have their myositis antibody levels checked and have their overall well-being assessed. Other recommendations for all patients include the use of glucocorticoids to reduce muscle inflammation and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for long-term treatment.
“Finally, now, we’re able to standardize the way we treat adults and children with IIM,” senior guideline author Hector Chinoy, PhD, said at the society’s annual meeting.
It has been a long labor of love, however, taking 4 years to get the guideline published, said Dr. Chinoy, professor of rheumatology and neuromuscular disease at the University of Manchester (England), and a consultant at Salford (England) Royal Hospital.
“We’re not covering diagnosis, classification, or the investigation of suspected IIM,” said Dr. Chinoy. Inclusion body myositis also is not included.
Altogether, there are 13 recommendations that have been developed using a PICO (patient or population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format, graded based on the quality of the available evidence, and then voted on by the working group members to give a score of the strength of agreement. Dr. Chinoy noted that there was a checklist included in the Supplementary Data section of the guideline to help follow the recommendations.
“The target audience for the guideline reflects the variety of clinicians caring for patients with IIM,” Dr. Chinoy said. So that is not just pediatric and adult rheumatologists, but also neurologists, dermatologists, respiratory physicians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and of course other health care professionals. This includes rheumatology and neurology nurses, psychologists, speech and language therapists, and podiatrists, as well as rheumatology specialist pharmacists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.
With reference to the latter, Liza McCann, MBBS, who co-led the development of the guideline, said in a statement released by the BSR that the guideline “highlights the importance of exercise, led and monitored by specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists.”
Dr. McCann, a consultant pediatric rheumatologist at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, England, and Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the University of Liverpool, added that the guidelines also cover “the need to address psychological wellbeing as an integral part of treatment, in parallel with pharmacological therapies.”
Recommendation highlights
Some of the highlights of the recommendations include the use of high-dose glucocorticoids to manage skeletal muscle inflammation at the time of treatment induction, with specific guidance on the different doses to use in adults and in children. There also is guidance on the use of csDMARDs in both populations and what to use if there is refractory disease – with the strongest evidence supporting the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or cyclophosphamide, and possibly rituximab and abatacept.
“There is insufficient evidence to recommend JAK inhibition,” Dr. Chinoy said. The data search used to develop the guideline had a cutoff of October 2020, but even now there is only anecdotal evidence from case studies, he added.
Importantly, the guidelines recognize that childhood IIM differs from adult disease and call for children to be managed by pediatric specialists.
“Routine assessment of dysphagia should be considered in all patients,” Dr. Chinoy said, “so ask the question.” The recommendation is that a swallowing assessment should involve a speech and language therapist or gastroenterologist, and that IVIG be considered for active disease and dysphagia that is resistant to other treatments.
There also are recommendations to screen adult patients for interstitial lung disease, consider fracture risk, and screen adult patients for cancer if they have specific risk factors that include older age at onset, male gender, dysphagia, and rapid disease onset, among others.
Separate cancer screening guidelines on cards
“Around one in four patients with myositis will develop cancer within the 3 years either before or after myositis onset,” Alexander Oldroyd, MBChB, PhD, said in a separate presentation at the BSR annual meeting.
“It’s a hugely increased risk compared to the general population, and a great worry for patients,” he added. Exactly why there is an increased risk is not known, but “there’s a big link between the biological onset of cancer and myositis.”
Dr. Oldroyd, who is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Manchester in England and a coauthor of the BSR myositis guideline, is part of a special interest group set up by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) that is in the process of developing separate guidelines for cancer screening in people newly diagnosed with IIM.
The aim was to produce evidence-based recommendations that were both “pragmatic and practical,” that could help clinicians answer patient’s questions on their risk and how best and how often to screen them, Dr. Oldroyd explained. Importantly, IMACS has endeavored to create recommendations that should be applicable across different countries and health care systems.
“We had to acknowledge that there’s not a lot of evidence base there,” Dr. Oldroyd said, noting that he and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis and used a Delphi process to draft 20 recommendations. These cover identifying risk factors for cancer in people with myositis and categorizing people into low, medium, and high-risk categories. The recommendations also cover what should constitute basic and enhanced screening, and how often someone should be screened.
Moreover, the authors make recommendations on the use of imaging modalities such as PET and CT scans, as well as upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and naso-endoscopy.
“As rheumatologists, we don’t talk about cancer a lot,” Dr. Oldroyd said. “We pick up a lot of incidental cancers, but we don’t usually talk about cancer screening with patients.” That’s something that needs to change, he said.
“It’s important – just get it out in the open, talk to people about it,” Dr. Oldroyd said.
“Tell them what you’re wanting to do, how you’re wanting to investigate for it, clearly communicate their risk,” he said. “But also acknowledge the limited evidence as well, and clearly communicate the results.”
Dr. Chinoy acknowledged he had received fees for presentations (UCB, Biogen), consultancy (Alexion, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, AstraZeneca), or grant support (Eli Lilly, UCB) that had been paid via his institution for the purpose of furthering myositis research. Dr. Oldroyd had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
All patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) should be screened for swallowing difficulties, according to the first evidence-based guideline to be produced.
