Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

In the clinical opinion of Adam Friedman, MD, the emerging use of cannabinoids in dermatology is a trend that’s here to stay.

“There’s no question in my mind about that. Don’t play catch-up; be at the forefront, because at a minimum your patients are going to ask you about this,” he said in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

In 2018, officials at Health Canada reviewed literature and international reviews concerning potential therapeutic uses and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and published a free downloadable guide for health care professionals. “In the book, dermatology doesn’t have its own section,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It falls under inflammation and makes up four paragraphs of the entire book, which is weird, given that if you survey the dispensaries in Canada, the majority of them led in with dermatologic indications, many of which are completely unsubstantiated.”

In the United States, a recent survey of 531 dermatologists led by Elizabeth S. Robinson, MD, of George Washington University, found that 55% reported at least one patient-initiated discussion about cannabinoids in the last year (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17[2]:1273-8). However, 48% were concerned about a negative stigma when proposing cannabinoid therapies to patients. While most respondents (86%) were willing to prescribe an FDA-approved cannabinoid as a topical treatment, fewer (71%) were willing to prescribe an oral form. In an unpublished study conducted 2 years later, 155 dermatologists were asked if they had ever recommended medical cannabis products for the treatment/management of a dermatologic condition. More than 80% said they had not.

“It’s important to recognize that if we have a strong fund of knowledge, we can guide these patients to use the right cannabinoids for the right indications, so long as we have some evidence supporting it,” said Dr. Friedman, residency program director and director of translational research in George Washington University’s department of dermatology.

According to existing medical literature, cannabinoids may ultimately play a role in the treatment of eczema (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.036 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03824405), psoriasis, acne, and certain collagen vascular diseases, including scleroderma, dermatomyositis, and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). Most of the evidence for its use in collagen vascular diseases comes from the investigation of a synthetic cannabinoid known as anabasum, which is derived from TCH, but it has no affinity for the CB1 receptor. “Rather, it goes after the CB2 receptor, which is heavily prevalent in the immune system,” he noted.

In the summer of 2018, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation to Corbus Pharmaceuticals for lenabasum, a derivative of anabasum, for the treatment of dermatomyositis. “Hopefully, we’ll see this in the next year,” said Dr. Friedman, who consults for Corbus. A more recent study showed that lenabasum could reduce the production of interleukin-31 (Br. J Dermatol 2018;179[3]:669-78), which “I think will have broader implications in dermatology beyond dermatomyositis,” he said.

Dr. Friedman also reviewed data on a topical endocannabinoid nanoparticle-based formulation his team developed and is studying for the treatment of CLE. “There is a huge unmet need as there are no topical therapies approved for CLE,” he said. “Our animal data are very promising and we plan to move forward to human studies shortly.”

Resources for clinicians to improve their understanding about the potential use of cannabinoids in dermatology include an online certificate program in cannabis medicine offered by Thomas Jefferson University, as well as their state departments of health. Other resources include the International Cannabinoid Research Society, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Dr. Friedman noted that marijuana may exacerbate appetite, sleepiness, dizziness, low blood pressure, dry mouth/eyes, decreased urination, hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, poor balance and posture in patients with dyskinetic disorders, and impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance. High concentrations can cause hyperemesis syndrome and exacerbate existing psychoses. With respect to cannabidiol (CBD), “unless you go with super high concentrations, over 50 mg/kg per day, you’re probably not going to run into so much trouble,” Dr. Friedman said. “Above that, you do get some liver function test abnormalities. The problem is, a lot of CBD-based products have impurities in them.”

Different state-based requirements exist for recommending cannabinoid products to your patients “so it’s important to know those requirements,” Dr. Friedman said. “I have patients sign a cannabis contrast. There are examples of these online. My mantra is start low and go slow, and stay low as much as possible.”

The virtual meeting at George Washington University included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some that produce cannabinoids. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Abbvie, and Dermira, and has received grants from Pfizer and the Dermatology Foundation.

[email protected]

In the clinical opinion of Adam Friedman, MD, the emerging use of cannabinoids in dermatology is a trend that’s here to stay.

“There’s no question in my mind about that. Don’t play catch-up; be at the forefront, because at a minimum your patients are going to ask you about this,” he said in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

In 2018, officials at Health Canada reviewed literature and international reviews concerning potential therapeutic uses and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and published a free downloadable guide for health care professionals. “In the book, dermatology doesn’t have its own section,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It falls under inflammation and makes up four paragraphs of the entire book, which is weird, given that if you survey the dispensaries in Canada, the majority of them led in with dermatologic indications, many of which are completely unsubstantiated.”

In the United States, a recent survey of 531 dermatologists led by Elizabeth S. Robinson, MD, of George Washington University, found that 55% reported at least one patient-initiated discussion about cannabinoids in the last year (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17[2]:1273-8). However, 48% were concerned about a negative stigma when proposing cannabinoid therapies to patients. While most respondents (86%) were willing to prescribe an FDA-approved cannabinoid as a topical treatment, fewer (71%) were willing to prescribe an oral form. In an unpublished study conducted 2 years later, 155 dermatologists were asked if they had ever recommended medical cannabis products for the treatment/management of a dermatologic condition. More than 80% said they had not.

“It’s important to recognize that if we have a strong fund of knowledge, we can guide these patients to use the right cannabinoids for the right indications, so long as we have some evidence supporting it,” said Dr. Friedman, residency program director and director of translational research in George Washington University’s department of dermatology.

According to existing medical literature, cannabinoids may ultimately play a role in the treatment of eczema (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.036 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03824405), psoriasis, acne, and certain collagen vascular diseases, including scleroderma, dermatomyositis, and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). Most of the evidence for its use in collagen vascular diseases comes from the investigation of a synthetic cannabinoid known as anabasum, which is derived from TCH, but it has no affinity for the CB1 receptor. “Rather, it goes after the CB2 receptor, which is heavily prevalent in the immune system,” he noted.

In the summer of 2018, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation to Corbus Pharmaceuticals for lenabasum, a derivative of anabasum, for the treatment of dermatomyositis. “Hopefully, we’ll see this in the next year,” said Dr. Friedman, who consults for Corbus. A more recent study showed that lenabasum could reduce the production of interleukin-31 (Br. J Dermatol 2018;179[3]:669-78), which “I think will have broader implications in dermatology beyond dermatomyositis,” he said.

Dr. Friedman also reviewed data on a topical endocannabinoid nanoparticle-based formulation his team developed and is studying for the treatment of CLE. “There is a huge unmet need as there are no topical therapies approved for CLE,” he said. “Our animal data are very promising and we plan to move forward to human studies shortly.”

Resources for clinicians to improve their understanding about the potential use of cannabinoids in dermatology include an online certificate program in cannabis medicine offered by Thomas Jefferson University, as well as their state departments of health. Other resources include the International Cannabinoid Research Society, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Dr. Friedman noted that marijuana may exacerbate appetite, sleepiness, dizziness, low blood pressure, dry mouth/eyes, decreased urination, hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, poor balance and posture in patients with dyskinetic disorders, and impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance. High concentrations can cause hyperemesis syndrome and exacerbate existing psychoses. With respect to cannabidiol (CBD), “unless you go with super high concentrations, over 50 mg/kg per day, you’re probably not going to run into so much trouble,” Dr. Friedman said. “Above that, you do get some liver function test abnormalities. The problem is, a lot of CBD-based products have impurities in them.”

Different state-based requirements exist for recommending cannabinoid products to your patients “so it’s important to know those requirements,” Dr. Friedman said. “I have patients sign a cannabis contrast. There are examples of these online. My mantra is start low and go slow, and stay low as much as possible.”

The virtual meeting at George Washington University included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some that produce cannabinoids. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Abbvie, and Dermira, and has received grants from Pfizer and the Dermatology Foundation.

[email protected]

In the clinical opinion of Adam Friedman, MD, the emerging use of cannabinoids in dermatology is a trend that’s here to stay.

“There’s no question in my mind about that. Don’t play catch-up; be at the forefront, because at a minimum your patients are going to ask you about this,” he said in a video presentation during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology.

In 2018, officials at Health Canada reviewed literature and international reviews concerning potential therapeutic uses and harmful effects of cannabis and cannabinoids and published a free downloadable guide for health care professionals. “In the book, dermatology doesn’t have its own section,” said Dr. Friedman, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “It falls under inflammation and makes up four paragraphs of the entire book, which is weird, given that if you survey the dispensaries in Canada, the majority of them led in with dermatologic indications, many of which are completely unsubstantiated.”

In the United States, a recent survey of 531 dermatologists led by Elizabeth S. Robinson, MD, of George Washington University, found that 55% reported at least one patient-initiated discussion about cannabinoids in the last year (J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17[2]:1273-8). However, 48% were concerned about a negative stigma when proposing cannabinoid therapies to patients. While most respondents (86%) were willing to prescribe an FDA-approved cannabinoid as a topical treatment, fewer (71%) were willing to prescribe an oral form. In an unpublished study conducted 2 years later, 155 dermatologists were asked if they had ever recommended medical cannabis products for the treatment/management of a dermatologic condition. More than 80% said they had not.

“It’s important to recognize that if we have a strong fund of knowledge, we can guide these patients to use the right cannabinoids for the right indications, so long as we have some evidence supporting it,” said Dr. Friedman, residency program director and director of translational research in George Washington University’s department of dermatology.

According to existing medical literature, cannabinoids may ultimately play a role in the treatment of eczema (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.036 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03824405), psoriasis, acne, and certain collagen vascular diseases, including scleroderma, dermatomyositis, and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). Most of the evidence for its use in collagen vascular diseases comes from the investigation of a synthetic cannabinoid known as anabasum, which is derived from TCH, but it has no affinity for the CB1 receptor. “Rather, it goes after the CB2 receptor, which is heavily prevalent in the immune system,” he noted.

In the summer of 2018, the FDA granted Orphan Drug Designation to Corbus Pharmaceuticals for lenabasum, a derivative of anabasum, for the treatment of dermatomyositis. “Hopefully, we’ll see this in the next year,” said Dr. Friedman, who consults for Corbus. A more recent study showed that lenabasum could reduce the production of interleukin-31 (Br. J Dermatol 2018;179[3]:669-78), which “I think will have broader implications in dermatology beyond dermatomyositis,” he said.

Dr. Friedman also reviewed data on a topical endocannabinoid nanoparticle-based formulation his team developed and is studying for the treatment of CLE. “There is a huge unmet need as there are no topical therapies approved for CLE,” he said. “Our animal data are very promising and we plan to move forward to human studies shortly.”

Resources for clinicians to improve their understanding about the potential use of cannabinoids in dermatology include an online certificate program in cannabis medicine offered by Thomas Jefferson University, as well as their state departments of health. Other resources include the International Cannabinoid Research Society, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, the University of California’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, and the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Dr. Friedman noted that marijuana may exacerbate appetite, sleepiness, dizziness, low blood pressure, dry mouth/eyes, decreased urination, hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, poor balance and posture in patients with dyskinetic disorders, and impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance. High concentrations can cause hyperemesis syndrome and exacerbate existing psychoses. With respect to cannabidiol (CBD), “unless you go with super high concentrations, over 50 mg/kg per day, you’re probably not going to run into so much trouble,” Dr. Friedman said. “Above that, you do get some liver function test abnormalities. The problem is, a lot of CBD-based products have impurities in them.”

Different state-based requirements exist for recommending cannabinoid products to your patients “so it’s important to know those requirements,” Dr. Friedman said. “I have patients sign a cannabis contrast. There are examples of these online. My mantra is start low and go slow, and stay low as much as possible.”

The virtual meeting at George Washington University included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Friedman reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some that produce cannabinoids. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, Abbvie, and Dermira, and has received grants from Pfizer and the Dermatology Foundation.

[email protected]

Across the country, hospitals are incorporating Friday’s warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the risks of prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 into their treatment protocols.

For some hospitals, the message affirmed the cautious approach they were already taking with hydroxychloroquine. “From a New York state or Northwell perspective, there is no major change,” said Onisis Stefas, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy at Northwell Health in New York. “We were not prescribing it out in the community very early on because of the concerns associated with the heart arrhythmias.”

Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is currently in the process of updating its publicly available COVID-19 protocols website “to incorporate the FDA’s updated safety assessment and ongoing clinical trials,” a hospital spokesperson told Medscape Medical News. Prior to the updates, the treatment protocols indicated that hydroxychloroquine should only be considered after weighing the risks and benefits for patients who are not candidates for other clinical trials and meet a specific set of health criteria.

The warning is a timely and important synthesis of what physicians know about the drugs so far and how cautiously clinicians across the country should be using them, said Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and chair-elect of the HIV Medicine Association.

“I think to be honest it’s a really important message to the public and clinicians across the country,” said Gandhi. “Because we all know there is just a ton of discussion around this drug ... and it came out fairly and said what we know right now.”

The two antimalarial drugs have been at the center of much political debate and scientific scrutiny in recent weeks, following President Trump’s endorsement and the FDA’s emergency use authorization for the two medications in March. Hospitals across the country had incorporated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into their constantly evolving treatment protocols for patients with COVID-19.

But the evidence that these drugs actually help treat COVID-19 remains scant. Some small studies suggest the therapies help patients with COVID-19, while others conclude the drugs have no effect or even harm patients. In the United States, medical societies including the American Heart Association have also warned about the serious cardiac issues that can accompany these drugs for some patients.

In the new warning, the FDA said it “cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 patients outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial” and urged “close supervision” of patients treated with these therapies, citing cardiac side effects.

The FDA also said it is aware that the outpatient prescription of these medications has increased since its March authorization, but the drugs still have not been shown to be safe or effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.

The FDA announcement is consistent with protocols established by the National Institutes of Health and IDSA earlier this month that recommend against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, except when these drugs are administered as part of a clinical trial.

“We agree wholeheartedly with the FDA and have been hoping that the FDA would in fact issue that kind of clarification,” said Samuel Brown, MD, study committee cochair of the ORCHID clinical trial, a multicenter, blinded study investigating the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. These medications need to be tested in clinical trials that are able to focus closely on safety monitoring, he said. Experts at Vanderbilt University, one of the medical centers participating in the ORCHID clinical trial, decided before Tennessee had any cases of COVID-19 that unproven therapies like hydroxychloroquine would only be available through clinical trials, said Wesley Self, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the ORCHID study committee.

Northwell Health, like other hospitals in New York, has been following a March executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo limiting the use of these drugs for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, said Stefas. At Northwell Health, patients with COVID-19 only receive hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine when treated in hospital, where they can be closely monitored, or as part of a clinical trial. The hospital system’s protocols currently do not recommend pairing hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, said Stefas. The new FDA announcement is “very similar” to New York’s existing executive order, he said. “Reading through this reinforces a lot of what we originally thought.”

At MGH in Boston, the FDA safety warning is in line with and “solidifies” the hospital’s evolving protocols, said Gandhi. Clinicians at MGH have been steadily moving away from prescribing hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials as the efficacy has remained murky, the serious side effects have become more evident, and clinical trials to assess the drug have gotten underway in recent weeks, he said. Given the conflicting evidence, Gandhi feels the use of these drugs needs to be focused in clinical trials, where scientists can truly evaluate how much they help or harm.

“We know fundamentally that’s the way to do this,” Gandhi said. “We also don’t know that it doesn’t work, so it is ethical and incumbent upon us to do a study,” Gandhi said.

Other hospitals are already heeding the FDA’s warning. At UW Medicine in Washington state, for example, hydroxychloroquine was considered a possible treatment for COVID-19 prior to the FDA’s recent announcement. “Based on FDA guidance, hydroxychloroquine is no longer recommended as therapy for COVID-19 unless done through a clinical trial,” said Tim Dellit, MD, chief medical officer for UW Medicine.

Michigan Medicine stopped using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (both separately and in combination) about a month ago, said Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan. “When we reviewed the data that was available in more detail, we realized that it was essentially uninterpretable,” he said. As of Monday, the only patients receiving this drug at Michigan Medicine are those enrolled in the ORCHID clinical trial.

But that does not seem to be the case everywhere. Most patients transferred to Michigan Medicine from other hospitals have received these drugs, indicating they are still being widely used, said Kaul. “I think this FDA guidance is appropriate and may reduce usage of this drug and make people more aware of the potential side effects both in inpatient and outpatient settings.”

Hopefully, the FDA guidance will help slow the use of these drugs outside the appropriate clinical trial setting, said Kaul. “I think that the kind of politicization of this drug, which is pretty much unprecedented in my experience, created a really harmful environment where calm decision making and assessment of the relative risks and benefits became somewhat impossible,” said Kaul.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Across the country, hospitals are incorporating Friday’s warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the risks of prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 into their treatment protocols.