The guideline, which has been developed by a working group of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), also advises that all diagnosed patients should have their myositis antibody levels checked and have their overall well-being assessed. Other recommendations for all patients include the use of glucocorticoids to reduce muscle inflammation and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for long-term treatment.
“Finally, now, we’re able to standardize the way we treat adults and children with IIM,” senior guideline author Hector Chinoy, PhD, said at the society’s annual meeting.
It has been a long labor of love, however, taking 4 years to get the guideline published, said Dr. Chinoy, professor of rheumatology and neuromuscular disease at the University of Manchester (England), and a consultant at Salford (England) Royal Hospital.
“We’re not covering diagnosis, classification, or the investigation of suspected IIM,” said Dr. Chinoy. Inclusion body myositis also is not included.
Altogether, there are 13 recommendations that have been developed using a PICO (patient or population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format, graded based on the quality of the available evidence, and then voted on by the working group members to give a score of the strength of agreement. Dr. Chinoy noted that there was a checklist included in the Supplementary Data section of the guideline to help follow the recommendations.
“The target audience for the guideline reflects the variety of clinicians caring for patients with IIM,” Dr. Chinoy said. So that is not just pediatric and adult rheumatologists, but also neurologists, dermatologists, respiratory physicians, oncologists, gastroenterologists, cardiologists, and of course other health care professionals. This includes rheumatology and neurology nurses, psychologists, speech and language therapists, and podiatrists, as well as rheumatology specialist pharmacists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists.
With reference to the latter, Liza McCann, MBBS, who co-led the development of the guideline, said in a statement released by the BSR that the guideline “highlights the importance of exercise, led and monitored by specialist physiotherapists and occupational therapists.”
Dr. McCann, a consultant pediatric rheumatologist at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool, England, and Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the University of Liverpool, added that the guidelines also cover “the need to address psychological wellbeing as an integral part of treatment, in parallel with pharmacological therapies.”
Recommendation highlights
Some of the highlights of the recommendations include the use of high-dose glucocorticoids to manage skeletal muscle inflammation at the time of treatment induction, with specific guidance on the different doses to use in adults and in children. There also is guidance on the use of csDMARDs in both populations and what to use if there is refractory disease – with the strongest evidence supporting the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or cyclophosphamide, and possibly rituximab and abatacept.
“There is insufficient evidence to recommend JAK inhibition,” Dr. Chinoy said. The data search used to develop the guideline had a cutoff of October 2020, but even now there is only anecdotal evidence from case studies, he added.
Importantly, the guidelines recognize that childhood IIM differs from adult disease and call for children to be managed by pediatric specialists.
“Routine assessment of dysphagia should be considered in all patients,” Dr. Chinoy said, “so ask the question.” The recommendation is that a swallowing assessment should involve a speech and language therapist or gastroenterologist, and that IVIG be considered for active disease and dysphagia that is resistant to other treatments.
There also are recommendations to screen adult patients for interstitial lung disease, consider fracture risk, and screen adult patients for cancer if they have specific risk factors that include older age at onset, male gender, dysphagia, and rapid disease onset, among others.
Separate cancer screening guidelines on cards
“Around one in four patients with myositis will develop cancer within the 3 years either before or after myositis onset,” Alexander Oldroyd, MBChB, PhD, said in a separate presentation at the BSR annual meeting.
“It’s a hugely increased risk compared to the general population, and a great worry for patients,” he added. Exactly why there is an increased risk is not known, but “there’s a big link between the biological onset of cancer and myositis.”
Dr. Oldroyd, who is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer at the University of Manchester in England and a coauthor of the BSR myositis guideline, is part of a special interest group set up by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) that is in the process of developing separate guidelines for cancer screening in people newly diagnosed with IIM.
The aim was to produce evidence-based recommendations that were both “pragmatic and practical,” that could help clinicians answer patient’s questions on their risk and how best and how often to screen them, Dr. Oldroyd explained. Importantly, IMACS has endeavored to create recommendations that should be applicable across different countries and health care systems.
“We had to acknowledge that there’s not a lot of evidence base there,” Dr. Oldroyd said, noting that he and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis and used a Delphi process to draft 20 recommendations. These cover identifying risk factors for cancer in people with myositis and categorizing people into low, medium, and high-risk categories. The recommendations also cover what should constitute basic and enhanced screening, and how often someone should be screened.
Moreover, the authors make recommendations on the use of imaging modalities such as PET and CT scans, as well as upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and naso-endoscopy.
“As rheumatologists, we don’t talk about cancer a lot,” Dr. Oldroyd said. “We pick up a lot of incidental cancers, but we don’t usually talk about cancer screening with patients.” That’s something that needs to change, he said.
“It’s important – just get it out in the open, talk to people about it,” Dr. Oldroyd said.
“Tell them what you’re wanting to do, how you’re wanting to investigate for it, clearly communicate their risk,” he said. “But also acknowledge the limited evidence as well, and clearly communicate the results.”