For some hospitals, the message affirmed the cautious approach they were already taking with hydroxychloroquine. “From a New York state or Northwell perspective, there is no major change,” said Onisis Stefas, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy at Northwell Health in New York. “We were not prescribing it out in the community very early on because of the concerns associated with the heart arrhythmias.”

Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is currently in the process of updating its publicly available COVID-19 protocols website “to incorporate the FDA’s updated safety assessment and ongoing clinical trials,” a hospital spokesperson told Medscape Medical News. Prior to the updates, the treatment protocols indicated that hydroxychloroquine should only be considered after weighing the risks and benefits for patients who are not candidates for other clinical trials and meet a specific set of health criteria.

The warning is a timely and important synthesis of what physicians know about the drugs so far and how cautiously clinicians across the country should be using them, said Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and chair-elect of the HIV Medicine Association.

“I think to be honest it’s a really important message to the public and clinicians across the country,” said Gandhi. “Because we all know there is just a ton of discussion around this drug ... and it came out fairly and said what we know right now.”

The two antimalarial drugs have been at the center of much political debate and scientific scrutiny in recent weeks, following President Trump’s endorsement and the FDA’s emergency use authorization for the two medications in March. Hospitals across the country had incorporated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into their constantly evolving treatment protocols for patients with COVID-19.

But the evidence that these drugs actually help treat COVID-19 remains scant. Some small studies suggest the therapies help patients with COVID-19, while others conclude the drugs have no effect or even harm patients. In the United States, medical societies including the American Heart Association have also warned about the serious cardiac issues that can accompany these drugs for some patients.

In the new warning, the FDA said it “cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 patients outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial” and urged “close supervision” of patients treated with these therapies, citing cardiac side effects.

The FDA also said it is aware that the outpatient prescription of these medications has increased since its March authorization, but the drugs still have not been shown to be safe or effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.

The FDA announcement is consistent with protocols established by the National Institutes of Health and IDSA earlier this month that recommend against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, except when these drugs are administered as part of a clinical trial.

“We agree wholeheartedly with the FDA and have been hoping that the FDA would in fact issue that kind of clarification,” said Samuel Brown, MD, study committee cochair of the ORCHID clinical trial, a multicenter, blinded study investigating the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. These medications need to be tested in clinical trials that are able to focus closely on safety monitoring, he said. Experts at Vanderbilt University, one of the medical centers participating in the ORCHID clinical trial, decided before Tennessee had any cases of COVID-19 that unproven therapies like hydroxychloroquine would only be available through clinical trials, said Wesley Self, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the ORCHID study committee.

Northwell Health, like other hospitals in New York, has been following a March executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo limiting the use of these drugs for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, said Stefas. At Northwell Health, patients with COVID-19 only receive hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine when treated in hospital, where they can be closely monitored, or as part of a clinical trial. The hospital system’s protocols currently do not recommend pairing hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, said Stefas. The new FDA announcement is “very similar” to New York’s existing executive order, he said. “Reading through this reinforces a lot of what we originally thought.”

At MGH in Boston, the FDA safety warning is in line with and “solidifies” the hospital’s evolving protocols, said Gandhi. Clinicians at MGH have been steadily moving away from prescribing hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials as the efficacy has remained murky, the serious side effects have become more evident, and clinical trials to assess the drug have gotten underway in recent weeks, he said. Given the conflicting evidence, Gandhi feels the use of these drugs needs to be focused in clinical trials, where scientists can truly evaluate how much they help or harm.

“We know fundamentally that’s the way to do this,” Gandhi said. “We also don’t know that it doesn’t work, so it is ethical and incumbent upon us to do a study,” Gandhi said.

Other hospitals are already heeding the FDA’s warning. At UW Medicine in Washington state, for example, hydroxychloroquine was considered a possible treatment for COVID-19 prior to the FDA’s recent announcement. “Based on FDA guidance, hydroxychloroquine is no longer recommended as therapy for COVID-19 unless done through a clinical trial,” said Tim Dellit, MD, chief medical officer for UW Medicine.

Michigan Medicine stopped using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (both separately and in combination) about a month ago, said Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan. “When we reviewed the data that was available in more detail, we realized that it was essentially uninterpretable,” he said. As of Monday, the only patients receiving this drug at Michigan Medicine are those enrolled in the ORCHID clinical trial.

But that does not seem to be the case everywhere. Most patients transferred to Michigan Medicine from other hospitals have received these drugs, indicating they are still being widely used, said Kaul. “I think this FDA guidance is appropriate and may reduce usage of this drug and make people more aware of the potential side effects both in inpatient and outpatient settings.”

Hopefully, the FDA guidance will help slow the use of these drugs outside the appropriate clinical trial setting, said Kaul. “I think that the kind of politicization of this drug, which is pretty much unprecedented in my experience, created a really harmful environment where calm decision making and assessment of the relative risks and benefits became somewhat impossible,” said Kaul.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Across the country, hospitals are incorporating Friday’s warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the risks of prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 into their treatment protocols.

For some hospitals, the message affirmed the cautious approach they were already taking with hydroxychloroquine. “From a New York state or Northwell perspective, there is no major change,” said Onisis Stefas, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy at Northwell Health in New York. “We were not prescribing it out in the community very early on because of the concerns associated with the heart arrhythmias.”

Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is currently in the process of updating its publicly available COVID-19 protocols website “to incorporate the FDA’s updated safety assessment and ongoing clinical trials,” a hospital spokesperson told Medscape Medical News. Prior to the updates, the treatment protocols indicated that hydroxychloroquine should only be considered after weighing the risks and benefits for patients who are not candidates for other clinical trials and meet a specific set of health criteria.

The warning is a timely and important synthesis of what physicians know about the drugs so far and how cautiously clinicians across the country should be using them, said Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and chair-elect of the HIV Medicine Association.

“I think to be honest it’s a really important message to the public and clinicians across the country,” said Gandhi. “Because we all know there is just a ton of discussion around this drug ... and it came out fairly and said what we know right now.”

The two antimalarial drugs have been at the center of much political debate and scientific scrutiny in recent weeks, following President Trump’s endorsement and the FDA’s emergency use authorization for the two medications in March. Hospitals across the country had incorporated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into their constantly evolving treatment protocols for patients with COVID-19.

But the evidence that these drugs actually help treat COVID-19 remains scant. Some small studies suggest the therapies help patients with COVID-19, while others conclude the drugs have no effect or even harm patients. In the United States, medical societies including the American Heart Association have also warned about the serious cardiac issues that can accompany these drugs for some patients.

In the new warning, the FDA said it “cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 patients outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial” and urged “close supervision” of patients treated with these therapies, citing cardiac side effects.

The FDA also said it is aware that the outpatient prescription of these medications has increased since its March authorization, but the drugs still have not been shown to be safe or effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.

The FDA announcement is consistent with protocols established by the National Institutes of Health and IDSA earlier this month that recommend against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, except when these drugs are administered as part of a clinical trial.

“We agree wholeheartedly with the FDA and have been hoping that the FDA would in fact issue that kind of clarification,” said Samuel Brown, MD, study committee cochair of the ORCHID clinical trial, a multicenter, blinded study investigating the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. These medications need to be tested in clinical trials that are able to focus closely on safety monitoring, he said. Experts at Vanderbilt University, one of the medical centers participating in the ORCHID clinical trial, decided before Tennessee had any cases of COVID-19 that unproven therapies like hydroxychloroquine would only be available through clinical trials, said Wesley Self, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the ORCHID study committee.

Northwell Health, like other hospitals in New York, has been following a March executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo limiting the use of these drugs for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, said Stefas. At Northwell Health, patients with COVID-19 only receive hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine when treated in hospital, where they can be closely monitored, or as part of a clinical trial. The hospital system’s protocols currently do not recommend pairing hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, said Stefas. The new FDA announcement is “very similar” to New York’s existing executive order, he said. “Reading through this reinforces a lot of what we originally thought.”

At MGH in Boston, the FDA safety warning is in line with and “solidifies” the hospital’s evolving protocols, said Gandhi. Clinicians at MGH have been steadily moving away from prescribing hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials as the efficacy has remained murky, the serious side effects have become more evident, and clinical trials to assess the drug have gotten underway in recent weeks, he said. Given the conflicting evidence, Gandhi feels the use of these drugs needs to be focused in clinical trials, where scientists can truly evaluate how much they help or harm.