Dr. Chinoy acknowledged he had received fees for presentations (UCB, Biogen), consultancy (Alexion, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, AstraZeneca), or grant support (Eli Lilly, UCB) that had been paid via his institution for the purpose of furthering myositis research. Dr. Oldroyd had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM BSR 2022
Expanded Treatment Options for Lupus Nephritis
Lupus nephritis (LN) affects approximately 25%-60% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Currently, guideline-directed therapy recommends a combination of steroids plus either mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide. Despite treatment, about 10%-30% of LN patients will progress to end-stage kidney disease.
Fortunately, over the past 2 years, the FDA approved two novel agents that expand treatment options for patients with active disease who have received standard-of-care therapy.
In this ReCAP, Dr Joan Merrill, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, reports on the B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor belimumab, which was evaluated in the BLISS-LN trial, and the oral calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin, which was assessed in the AURORA trials.
Dr Merrill discusses how these recently approved medications fit into the standard of care for LN patients.
--
Joan Merrill, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Director of Clinical Projects, Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Joan Merrill, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Biogen
Received research grant from: Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AbbVie; Alexion; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Lilly; Merck; Provention; RemeGen; Sanofi; UCB; Zenas
Received research grant from: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene; Pharmacyclics; TG Therapeutics
Lupus nephritis (LN) affects approximately 25%-60% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Currently, guideline-directed therapy recommends a combination of steroids plus either mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide. Despite treatment, about 10%-30% of LN patients will progress to end-stage kidney disease.
Fortunately, over the past 2 years, the FDA approved two novel agents that expand treatment options for patients with active disease who have received standard-of-care therapy.
In this ReCAP, Dr Joan Merrill, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, reports on the B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor belimumab, which was evaluated in the BLISS-LN trial, and the oral calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin, which was assessed in the AURORA trials.
Dr Merrill discusses how these recently approved medications fit into the standard of care for LN patients.
--
Joan Merrill, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Director of Clinical Projects, Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Joan Merrill, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Biogen
Received research grant from: Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AbbVie; Alexion; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Lilly; Merck; Provention; RemeGen; Sanofi; UCB; Zenas
Received research grant from: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene; Pharmacyclics; TG Therapeutics
Lupus nephritis (LN) affects approximately 25%-60% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Currently, guideline-directed therapy recommends a combination of steroids plus either mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide. Despite treatment, about 10%-30% of LN patients will progress to end-stage kidney disease.
Fortunately, over the past 2 years, the FDA approved two novel agents that expand treatment options for patients with active disease who have received standard-of-care therapy.
In this ReCAP, Dr Joan Merrill, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, reports on the B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor belimumab, which was evaluated in the BLISS-LN trial, and the oral calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin, which was assessed in the AURORA trials.
Dr Merrill discusses how these recently approved medications fit into the standard of care for LN patients.
--
Joan Merrill, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; Director of Clinical Projects, Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Joan Merrill, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Biogen
Received research grant from: Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: AbbVie; Alexion; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono; Genentech; Gilead; GlaxoSmithKline; Lilly; Merck; Provention; RemeGen; Sanofi; UCB; Zenas
Received research grant from: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene; Pharmacyclics; TG Therapeutics
Lupus may lead to worse stroke outcomes for women, but not men
Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience worse outcomes after an acute stroke than does the general population, but men with SLE do not, according to an analysis of the U.S. National Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
In a study of more than 1.5 million cases of acute stroke recorded in the United States between 2015 and 2018, women with SLE were more likely to be hospitalized for longer and less likely to be routinely discharged into their home environment than were those without SLE. No such association was found for men with SLE.
“The findings imply that primary stroke prevention is of utmost importance, especially in females with SLE,” said Sona Jesenakova, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).
“There might be a need to explore more effective and targeted treatment strategies to try and minimize these excessive adverse acute stroke outcomes, especially in females with SLE suffering from stroke,” she suggested.
“Even though males form only a minority of the SLE patient population, some studies have shown that they are prone to suffer from worse disease outcomes,” Ms. Jesenakova said.
Importantly, “male sex has been identified as a risk factor for death early in the course of SLE,” she added, highlighting that sex differences do seem to exist in SLE.
Stroke is an important outcome to look at because people with SLE are known to be at higher risk for developing atherosclerosis, which is a widely known risk factor for ischemic stroke, and with antiphospholipid antibody positivity and uncontrolled disease activity, that risk can be increased. A meta-analysis of older studies has suggested that the risk for death after a stroke is 68% higher in people with SLE than in those without.
To examine the risk for death and other in-hospital outcomes in a more contemporary population, Ms. Jesenakova and associates used data from the National Inpatient Sample, a large, publicly available database that contains inpatient health care information from across the United States. Their sample population consisted of 1,581,430 individuals who had been hospitalized for stroke. Of these, there were 6,100 women and 940 men who had SLE; the remainder served as the ‘no-SLE’ control population.
As might be expected, patients with SLE were about 10 years younger than those without SLE; the median age of women and men with SLE and those without SLE were a respective 60, 61, and 71 years.
There was no difference in the type of stroke between the SLE and no-SLE groups; most had an ischemic stroke (around 89%) rather than a hemorrhagic stroke (around 11%).
The researchers analyzed three key outcomes: mortality at discharge, hospitalization prolonged to a stay of more than 4 days, and routine home discharge, meaning that the patient was able to be discharged home versus more specialist facilities such as a nursing home.