“We know fundamentally that’s the way to do this,” Gandhi said. “We also don’t know that it doesn’t work, so it is ethical and incumbent upon us to do a study,” Gandhi said.

Other hospitals are already heeding the FDA’s warning. At UW Medicine in Washington state, for example, hydroxychloroquine was considered a possible treatment for COVID-19 prior to the FDA’s recent announcement. “Based on FDA guidance, hydroxychloroquine is no longer recommended as therapy for COVID-19 unless done through a clinical trial,” said Tim Dellit, MD, chief medical officer for UW Medicine.

Michigan Medicine stopped using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (both separately and in combination) about a month ago, said Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan. “When we reviewed the data that was available in more detail, we realized that it was essentially uninterpretable,” he said. As of Monday, the only patients receiving this drug at Michigan Medicine are those enrolled in the ORCHID clinical trial.

But that does not seem to be the case everywhere. Most patients transferred to Michigan Medicine from other hospitals have received these drugs, indicating they are still being widely used, said Kaul. “I think this FDA guidance is appropriate and may reduce usage of this drug and make people more aware of the potential side effects both in inpatient and outpatient settings.”

Hopefully, the FDA guidance will help slow the use of these drugs outside the appropriate clinical trial setting, said Kaul. “I think that the kind of politicization of this drug, which is pretty much unprecedented in my experience, created a really harmful environment where calm decision making and assessment of the relative risks and benefits became somewhat impossible,” said Kaul.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of dermatomyositis without dermatitis among patients with biopsy-confirmed dermatomyositis was approximately 8% in a Japanese cohort study. “Dermatomyositis sine dermatitis does exist and is significantly associated with anti–nuclear matrix protein 2 [anti-NXP-2] autoantibodies,” the researchers reported in JAMA Neurology.

Few case reports of dermatomyositis sine dermatitis have been documented. To confirm the existence of the condition, study its prevalence, and characterize its serologic features, Michio Inoue, MD, PhD, of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry in Tokyo, and colleagues conducted a cohort study of patients seen at the center between January 2009 and August 2019.

Of more than 8,800 patients whose muscle biopsies were examined for diagnostic purposes, 199 were tested for dermatomyositis-specific autoantibodies. The investigators excluded patients who did not have myxovirus resistance protein A expression in myofibers on muscle biopsy. In all, 182 patients with dermatomyositis were enrolled in the study (51% women; median age at biopsy, 56 years). Fourteen patients without a skin rash at the time of muscle biopsy received a diagnosis of dermatomyositis sine dermatitis. Before the muscle biopsy, most patients without a rash had a diagnosis of polymyositis.
 

Association with anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies

Anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies were detected in 86% of the patients without a rash at the time of biopsy, compared with 28% of the patients with rashes. “No other clinical or pathological characteristics were associated with [dermatomyositis sine dermatitis] except increased probability of developing perifascicular atrophy (71% vs. 43%),” Dr. Inoue and colleagues said.

During a median follow-up of 34 months, patients with dermatomyositis sine dermatitis received oral prednisolone with or without additional immunotherapy, and two patients had subcutaneous edema. Calcification was not seen during follow-up. “One patient with ... anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies had severe interstitial lung disease and needed noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation support,” the researchers said.

Four of the 14 patients with dermatomyositis sine dermatitis “developed skin rashes after muscle biopsy,” the researchers noted. “Similarly, a patient with [dermatomyositis sine dermatitis] was reported to have developed a skin rash 2 years after muscle biopsy.”

Potential therapies for refractory dermatomyositis, such as Janus kinase inhibitors, may not be effective for other types of myositis, so identifying patients with dermatomyositis may be “more essential than ever,” the authors said.
 

Effects on organ systems vary

The study is the first to systematically examine dermatomyositis sine dermatitis, said David Fiorentino, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the multidisciplinary rheumatic skin disease clinic at the Stanford (Calif.) University.

On the one hand, the results are not surprising because dermatomyositis is a systemic autoimmune disease. “There are no rules about which organs it will or won’t affect in a given individual,” Dr. Fiorentino said in an interview.

At the same time, dermatomyositis’s historical association with rash persists even though there is “no biological reason why that would have to be the case.”

Some patients with dermatomyositis have skin-predominant disease without clinically significant muscle involvement. Lung-predominant disease also may exist, although it has not been carefully studied, he said.

The findings remind clinicians that they need to consider the diagnosis of dermatomyositis “even if they do not have the skin findings,” he said. Dr. Fiorentino cautioned against interpreting the results to mean that certain patients never have signs of cutaneous inflammation. In the study, about a one-third of patients without dermatitis at the time of biopsy developed a rash. In addition, clinicians often miss subtle disease under the fingernails or on the scalp, or mild rash on the elbows.

The cohort of patients who underwent muscle biopsy may not be representative of the spectrum of patients with dermatomyositis, and the findings need to be verified in other populations, Dr. Fiorentino said.

The study was supported by an intramural research grant of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry and a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Authors disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies and government and corporate grants outside the submitted work. Dr. Fiorentino had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inoue M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.0673.

The prevalence of dermatomyositis without dermatitis among patients with biopsy-confirmed dermatomyositis was approximately 8% in a Japanese cohort study. “Dermatomyositis sine dermatitis does exist and is significantly associated with anti–nuclear matrix protein 2 [anti-NXP-2] autoantibodies,” the researchers reported in JAMA Neurology.

Few case reports of dermatomyositis sine dermatitis have been documented. To confirm the existence of the condition, study its prevalence, and characterize its serologic features, Michio Inoue, MD, PhD, of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry in Tokyo, and colleagues conducted a cohort study of patients seen at the center between January 2009 and August 2019.

Of more than 8,800 patients whose muscle biopsies were examined for diagnostic purposes, 199 were tested for dermatomyositis-specific autoantibodies. The investigators excluded patients who did not have myxovirus resistance protein A expression in myofibers on muscle biopsy. In all, 182 patients with dermatomyositis were enrolled in the study (51% women; median age at biopsy, 56 years). Fourteen patients without a skin rash at the time of muscle biopsy received a diagnosis of dermatomyositis sine dermatitis. Before the muscle biopsy, most patients without a rash had a diagnosis of polymyositis.
 

Association with anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies

Anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies were detected in 86% of the patients without a rash at the time of biopsy, compared with 28% of the patients with rashes. “No other clinical or pathological characteristics were associated with [dermatomyositis sine dermatitis] except increased probability of developing perifascicular atrophy (71% vs. 43%),” Dr. Inoue and colleagues said.

During a median follow-up of 34 months, patients with dermatomyositis sine dermatitis received oral prednisolone with or without additional immunotherapy, and two patients had subcutaneous edema. Calcification was not seen during follow-up. “One patient with ... anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies had severe interstitial lung disease and needed noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation support,” the researchers said.

Four of the 14 patients with dermatomyositis sine dermatitis “developed skin rashes after muscle biopsy,” the researchers noted. “Similarly, a patient with [dermatomyositis sine dermatitis] was reported to have developed a skin rash 2 years after muscle biopsy.”

Potential therapies for refractory dermatomyositis, such as Janus kinase inhibitors, may not be effective for other types of myositis, so identifying patients with dermatomyositis may be “more essential than ever,” the authors said.
 

Effects on organ systems vary

The study is the first to systematically examine dermatomyositis sine dermatitis, said David Fiorentino, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the multidisciplinary rheumatic skin disease clinic at the Stanford (Calif.) University.

On the one hand, the results are not surprising because dermatomyositis is a systemic autoimmune disease. “There are no rules about which organs it will or won’t affect in a given individual,” Dr. Fiorentino said in an interview.

At the same time, dermatomyositis’s historical association with rash persists even though there is “no biological reason why that would have to be the case.”

Some patients with dermatomyositis have skin-predominant disease without clinically significant muscle involvement. Lung-predominant disease also may exist, although it has not been carefully studied, he said.

The findings remind clinicians that they need to consider the diagnosis of dermatomyositis “even if they do not have the skin findings,” he said. Dr. Fiorentino cautioned against interpreting the results to mean that certain patients never have signs of cutaneous inflammation. In the study, about a one-third of patients without dermatitis at the time of biopsy developed a rash. In addition, clinicians often miss subtle disease under the fingernails or on the scalp, or mild rash on the elbows.

The cohort of patients who underwent muscle biopsy may not be representative of the spectrum of patients with dermatomyositis, and the findings need to be verified in other populations, Dr. Fiorentino said.

The study was supported by an intramural research grant of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry and a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Authors disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies and government and corporate grants outside the submitted work. Dr. Fiorentino had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inoue M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.0673.

The prevalence of dermatomyositis without dermatitis among patients with biopsy-confirmed dermatomyositis was approximately 8% in a Japanese cohort study. “Dermatomyositis sine dermatitis does exist and is significantly associated with anti–nuclear matrix protein 2 [anti-NXP-2] autoantibodies,” the researchers reported in JAMA Neurology.

Few case reports of dermatomyositis sine dermatitis have been documented. To confirm the existence of the condition, study its prevalence, and characterize its serologic features, Michio Inoue, MD, PhD, of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry in Tokyo, and colleagues conducted a cohort study of patients seen at the center between January 2009 and August 2019.

Of more than 8,800 patients whose muscle biopsies were examined for diagnostic purposes, 199 were tested for dermatomyositis-specific autoantibodies. The investigators excluded patients who did not have myxovirus resistance protein A expression in myofibers on muscle biopsy. In all, 182 patients with dermatomyositis were enrolled in the study (51% women; median age at biopsy, 56 years). Fourteen patients without a skin rash at the time of muscle biopsy received a diagnosis of dermatomyositis sine dermatitis. Before the muscle biopsy, most patients without a rash had a diagnosis of polymyositis.
 

Association with anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies

Anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies were detected in 86% of the patients without a rash at the time of biopsy, compared with 28% of the patients with rashes. “No other clinical or pathological characteristics were associated with [dermatomyositis sine dermatitis] except increased probability of developing perifascicular atrophy (71% vs. 43%),” Dr. Inoue and colleagues said.

During a median follow-up of 34 months, patients with dermatomyositis sine dermatitis received oral prednisolone with or without additional immunotherapy, and two patients had subcutaneous edema. Calcification was not seen during follow-up. “One patient with ... anti-NXP-2 autoantibodies had severe interstitial lung disease and needed noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation support,” the researchers said.

Four of the 14 patients with dermatomyositis sine dermatitis “developed skin rashes after muscle biopsy,” the researchers noted. “Similarly, a patient with [dermatomyositis sine dermatitis] was reported to have developed a skin rash 2 years after muscle biopsy.”

Potential therapies for refractory dermatomyositis, such as Janus kinase inhibitors, may not be effective for other types of myositis, so identifying patients with dermatomyositis may be “more essential than ever,” the authors said.
 

Effects on organ systems vary

The study is the first to systematically examine dermatomyositis sine dermatitis, said David Fiorentino, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of the multidisciplinary rheumatic skin disease clinic at the Stanford (Calif.) University.

On the one hand, the results are not surprising because dermatomyositis is a systemic autoimmune disease. “There are no rules about which organs it will or won’t affect in a given individual,” Dr. Fiorentino said in an interview.

At the same time, dermatomyositis’s historical association with rash persists even though there is “no biological reason why that would have to be the case.”

Some patients with dermatomyositis have skin-predominant disease without clinically significant muscle involvement. Lung-predominant disease also may exist, although it has not been carefully studied, he said.

The findings remind clinicians that they need to consider the diagnosis of dermatomyositis “even if they do not have the skin findings,” he said. Dr. Fiorentino cautioned against interpreting the results to mean that certain patients never have signs of cutaneous inflammation. In the study, about a one-third of patients without dermatitis at the time of biopsy developed a rash. In addition, clinicians often miss subtle disease under the fingernails or on the scalp, or mild rash on the elbows.

The cohort of patients who underwent muscle biopsy may not be representative of the spectrum of patients with dermatomyositis, and the findings need to be verified in other populations, Dr. Fiorentino said.

The study was supported by an intramural research grant of the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry and a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Authors disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies and government and corporate grants outside the submitted work. Dr. Fiorentino had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inoue M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.0673.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.

Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction

Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.

IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.

Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.

“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.

Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.

Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.

Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
 

Management of reactions

A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.

The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.

If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.

In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).

If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.

For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.

The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
 

Top offending monoclonal antibodies

Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.

Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.

“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.

Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction

Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.

IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.

Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.

“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.

Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.

Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.

Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
 

Management of reactions

A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.

The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.

If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.

In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).

If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.

For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.

The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
 

Top offending monoclonal antibodies

Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.

Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.

“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.

Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction

Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.

IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.

Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.

“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.

Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.

Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.

Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
 

Management of reactions

A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.

The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.

If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.

In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).

If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.

For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.

The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
 

Top offending monoclonal antibodies

Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.

Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.

“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

Between 1988 and 2012, the prevalence of antinuclear antibodies in the United States increased from 11% to 15.9%, especially among adolescents, males, and non-Hispanic whites.

The finding comes from a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of serum samples from individuals who participated in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey over three time periods: 1988-1991, 1999-2004, and 2011-2012.

“Autoimmune diseases are a diverse group of disorders characterized by damaging immune responses to self-antigens and, for the most part, are of unknown etiology,” authors led by Gregg E. Dinse, ScD, wrote in a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “They are thought to impact 3%-5% of the population, with rising rates noted several decades ago. Recent studies suggest continued increases for certain autoimmune diseases, but it is unclear whether these trends are due to changes in recognition and diagnosis, or are true temporal changes in incidence.”

Dr. Dinse, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and his colleagues evaluated sera samples of 14,211 survey participants aged 12 years and older at 1:80 dilution for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) using a standard indirect immunofluorescence assay (HEp-2 assay). The samples that received a grade of 3 or 4 on a 0-4 scale (compared with standard references, with values of 1-4 indicating positivity) underwent additional assessment by sequential ANA titers up to 1:1,280 dilution. To estimate changes in ANA prevalence over the time periods, they used logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and survey design variables.

The researchers observed an ANA prevalence of 11% in 1988-1991, 11.5% in 1999-2004, and 15.9% in 2011-2012. This corresponds to 22, 27, and 41 million affected individuals, respectively. Females were more likely than males to have ANA (odds ratios of 2.53, 2.97, and 1.94 in 1988-1991, 1999-2004, and 2011-2012, respectively; P less than .0001), as were older adults relative to adolescents (ORs of 3.63, 1.80, and 1.71; P less than .002). Among adolescents, the prevalence of ANA rose steeply, with odds ratios of 2.02 in 1999-2004 and 2.88 in 2011-2012 in the second and third time periods relative to the first (trend P less than .0001). The researchers also found that, compared with non-Hispanic whites, the odds of having ANA were higher for non-Hispanic blacks (OR, 1.75) and Mexican-Americans (OR, 1.87) in 1988-1991, but racial/ethnic differences diminished in 1999-2004 and 2011-2012.

After adjustment for covariates, the researchers found that the estimated odds ratios for the second and third time periods relative to the first were 1.02 and 1.47, respectively, reflecting an overall ANA time trend (P less than .0001). Increases in ANA prevalence among cohorts did not correlate with contemporaneous trends in body mass index, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

Dr. Dinse and his colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that associations were based on cross-sectional data rather than repeated measures, and that some variables were self-reported, including the limited questionnaire data on autoimmune diseases.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dinse G et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 April 7. doi: 10.1002/ART.41214.

Between 1988 and 2012, the prevalence of antinuclear antibodies in the United States increased from 11% to 15.9%, especially among adolescents, males, and non-Hispanic whites.

The finding comes from a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of serum samples from individuals who participated in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey over three time periods: 1988-1991, 1999-2004, and 2011-2012.

“Autoimmune diseases are a diverse group of disorders characterized by damaging immune responses to self-antigens and, for the most part, are of unknown etiology,” authors led by Gregg E. Dinse, ScD, wrote in a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “They are thought to impact 3%-5% of the population, with rising rates noted several decades ago. Recent studies suggest continued increases for certain autoimmune diseases, but it is unclear whether these trends are due to changes in recognition and diagnosis, or are true temporal changes in incidence.”

Dr. Dinse, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and his colleagues evaluated sera samples of 14,211 survey participants aged 12 years and older at 1:80 dilution for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) using a standard indirect immunofluorescence assay (HEp-2 assay). The samples that received a grade of 3 or 4 on a 0-4 scale (compared with standard references, with values of 1-4 indicating positivity) underwent additional assessment by sequential ANA titers up to 1:1,280 dilution. To estimate changes in ANA prevalence over the time periods, they used logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and survey design variables.