They conducted a multivariate analysis with adjustments made for potential confounding factors such as age, ethnicity, type of stroke, and revascularization treatment. Comorbidities, including major cardiovascular disease, were also accounted for.
Although women with SLE were 21% more likely to die than patients without SLE, men with SLE were 24% less likely to die than was the no-SLE population. However, these differences were not statistically significant.
Women with SLE were 20% more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay and 28% less likely to have a routine home discharge, compared with patients who did not have SLE. The 95% confidence intervals were statistically significant, which was not seen when comparing the same outcomes in men with SLE (odds ratios of 1.06 and 1.18, respectively).
“As for males, even though we didn’t find anything of statistical significance, we have to bear in mind that the sample we had was quite small, and thus these results need to be interpreted with caution,” Ms. Jesenakova said. “We also think that we identified a gap in the current knowledge, and as such, further research is needed to help us understand the influence of male sex on acute stroke outcomes in patients with comorbid SLE.”
The researchers performed a secondary analysis looking at the use of revascularization treatments for ischemic stroke and found that there were no differences between individuals with and without SLE. This analysis considered the use of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy in just over 1.4 million cases but did not look at sex-specific differences.
Ms. Jesenakova had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience worse outcomes after an acute stroke than does the general population, but men with SLE do not, according to an analysis of the U.S. National Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
In a study of more than 1.5 million cases of acute stroke recorded in the United States between 2015 and 2018, women with SLE were more likely to be hospitalized for longer and less likely to be routinely discharged into their home environment than were those without SLE. No such association was found for men with SLE.
“The findings imply that primary stroke prevention is of utmost importance, especially in females with SLE,” said Sona Jesenakova, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).
“There might be a need to explore more effective and targeted treatment strategies to try and minimize these excessive adverse acute stroke outcomes, especially in females with SLE suffering from stroke,” she suggested.
“Even though males form only a minority of the SLE patient population, some studies have shown that they are prone to suffer from worse disease outcomes,” Ms. Jesenakova said.
Importantly, “male sex has been identified as a risk factor for death early in the course of SLE,” she added, highlighting that sex differences do seem to exist in SLE.
Stroke is an important outcome to look at because people with SLE are known to be at higher risk for developing atherosclerosis, which is a widely known risk factor for ischemic stroke, and with antiphospholipid antibody positivity and uncontrolled disease activity, that risk can be increased. A meta-analysis of older studies has suggested that the risk for death after a stroke is 68% higher in people with SLE than in those without.
To examine the risk for death and other in-hospital outcomes in a more contemporary population, Ms. Jesenakova and associates used data from the National Inpatient Sample, a large, publicly available database that contains inpatient health care information from across the United States. Their sample population consisted of 1,581,430 individuals who had been hospitalized for stroke. Of these, there were 6,100 women and 940 men who had SLE; the remainder served as the ‘no-SLE’ control population.
As might be expected, patients with SLE were about 10 years younger than those without SLE; the median age of women and men with SLE and those without SLE were a respective 60, 61, and 71 years.
There was no difference in the type of stroke between the SLE and no-SLE groups; most had an ischemic stroke (around 89%) rather than a hemorrhagic stroke (around 11%).
The researchers analyzed three key outcomes: mortality at discharge, hospitalization prolonged to a stay of more than 4 days, and routine home discharge, meaning that the patient was able to be discharged home versus more specialist facilities such as a nursing home.
They conducted a multivariate analysis with adjustments made for potential confounding factors such as age, ethnicity, type of stroke, and revascularization treatment. Comorbidities, including major cardiovascular disease, were also accounted for.
Although women with SLE were 21% more likely to die than patients without SLE, men with SLE were 24% less likely to die than was the no-SLE population. However, these differences were not statistically significant.
Women with SLE were 20% more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay and 28% less likely to have a routine home discharge, compared with patients who did not have SLE. The 95% confidence intervals were statistically significant, which was not seen when comparing the same outcomes in men with SLE (odds ratios of 1.06 and 1.18, respectively).
“As for males, even though we didn’t find anything of statistical significance, we have to bear in mind that the sample we had was quite small, and thus these results need to be interpreted with caution,” Ms. Jesenakova said. “We also think that we identified a gap in the current knowledge, and as such, further research is needed to help us understand the influence of male sex on acute stroke outcomes in patients with comorbid SLE.”
The researchers performed a secondary analysis looking at the use of revascularization treatments for ischemic stroke and found that there were no differences between individuals with and without SLE. This analysis considered the use of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy in just over 1.4 million cases but did not look at sex-specific differences.
Ms. Jesenakova had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience worse outcomes after an acute stroke than does the general population, but men with SLE do not, according to an analysis of the U.S. National Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
In a study of more than 1.5 million cases of acute stroke recorded in the United States between 2015 and 2018, women with SLE were more likely to be hospitalized for longer and less likely to be routinely discharged into their home environment than were those without SLE. No such association was found for men with SLE.
“The findings imply that primary stroke prevention is of utmost importance, especially in females with SLE,” said Sona Jesenakova, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).
“There might be a need to explore more effective and targeted treatment strategies to try and minimize these excessive adverse acute stroke outcomes, especially in females with SLE suffering from stroke,” she suggested.
“Even though males form only a minority of the SLE patient population, some studies have shown that they are prone to suffer from worse disease outcomes,” Ms. Jesenakova said.
Importantly, “male sex has been identified as a risk factor for death early in the course of SLE,” she added, highlighting that sex differences do seem to exist in SLE.
Stroke is an important outcome to look at because people with SLE are known to be at higher risk for developing atherosclerosis, which is a widely known risk factor for ischemic stroke, and with antiphospholipid antibody positivity and uncontrolled disease activity, that risk can be increased. A meta-analysis of older studies has suggested that the risk for death after a stroke is 68% higher in people with SLE than in those without.
To examine the risk for death and other in-hospital outcomes in a more contemporary population, Ms. Jesenakova and associates used data from the National Inpatient Sample, a large, publicly available database that contains inpatient health care information from across the United States. Their sample population consisted of 1,581,430 individuals who had been hospitalized for stroke. Of these, there were 6,100 women and 940 men who had SLE; the remainder served as the ‘no-SLE’ control population.
As might be expected, patients with SLE were about 10 years younger than those without SLE; the median age of women and men with SLE and those without SLE were a respective 60, 61, and 71 years.
There was no difference in the type of stroke between the SLE and no-SLE groups; most had an ischemic stroke (around 89%) rather than a hemorrhagic stroke (around 11%).
The researchers analyzed three key outcomes: mortality at discharge, hospitalization prolonged to a stay of more than 4 days, and routine home discharge, meaning that the patient was able to be discharged home versus more specialist facilities such as a nursing home.
They conducted a multivariate analysis with adjustments made for potential confounding factors such as age, ethnicity, type of stroke, and revascularization treatment. Comorbidities, including major cardiovascular disease, were also accounted for.
Although women with SLE were 21% more likely to die than patients without SLE, men with SLE were 24% less likely to die than was the no-SLE population. However, these differences were not statistically significant.
Women with SLE were 20% more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay and 28% less likely to have a routine home discharge, compared with patients who did not have SLE. The 95% confidence intervals were statistically significant, which was not seen when comparing the same outcomes in men with SLE (odds ratios of 1.06 and 1.18, respectively).
“As for males, even though we didn’t find anything of statistical significance, we have to bear in mind that the sample we had was quite small, and thus these results need to be interpreted with caution,” Ms. Jesenakova said. “We also think that we identified a gap in the current knowledge, and as such, further research is needed to help us understand the influence of male sex on acute stroke outcomes in patients with comorbid SLE.”
The researchers performed a secondary analysis looking at the use of revascularization treatments for ischemic stroke and found that there were no differences between individuals with and without SLE. This analysis considered the use of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy in just over 1.4 million cases but did not look at sex-specific differences.
Ms. Jesenakova had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM BSR 2022
Children with RMDs not at high risk for severe COVID-19, study finds
The of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.
In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.
The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.
Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.
“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”
In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”
Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.
Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.
However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.
The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.
Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.
Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).
With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.
Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.
Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.
No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.
Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.
The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.
Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.
In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.
The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.
Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.
“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”
In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”
Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.
Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.
However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.
The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.
Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.
Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).
With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.
Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.
Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.
No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.
Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.
The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.
Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.
In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.
The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.
Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.
“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”
In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”
Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.
Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.
However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.
The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.
Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.
Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).
With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.
Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.
Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.
No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.
Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.
The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.
Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
COVID-19 infection linked to risk of cutaneous autoimmune and vascular diseases
BOSTON – . This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.
The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.
After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.
In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).
No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.
In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).
“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.
Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.
He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”
One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.
When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point."
Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.
* This story was updated on 3/29/22.
BOSTON – . This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.
The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.
After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.
In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).
No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.
In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).
“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.
Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.
He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”
One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.
When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point."
Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.
* This story was updated on 3/29/22.
BOSTON – . This predominately favored systemic disease states with cutaneous involvement, rather than skin-limited processes.
The findings come from a large multicenter analysis that Zachary Holcomb, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Viral triggers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatologic disease, but information regarding development of autoimmune disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited,” said Dr. Holcomb, chief resident in the Harvard Combined Internal Medicine–Dermatology Residency, Boston. “Given its proposed thromboinflammatory pathobiology, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of development of autoimmune disease with cutaneous manifestations and sought to define incidence rates of newly-diagnosed autoimmune diseases following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The researchers drew from the TriNetX Dataworks platform, an online cloud-based system that contains aggregated and deidentified patient information from about 75 million patients across 48 health care organizations. The infected cohort was defined as having a positive lab test for severe SARS-CoV-2 within the study window using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCs). Healthy controls consisted of a documented health care contact (inpatient or outpatient visit) during the study window without a positive SARS-CoV-2 lab test. Each cohort included patients aged 18-65 at the time of the study, and patients with previously diagnosed cutaneous autoimmune or vascular diseases were excluded from the analysis.
After propensity matching, the COVID-19 infected cohort and the healthy cohort included 1,904,864 patients each, with no baseline differences in age at index event, ethnicity, race, or sex. The study window was between April 1, 2020, and Oct. 1, 2020. The index event was a COVID-19 infection for the infected group and first documented health care contact in the healthy control group. The researchers looked at a window of 60 days following this index event for new incidence of cutaneous or vascular disease.