The researchers observed an ANA prevalence of 11% in 1988-1991, 11.5% in 1999-2004, and 15.9% in 2011-2012. This corresponds to 22, 27, and 41 million affected individuals, respectively. Females were more likely than males to have ANA (odds ratios of 2.53, 2.97, and 1.94 in 1988-1991, 1999-2004, and 2011-2012, respectively; P less than .0001), as were older adults relative to adolescents (ORs of 3.63, 1.80, and 1.71; P less than .002). Among adolescents, the prevalence of ANA rose steeply, with odds ratios of 2.02 in 1999-2004 and 2.88 in 2011-2012 in the second and third time periods relative to the first (trend P less than .0001). The researchers also found that, compared with non-Hispanic whites, the odds of having ANA were higher for non-Hispanic blacks (OR, 1.75) and Mexican-Americans (OR, 1.87) in 1988-1991, but racial/ethnic differences diminished in 1999-2004 and 2011-2012.

After adjustment for covariates, the researchers found that the estimated odds ratios for the second and third time periods relative to the first were 1.02 and 1.47, respectively, reflecting an overall ANA time trend (P less than .0001). Increases in ANA prevalence among cohorts did not correlate with contemporaneous trends in body mass index, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

Dr. Dinse and his colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that associations were based on cross-sectional data rather than repeated measures, and that some variables were self-reported, including the limited questionnaire data on autoimmune diseases.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dinse G et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 April 7. doi: 10.1002/ART.41214.

Between 1988 and 2012, the prevalence of antinuclear antibodies in the United States increased from 11% to 15.9%, especially among adolescents, males, and non-Hispanic whites.

The finding comes from a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of serum samples from individuals who participated in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey over three time periods: 1988-1991, 1999-2004, and 2011-2012.

“Autoimmune diseases are a diverse group of disorders characterized by damaging immune responses to self-antigens and, for the most part, are of unknown etiology,” authors led by Gregg E. Dinse, ScD, wrote in a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “They are thought to impact 3%-5% of the population, with rising rates noted several decades ago. Recent studies suggest continued increases for certain autoimmune diseases, but it is unclear whether these trends are due to changes in recognition and diagnosis, or are true temporal changes in incidence.”

Dr. Dinse, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and his colleagues evaluated sera samples of 14,211 survey participants aged 12 years and older at 1:80 dilution for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) using a standard indirect immunofluorescence assay (HEp-2 assay). The samples that received a grade of 3 or 4 on a 0-4 scale (compared with standard references, with values of 1-4 indicating positivity) underwent additional assessment by sequential ANA titers up to 1:1,280 dilution. To estimate changes in ANA prevalence over the time periods, they used logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and survey design variables.

The researchers observed an ANA prevalence of 11% in 1988-1991, 11.5% in 1999-2004, and 15.9% in 2011-2012. This corresponds to 22, 27, and 41 million affected individuals, respectively. Females were more likely than males to have ANA (odds ratios of 2.53, 2.97, and 1.94 in 1988-1991, 1999-2004, and 2011-2012, respectively; P less than .0001), as were older adults relative to adolescents (ORs of 3.63, 1.80, and 1.71; P less than .002). Among adolescents, the prevalence of ANA rose steeply, with odds ratios of 2.02 in 1999-2004 and 2.88 in 2011-2012 in the second and third time periods relative to the first (trend P less than .0001). The researchers also found that, compared with non-Hispanic whites, the odds of having ANA were higher for non-Hispanic blacks (OR, 1.75) and Mexican-Americans (OR, 1.87) in 1988-1991, but racial/ethnic differences diminished in 1999-2004 and 2011-2012.

After adjustment for covariates, the researchers found that the estimated odds ratios for the second and third time periods relative to the first were 1.02 and 1.47, respectively, reflecting an overall ANA time trend (P less than .0001). Increases in ANA prevalence among cohorts did not correlate with contemporaneous trends in body mass index, smoking, or alcohol consumption.

Dr. Dinse and his colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that associations were based on cross-sectional data rather than repeated measures, and that some variables were self-reported, including the limited questionnaire data on autoimmune diseases.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dinse G et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 April 7. doi: 10.1002/ART.41214.

Adults who smoke or have a past history of smoking are significantly more likely to have antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, according to data from a large case-control study.

pmphoto/iStockphoto.com

Although smokers have shown an increased risk for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), compared with nonsmokers, previous studies of the association between smoking and AAV risk have been small and the results have been inconsistent, Greg McDermott, MD, and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers reviewed data from 473 adults diagnosed with AAV between 2002 and 2017 and compared them with 1,419 matched controls without AAV who had completed a smoking history questionnaire.

Overall, the odds of having a diagnosis of AAV were significantly higher among former smokers or current smokers, compared with never smokers (odds ratios, 1.58 and 2.70, respectively). In addition, the researchers found a significant dose-response relationship between pack-years of exposure and risk of AAV. The average age of the cases and controls was 59 years, 59% were women, and 84% were white.

The association between AAV risk and former or current smoking was greater among the 147 former and 29 current smokers with AAV positive for myeloperoxidase (MPO) (OR, 1.73 and 3.54, respectively). “Proteinase 3-ANCA– and MPO-ANCA–positive AAV are increasingly recognized as distinct conditions characterized by differences in genetic risk, pathogenesis, disease manifestations, and response to treatment,” the researchers said. No stronger association was noted in patients with proteinase 3-ANCA–positive AAV, they said. However, the overall associations remained strong after adjustment for demographics and disease manifestations, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, homogeneous study population at a single center, and use of self-reports, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and number of patients who were MPO-ANCA positive, and the data associating smoking with AAV “expand the list of potential risk factors for AAV, including genetics and silica exposure,” they said. “Further studies to confirm these results and investigate a potential pathogenic mechanism are needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: McDermott G et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0675.

Adults who smoke or have a past history of smoking are significantly more likely to have antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, according to data from a large case-control study.

pmphoto/iStockphoto.com

Although smokers have shown an increased risk for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), compared with nonsmokers, previous studies of the association between smoking and AAV risk have been small and the results have been inconsistent, Greg McDermott, MD, and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers reviewed data from 473 adults diagnosed with AAV between 2002 and 2017 and compared them with 1,419 matched controls without AAV who had completed a smoking history questionnaire.

Overall, the odds of having a diagnosis of AAV were significantly higher among former smokers or current smokers, compared with never smokers (odds ratios, 1.58 and 2.70, respectively). In addition, the researchers found a significant dose-response relationship between pack-years of exposure and risk of AAV. The average age of the cases and controls was 59 years, 59% were women, and 84% were white.

The association between AAV risk and former or current smoking was greater among the 147 former and 29 current smokers with AAV positive for myeloperoxidase (MPO) (OR, 1.73 and 3.54, respectively). “Proteinase 3-ANCA– and MPO-ANCA–positive AAV are increasingly recognized as distinct conditions characterized by differences in genetic risk, pathogenesis, disease manifestations, and response to treatment,” the researchers said. No stronger association was noted in patients with proteinase 3-ANCA–positive AAV, they said. However, the overall associations remained strong after adjustment for demographics and disease manifestations, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, homogeneous study population at a single center, and use of self-reports, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and number of patients who were MPO-ANCA positive, and the data associating smoking with AAV “expand the list of potential risk factors for AAV, including genetics and silica exposure,” they said. “Further studies to confirm these results and investigate a potential pathogenic mechanism are needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: McDermott G et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0675.

Adults who smoke or have a past history of smoking are significantly more likely to have antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis, according to data from a large case-control study.

pmphoto/iStockphoto.com

Although smokers have shown an increased risk for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), compared with nonsmokers, previous studies of the association between smoking and AAV risk have been small and the results have been inconsistent, Greg McDermott, MD, and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The researchers reviewed data from 473 adults diagnosed with AAV between 2002 and 2017 and compared them with 1,419 matched controls without AAV who had completed a smoking history questionnaire.

Overall, the odds of having a diagnosis of AAV were significantly higher among former smokers or current smokers, compared with never smokers (odds ratios, 1.58 and 2.70, respectively). In addition, the researchers found a significant dose-response relationship between pack-years of exposure and risk of AAV. The average age of the cases and controls was 59 years, 59% were women, and 84% were white.

The association between AAV risk and former or current smoking was greater among the 147 former and 29 current smokers with AAV positive for myeloperoxidase (MPO) (OR, 1.73 and 3.54, respectively). “Proteinase 3-ANCA– and MPO-ANCA–positive AAV are increasingly recognized as distinct conditions characterized by differences in genetic risk, pathogenesis, disease manifestations, and response to treatment,” the researchers said. No stronger association was noted in patients with proteinase 3-ANCA–positive AAV, they said. However, the overall associations remained strong after adjustment for demographics and disease manifestations, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, homogeneous study population at a single center, and use of self-reports, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and number of patients who were MPO-ANCA positive, and the data associating smoking with AAV “expand the list of potential risk factors for AAV, including genetics and silica exposure,” they said. “Further studies to confirm these results and investigate a potential pathogenic mechanism are needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: McDermott G et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0675.

Approximately 26% of women with inactive or mild lupus at conception experienced flares at some point during pregnancy, based on data from 384 patients.

zoranm/Getty Images

Active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a known predictor of poor pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, growth restriction, and fetal loss, but predictors of flares during and after pregnancy in women with SLE have not been well studied, wrote Julia Davis-Porada, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and her colleagues.

In a study published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, the investigators reviewed data from the PROMISSE (Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus) study, a prospective study of pregnant women aged 18-45 years. The women were enrolled at less than 12 weeks’ gestation, and participants had a baseline hematocrit greater than 26%. Participants met criteria for inactive or mild/stable disease at the time of conception.

Overall, 20.8% of patients experienced at least one mild or moderate flare and 6.25% had one or more severe flares during pregnancy. Mild to moderate flares and severe flares occurred postpartum (2-6 months after the end of pregnancy) in 22.7% and 1.7% of patients, respectively.

Patients who were younger and those who had lower C4 at baseline and higher Physician Global Assessment scores at baseline were significantly more likely to have at least one flare during pregnancy (P = .003, P = .024, P = .0005, respectively).

In the analysis of postpartum flares, the incidence rates for mild to moderate and severe flares were 0.8 and 0.06 per person-year, respectively. “In contrast to the findings observed for flares that occurred during pregnancy, baseline patient characteristics were not correlated with postpartum flares,” the researchers wrote.

No medications were associated with flares during or after pregnancy.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of SLE patients with current nephritis and those who needed high-dose prednisone; the potential for missed flares; and the lack of postpartum data for approximately 10% of patients, the researchers noted. Also, “since many patients presented to this study only after conception, we have no data to review disease activity prior to pregnancy to determine whether pregnancy per se increased the risk for flare,” they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, multiethnic population and prospective study design, and support physicians in reassuring patients with SLE that pregnancy and postpartum flares are unlikely if they plan pregnancy during a time of mild or inactive disease, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Davis-Porada J et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-2139-9.

Approximately 26% of women with inactive or mild lupus at conception experienced flares at some point during pregnancy, based on data from 384 patients.

zoranm/Getty Images

Active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a known predictor of poor pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, growth restriction, and fetal loss, but predictors of flares during and after pregnancy in women with SLE have not been well studied, wrote Julia Davis-Porada, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and her colleagues.

In a study published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, the investigators reviewed data from the PROMISSE (Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus) study, a prospective study of pregnant women aged 18-45 years. The women were enrolled at less than 12 weeks’ gestation, and participants had a baseline hematocrit greater than 26%. Participants met criteria for inactive or mild/stable disease at the time of conception.

Overall, 20.8% of patients experienced at least one mild or moderate flare and 6.25% had one or more severe flares during pregnancy. Mild to moderate flares and severe flares occurred postpartum (2-6 months after the end of pregnancy) in 22.7% and 1.7% of patients, respectively.

Patients who were younger and those who had lower C4 at baseline and higher Physician Global Assessment scores at baseline were significantly more likely to have at least one flare during pregnancy (P = .003, P = .024, P = .0005, respectively).

In the analysis of postpartum flares, the incidence rates for mild to moderate and severe flares were 0.8 and 0.06 per person-year, respectively. “In contrast to the findings observed for flares that occurred during pregnancy, baseline patient characteristics were not correlated with postpartum flares,” the researchers wrote.

No medications were associated with flares during or after pregnancy.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of SLE patients with current nephritis and those who needed high-dose prednisone; the potential for missed flares; and the lack of postpartum data for approximately 10% of patients, the researchers noted. Also, “since many patients presented to this study only after conception, we have no data to review disease activity prior to pregnancy to determine whether pregnancy per se increased the risk for flare,” they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, multiethnic population and prospective study design, and support physicians in reassuring patients with SLE that pregnancy and postpartum flares are unlikely if they plan pregnancy during a time of mild or inactive disease, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Davis-Porada J et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-2139-9.

Approximately 26% of women with inactive or mild lupus at conception experienced flares at some point during pregnancy, based on data from 384 patients.

zoranm/Getty Images

Active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a known predictor of poor pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth, growth restriction, and fetal loss, but predictors of flares during and after pregnancy in women with SLE have not been well studied, wrote Julia Davis-Porada, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and her colleagues.

In a study published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, the investigators reviewed data from the PROMISSE (Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus) study, a prospective study of pregnant women aged 18-45 years. The women were enrolled at less than 12 weeks’ gestation, and participants had a baseline hematocrit greater than 26%. Participants met criteria for inactive or mild/stable disease at the time of conception.

Overall, 20.8% of patients experienced at least one mild or moderate flare and 6.25% had one or more severe flares during pregnancy. Mild to moderate flares and severe flares occurred postpartum (2-6 months after the end of pregnancy) in 22.7% and 1.7% of patients, respectively.

Patients who were younger and those who had lower C4 at baseline and higher Physician Global Assessment scores at baseline were significantly more likely to have at least one flare during pregnancy (P = .003, P = .024, P = .0005, respectively).

In the analysis of postpartum flares, the incidence rates for mild to moderate and severe flares were 0.8 and 0.06 per person-year, respectively. “In contrast to the findings observed for flares that occurred during pregnancy, baseline patient characteristics were not correlated with postpartum flares,” the researchers wrote.

No medications were associated with flares during or after pregnancy.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of SLE patients with current nephritis and those who needed high-dose prednisone; the potential for missed flares; and the lack of postpartum data for approximately 10% of patients, the researchers noted. Also, “since many patients presented to this study only after conception, we have no data to review disease activity prior to pregnancy to determine whether pregnancy per se increased the risk for flare,” they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, multiethnic population and prospective study design, and support physicians in reassuring patients with SLE that pregnancy and postpartum flares are unlikely if they plan pregnancy during a time of mild or inactive disease, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Davis-Porada J et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-2139-9.

MAUI, HAWAII – When a rheumatologist gets a call from an ophthalmologist regarding a patient with an inflamed eye and elevated intraocular pressure unresponsive to the eye specialist’s customary array of topical, systemic, and intraocular implanted corticosteroids, that’s a patient who needs to be seen immediately, Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Elevated intraocular pressure due to uveitis or scleritis can result in blindness. Eye specialists call upon rheumatologists here because of their expertise in step-up therapy with methotrexate and other traditional oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as well as biologic agents.

“Here’s my treatment approach to inflammatory eye disease: We’re pulling out all the guns,” declared Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist with a special interest in eye disease. He is director of the Rheumatology and Immunotherapy Center in Franklin, Wisc., with academic appointments to the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Duke University, and Marquette University.

Uveitis involves inflammation of the iris, choroid, and ciliary body. A straightforward case of noninfectious anterior uveitis will typically respond to 2 weeks of topical steroid drops, or sometimes even topical NSAID drops.

However, noninfectious posterior, intermediate, or panuveitis is another matter. In those circumstances, he gives the patient 125 mg of methylprednisolone by intramuscular injection and a 20-mg dose of oral methotrexate at that first clinic visit. The patient is sent home with a prescription for oral prednisone, tapering over 2-3 weeks, and another for methotrexate at 15-25 mg/week plus 1-2 mg/day of folic acid. Dr. Wells also gives consideration to add-on azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil. He views multidrug therapy as having a sound rationale because multiple inflammatory pathways are involved in noninfectious uveitis.

“Ophthalmologists like to push for cyclophosphamide, but there’s no controlled data out there showing it’s effective in inflammatory eye disorders. It’s a pretty toxic regimen, and when you think about all the complications we see in using this drug to treat patients with lupus, I’d rather hold it in reserve for severe cases where we can go to it if we need to,” the rheumatologist explained.