In the realm of connective tissue and related diseases, they found the incidence was increased among the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls for dermatomyositis (risk ratio, 2.273; P = .0196), scleroderma (RR, 1.959; P = .0001), and systemic lupus erythematosus (RR, 1.401; P < .0001). They also noted a significant decrease in the new incidence of alopecia areata in the COVID-19 infected group compared with controls (RR, 0.527; P < .0001).
No significant differences in the incidence of bullous and papulosquamous diseases were observed between the two groups. However, sarcoidosis was significantly more common in the COVID-19–infected group compared with controls (RR, 2.086; P < .001). “When taking all of these autoinflammatory diseases as a whole, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group overall with a RR of 1.168 (P < .0001),” Dr. Holcomb said.
In the realm of vascular skin diseases, there was an increased incidence in the COVID-19 infected group in acrocyanosis (RR, 2.825; P < .001), Raynaud’s phenomenon (RR, 1.462; P < .0001), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (RR, 1.714; P < .0001), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (RR, 2.667; P = .0002), and temporal arteritis (RR, 1.900; P = .0038).
“Interestingly, despite the academic and lay press reports of COVID toes, we did not see that in our data related to the COVID-infected group,” he said.
Dr. Holcomb acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including a narrow study window with a relatively short follow-up. “We were able to propensity match based on baseline demographics but not necessarily so based on health status and prior autoimmune disease,” he said. In addition, since the study was limited to those aged 18-65, the results may not be generalizable to pediatric and elderly patients, he said.
He described the study findings as “somewhat hypothesis-generating.” For instance, “why would we have more of a systemic process [at play?]. Our theory is that the severe inflammatory nature of COVID-19 leads to a lot of internal organ damage and exposure of autoantigens in that process, with relative skin sparing.”
One of the session moderators, Robert Paul Dellavalle, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Colorado, Aurora, characterized the findings as “intriguing” but preliminary. “It would be interesting to look at more recent cohorts and see how vaccination for COVID-19 would impact the incidence rates of some of these diseases,” he said.
When asked for comment, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, "This is an interesting study that should be followed up. Viral triggers have been known to precede autoimmune diseases so it will be very important to understand whether COVID-19 also impacts systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. I would be interested in differences in surveillance between the infection and control groups early in the pandemic. Many patients were avoiding interaction with the health care system at that point."
Dr. Holcomb reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Dellavalle disclosed that he is a consultant for Altus Labs and ParaPRO LLC. He has received grants and research funding from Pfizer.
* This story was updated on 3/29/22.
AT AAD 2022
Updated perioperative guidance says when to hold antirheumatics
The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.
The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
The previous guidelines were published in 2017.
“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”
According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.
The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”
The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.
Withholding drugs in patients with SLE
“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.
In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.
The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:
- Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
- Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.
An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”
Timing of stopping and restarting medication
The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”
In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”
The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.
The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.
“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.
The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.
In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.
The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.
The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.
The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
The previous guidelines were published in 2017.
“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”
According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.
The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”
The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.
Withholding drugs in patients with SLE
“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.
In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.
The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:
- Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
- Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.
An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”
Timing of stopping and restarting medication
The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”
In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”
The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.
The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.
“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.
The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.
In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.
The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.
The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons have released updated guidelines regarding whether to withhold drugs such as biologics and immunosuppressives for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease who are scheduled to undergo elective total hip or knee replacement surgery.
The guidelines, published in a summary by the societies on Feb. 28, include revised and new recommendations about biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for patients with several types of inflammatory arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In general, the guidelines recommend that the most powerful medications be withheld prior to surgery except for patients whose SLE is so severe that it threatens organs. They also recommend a shorter period of withholding drugs – 3 days instead of 7 – for JAK inhibitors.
The previous guidelines were published in 2017.
“These recommendations seek to balance flares of disease that are likely when medications are stopped vs. the risk of infection,” Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co–principal investigator of the guideline, told this news organization. “Patients and physicians may want to be either more conservative or more aggressive with their medications, depending on their personal priorities or specific medical history.”
According to Dr. Goodman, patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases are especially likely to undergo joint replacement surgery because the conditions can damage the joints. “While the introduction of potent biologics has been linked to a decrease in surgery of soft tissues and small joints, there has been little impact on large-joint surgeries,” she said.
The risk of infection in these patients is about 50% higher than in the general population, she said. However, “it is hard to determine the magnitude of the effect of withholding medications, given the low rate of infection. In fact, using pharmaco-epidemiologic methods in large Medicare databases, no difference was seen in patients whose immunosuppressant medication infusions were close to the time of surgery compared to those patients whose medication infusions were months prior to surgery.”
The guidelines add a recommendation for the first time for apremilast (Otezla), saying that when it is administered twice daily it is okay to schedule surgery at any time.
Withholding drugs in patients with SLE
“We now recommend continuing biologics used to treat SLE – rituximab and belimumab – in patients with severe SLE but continue to recommend withholding them in less severe cases where there is little risk of organ damage,” Bryan D. Springer, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in Charlotte, N.C., first vice president of the AAHKS, and co–principal investigator of the new guidelines, told this news organization.
In severe SLE cases, the guidelines recommend timing total joint replacement surgery for 4-6 months after the latest IV dose of rituximab (Rituxan), which is given every 4-6 months. For patients taking belimumab (Benlysta), time surgery anytime when weekly subcutaneous doses are administered or at week 4 when monthly IV doses are given.
The guidelines also make recommendations regarding two new drugs for the treatment of severe SLE:
- Anifrolumab (Saphnelo): Time surgery at week 4 when IV treatment is given every 4 weeks.
- Voclosporin (Lupkynis): Continue doses when they’re given twice daily.
An ACR statement cautions that there are no published, peer-reviewed data regarding the use of these two drugs prior to total joint surgery. “The medications do increase the risk of infection,” the statement says, “and therefore their use in patients with severe SLE would merit review by the treating rheumatologist in consideration of surgery.”
Timing of stopping and restarting medication
The guidelines also recommend that certain drugs be withheld for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or any type of SLE and then “restarting the antirheumatic therapy once the wound shows evidence of healing, any sutures/staples are out, there is no significant swelling, erythema, or drainage, and there is no ongoing nonsurgical site infection, which is typically about 14 days.”
In regard to biologics, “we continue to recommend withholding biologic medications in patients with inflammatory arthritis, withholding the medication for a dosing cycle prior to surgery, and scheduling the surgery after that dose would be due,” Dr. Springer said. “For example, if a patient takes the medication every 4 weeks, the patient would withhold the dose of the medication and schedule surgery in the 5th week.”
The new recommendations for biologics suggest scheduling surgery at week 5 when the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz) is given once every 4 weeks and at week 9 when the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya) is given every 8 weeks.
The guidelines also revise the previous recommendation about tofacitinib (Xeljanz): Surgery should be scheduled on day 4 when the drug is given once or twice daily. New recommendations for fellow JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant, daily) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq, daily) are the same: Withhold for 3 days prior to surgery and perform surgery on the 4th day.
“We shortened the time between the last dose of JAK inhibitors and surgery to 3 days from 7 based on trial data demonstrating early flares when the drug was withheld, suggesting the immunosuppressant effect wears off sooner than we previously thought,” Dr. Springer said.
The guidelines caution that the recommendations for JAK inhibitors are for infection risk but do not consider the risk of cardiac events or venous thromboembolism.
In patients with nonsevere SLE, the guidelines revise the recommendations for mycophenolate mofetil (twice daily), cyclosporine (twice daily), and tacrolimus (twice daily, IV and oral). The new advice is to withhold the drugs for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery. New recommendations offer the same advice for belimumab, both IV and subcutaneous: Withhold for 1 week after last dose prior to surgery.
The board of the ACR approved the guidelines summary; the full manuscript has been submitted for peer review with an eye toward later publication in the journals Arthritis and Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research.
The ACR and AAHKS funded the guidelines. Dr. Goodman and Dr. Springer report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
EULAR CVD management guidance focuses on gout, lupus, vasculitis
New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).
EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.
The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:
Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.
Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.
Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.
Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.
Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.
Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.
As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.
Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?
“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”
“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”
When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.
“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”
Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.
“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.
“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.
“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”
Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.
“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.
“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”
Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).
EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.
The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:
Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.
Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.
Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.
Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.
Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.
Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.
As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.
Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?
“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”
“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”
When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.
“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”
Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.
“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.
“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.
“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”
Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.
“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.
“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”
Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology provide both broad and detailed advice for cardiovascular risk management in various rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), many of which can lead to an increased possibility of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
“The panel believes that these recommendations will enable health care providers and patients to mutually engage in a long-term care pathway tailored to patients’ needs and expectations for improving cardiovascular health in RMDs,” write George C. Drosos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues. The recommendations were published in February in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases).
EULAR assembled a task force to generate best practices for preventing CVD in patients with gout, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), myositis, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
The cardiovascular risk management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis was covered in prior EULAR recommendations.
The task force included 20 members from 11 European countries, including 12 rheumatologists, 2 cardiologists, 1 metabolic medicine physician, 1 health care professional, 2 patient representatives, and 2 EMEUNET (Emerging EULAR Network) members. One group of task force members conducted a systematic literature review of 105 articles about gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS, and another group evaluated 75 articles about SLE and APS. Together, they decided on four overarching principles:
Clinicians need to be aware of increased cardiovascular risk in patients with RMDs, with disease reduction likely decreasing risk.
Rheumatologists – in tandem with other health care providers – are responsible for their patients’ cardiovascular risk assessment and management.
Screening for cardiovascular risk should be performed regularly in all patients with RMDs, with an emphasis on factors like smoking and blood pressure management.
Patient education and counseling on cardiovascular risk, including important lifestyle modifications, is key for RMD patients.
Specific recommendations from the gout, vasculitis, SSc, myositis, MCTD, and SS group include deploying existing cardiovascular prediction tools as they are used in the general population, with the European Vasculitis Society model suggesting to supplement the Framingham Risk Score for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis. They also recommended avoiding diuretics in patients with gout and beta-blockers in patients with SSc, as well as following the same blood pressure and lipid management strategies that are used among the general population.
Recommendations from the SLE and APS group include thoroughly assessing traditional cardiovascular risk factors in all patients, following typical blood pressure management strategies in patients with APS, and setting a blood pressure target of less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with SLE. They also recommended administering the lowest possible glucocorticoid dose in patients with SLE, along with treatment with hydroxychloroquine – unless contraindicated – and even common preventive strategies like low-dose aspirin if it suits their cardiovascular risk profile.
As for next steps, the task force noted several areas where additional focus is needed, such as identifying patient subgroups with increased cardiovascular risk. This could include patients with a longer disease duration or more flare-ups, older patients, and those with certain disease characteristics like antiphospholipid positivity in SLE.
Can EULAR’s recommendations be implemented in U.S. rheumatology practices?
“We have been hearing for years that patients with rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,” Ali A. Duarte Garcia, MD, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. “That has been consistently published for more than a decade now. But any further guidance about it has not been issued. I think there was a void there.”
“Certainly, cardiovascular disease risk in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis has been front of mind for the last decade or so,” Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said when asked to comment on the recommendations. “But in some of these other conditions, it hasn’t been.”
When asked if rheumatologists would be ready and willing to implement these recommendations, Dr. Duarte Garcia acknowledged that it could be challenging for some.
“It’s a different workflow,” he said. “You’ve been trained traditionally to assess inflammation, to keep the disease under control, which is something they recommend, by the way. If you control the disease, patients do better. But I think lipid screening, for example, and testing for cholesterol, smoking cessation, those well-established programs are harder to bring to a rheumatology clinic. It’s doable, but it’s something that needs to be implemented within the current workflows and could take a few years to take hold.”
Dr. Bartels, however, noted that her group has done extensive work over the last 5 years incorporating certain interventions into practice, including sending patients with high blood pressure back to primary care.
“It’s a sustainable intervention in our clinic that basically our medical assistants and nurses do as a routine operation,” she said. “Our primary care providers are grateful to get these patients back. Our patients are grateful because otherwise when they come to the rheumatologist, get their blood pressure measured, and don’t get feedback, they assume they’re OK. So, we’re giving them a false signal.
“We have a similar intervention with smoking,” she added. “Often our patients aren’t even aware that they’re at increased risk of cardiovascular disease or that smoking might make their rheumatic disease and their cardiovascular outcomes worse. No one has had that conversation with them. They really welcome engaging in those discussions.
“Our tobacco intervention takes 90 seconds at point of care. Our blood pressure intervention at point of care, we’ve timed it, takes 3 minutes. There are ways that we can hardwire this into care.”
Along those lines, Dr. Duarte Garcia stated that the recommendations – although released by EULAR – are largely intuitive and should be very adaptable to an American health care context. He also recognized this moment as an opportunity for rheumatologists to consider patient outcomes beyond what they usually encounter firsthand.
“I don’t think we have many rheumatologists with patients who get a stroke or heart attack because if that happens, it’s in a hospital context or they go see a cardiologist,” he said. “You may see it once it happens if they survive and come and see you – or perhaps if you’re in a more integrated practice – but I don’t think it’s as apparent in our clinics because it is a predominantly outpatient practice and many times those are emergencies or inpatient complications.
“The bottom line,” he added, “is these are practical guidelines. It’s a push in the right direction, but there is still work to be done. And hopefully some of the recommendations, like measuring high blood pressure and addressing it just as in the general population, are something we can start to implement.”
Dr. Duarte Garcia reported receiving grant funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Bartels reported that her group’s tobacco cessation work is funded by Pfizer’s Independent Grants for Learning and Change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
New ivermectin, HCQ scripts highest in GOP-dominated counties
New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.
Using U.S. Census data and 2020 presidential election results, the researchers classified counties according to their proportion of Republican voters and then examined whether those proportions were associated with that county’s rates of new prescriptions for HCQ, ivermectin, methotrexate sodium, and albendazole. Methotrexate is prescribed for similar conditions and indications as HCQ, and albendazole is prescribed for similar reasons as ivermectin, although neither of the comparison drugs has been considered for COVID-19 treatment.
The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.
The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.
In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.
The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.
“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.
Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.
Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.
“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.
Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.
Using U.S. Census data and 2020 presidential election results, the researchers classified counties according to their proportion of Republican voters and then examined whether those proportions were associated with that county’s rates of new prescriptions for HCQ, ivermectin, methotrexate sodium, and albendazole. Methotrexate is prescribed for similar conditions and indications as HCQ, and albendazole is prescribed for similar reasons as ivermectin, although neither of the comparison drugs has been considered for COVID-19 treatment.
The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.
The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.
In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.
The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.
“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.
Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.
Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.
“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.
Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.
Using U.S. Census data and 2020 presidential election results, the researchers classified counties according to their proportion of Republican voters and then examined whether those proportions were associated with that county’s rates of new prescriptions for HCQ, ivermectin, methotrexate sodium, and albendazole. Methotrexate is prescribed for similar conditions and indications as HCQ, and albendazole is prescribed for similar reasons as ivermectin, although neither of the comparison drugs has been considered for COVID-19 treatment.
The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.
The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.
In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.
The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.
“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.
Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.
Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.
“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.
Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