He conducted a literature review to rank rheumatologic medications in terms of their evidence base for treatment of inflammatory ocular disorders. Among oral agents, at the top of the heap is methotrexate, whose efficacy for both noninfectious uveitis and scleritis is supported by multiple randomized, controlled studies. But mycophenolate mofetil is a reasonable alternative first-line corticosteroid-sparing agent, as demonstrated in the 265-patient multicenter FAST (First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment) trial sponsored by the National Eye Institute. That trial demonstrated no significant difference in treatment success at 6 months between methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil.

Oral apremilast (Otezla) is approved for treatment of the oral ulcers of Behçet’s disease, but not for Behçet’s eye disease, where the experience is anecdotal.

Dr. Wells is quick to turn to adalimumab (Humira) when he deems a biologic to be warranted; indeed, it’s the only biologic approved for noninfectious uveitis. Of course, not everyone is a responder.

“Can we extrapolate that high-quality evidence of benefit for adalimumab to other drugs? Probably yes, and if you did that it would be for the IgG monoclonal antibodies that can cross the blood/aqueous barrier,” he said.

Infliximab (Remicade) is the biologic with the second-strongest supporting evidence in noninfectious uveitis. For the uveitis of Behçet’s disease, one of the most common rheumatic causes of inflammatory eye disease, Spanish investigators who conducted a nationwide nonrandomized study reported that both adalimumab and infliximab were effective, although adalimumab had superior outcomes at 1 year.

Uveitis is the most common extra-articular expression of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). In the open-label extension of the randomized RAPID-axSpA trial, patients randomized to certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) had a significantly lower incidence of uveitis flares than with placebo through 204 weeks of follow-up.

“The take-home message is we have some post hoc data here to say, ‘Hey, this could work in those patients who have inflammatory eye diseases in the setting of axSpA,’ ” Dr. Wells said.

The interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra) “definitely works” for noninfectious uveitis, according to Dr. Wells, pointing to the positive results of the multicenter U.S. STOP-Uveitis study.

“The caveat here is tocilizumab has only been studied in the IV formulation. It’s too bad they didn’t use the [subcutaneous formulation]; you can’t get IV tocilizumab approved by payers in the U.S.,” according to the rheumatologist.

Based upon positive anecdotal case reports, Dr. Wells has a few patients on rituximab (Rituxan) for uveitis, with favorable results. The same for abatacept (Orencia).

It’s imperative that a patient on a biologic for uveitis undergo weekly ophthalmologic examinations. Only after the intraocular pressure is normal and inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber have waned is it appropriate to discontinue the biologic and slowly taper the methotrexate and any other oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Some experts argue for lifelong therapy in patients who’ve experienced uveitis. Dr. Wells disagrees, preferring to treat acute uveitis flares as they arise, although if underlying disease such as psoriatic arthritis or axSpA is present, some form of background therapy will probably be necessary.
 

Get to know teprotumumab

Rheumatologists who operate an infusion center are likely to increasingly be called upon by endocrinologists and ophthalmologists to administer intravenous teprotumumab-trbw (Tepezza), a human monoclonal antibody directed against the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor that was approved earlier this year by the Food and Drug Administration as the first-ever drug for thyroid eye disease, a disfiguring and potentially blinding condition.

“This is really exciting,” Dr. Wells said. “The disease has an acute inflammatory stage, and that’s when you’ll be called on to give this drug. It makes a dramatic difference. Once a patient gets to the scarring phase there’s not a whole lot they can do other than surgery.”

In the pivotal phase 3 randomized trial, 83% of the teprotumumab group achieved the primary endpoint, a reduction in proptosis, or eye bulging, of at least 2 mm at week 24, compared with 10% of placebo-treated controls. The number needed to treat was 1.4. The chief side effects were muscle spasms, hair loss, fatigue, and nausea.

“You might say, ‘two millimeters, that’s nothing.’ But the primary drug used before teprotumumab was IV steroids, and there a 0.6-mm reduction in proptosis was considered improvement,” Dr. Wells observed.

Obtaining payer approval

“I’ve found over the last 10 years that when it comes to eye disease, insurance companies have a little more wiggle room,” he said. “They’re not going to let somebody go blind. You can get the references I’ve mentioned and show them the data. After all, we only have one biologic drug that’s been approved, and not everybody responds to it.

“Titrate your therapy based upon the intraocular pressure, the number of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber, and any visual changes. You’ve got to be very aggressive with therapy, and don’t take no for an answer from the insurance companies,” he advised.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a member of an advisory board and/or speakers bureau for more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – When a rheumatologist gets a call from an ophthalmologist regarding a patient with an inflamed eye and elevated intraocular pressure unresponsive to the eye specialist’s customary array of topical, systemic, and intraocular implanted corticosteroids, that’s a patient who needs to be seen immediately, Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Elevated intraocular pressure due to uveitis or scleritis can result in blindness. Eye specialists call upon rheumatologists here because of their expertise in step-up therapy with methotrexate and other traditional oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as well as biologic agents.

“Here’s my treatment approach to inflammatory eye disease: We’re pulling out all the guns,” declared Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist with a special interest in eye disease. He is director of the Rheumatology and Immunotherapy Center in Franklin, Wisc., with academic appointments to the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Duke University, and Marquette University.

Uveitis involves inflammation of the iris, choroid, and ciliary body. A straightforward case of noninfectious anterior uveitis will typically respond to 2 weeks of topical steroid drops, or sometimes even topical NSAID drops.

However, noninfectious posterior, intermediate, or panuveitis is another matter. In those circumstances, he gives the patient 125 mg of methylprednisolone by intramuscular injection and a 20-mg dose of oral methotrexate at that first clinic visit. The patient is sent home with a prescription for oral prednisone, tapering over 2-3 weeks, and another for methotrexate at 15-25 mg/week plus 1-2 mg/day of folic acid. Dr. Wells also gives consideration to add-on azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil. He views multidrug therapy as having a sound rationale because multiple inflammatory pathways are involved in noninfectious uveitis.

“Ophthalmologists like to push for cyclophosphamide, but there’s no controlled data out there showing it’s effective in inflammatory eye disorders. It’s a pretty toxic regimen, and when you think about all the complications we see in using this drug to treat patients with lupus, I’d rather hold it in reserve for severe cases where we can go to it if we need to,” the rheumatologist explained.

He conducted a literature review to rank rheumatologic medications in terms of their evidence base for treatment of inflammatory ocular disorders. Among oral agents, at the top of the heap is methotrexate, whose efficacy for both noninfectious uveitis and scleritis is supported by multiple randomized, controlled studies. But mycophenolate mofetil is a reasonable alternative first-line corticosteroid-sparing agent, as demonstrated in the 265-patient multicenter FAST (First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment) trial sponsored by the National Eye Institute. That trial demonstrated no significant difference in treatment success at 6 months between methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil.

Oral apremilast (Otezla) is approved for treatment of the oral ulcers of Behçet’s disease, but not for Behçet’s eye disease, where the experience is anecdotal.

Dr. Wells is quick to turn to adalimumab (Humira) when he deems a biologic to be warranted; indeed, it’s the only biologic approved for noninfectious uveitis. Of course, not everyone is a responder.

“Can we extrapolate that high-quality evidence of benefit for adalimumab to other drugs? Probably yes, and if you did that it would be for the IgG monoclonal antibodies that can cross the blood/aqueous barrier,” he said.

Infliximab (Remicade) is the biologic with the second-strongest supporting evidence in noninfectious uveitis. For the uveitis of Behçet’s disease, one of the most common rheumatic causes of inflammatory eye disease, Spanish investigators who conducted a nationwide nonrandomized study reported that both adalimumab and infliximab were effective, although adalimumab had superior outcomes at 1 year.

Uveitis is the most common extra-articular expression of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). In the open-label extension of the randomized RAPID-axSpA trial, patients randomized to certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) had a significantly lower incidence of uveitis flares than with placebo through 204 weeks of follow-up.

“The take-home message is we have some post hoc data here to say, ‘Hey, this could work in those patients who have inflammatory eye diseases in the setting of axSpA,’ ” Dr. Wells said.

The interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra) “definitely works” for noninfectious uveitis, according to Dr. Wells, pointing to the positive results of the multicenter U.S. STOP-Uveitis study.

“The caveat here is tocilizumab has only been studied in the IV formulation. It’s too bad they didn’t use the [subcutaneous formulation]; you can’t get IV tocilizumab approved by payers in the U.S.,” according to the rheumatologist.

Based upon positive anecdotal case reports, Dr. Wells has a few patients on rituximab (Rituxan) for uveitis, with favorable results. The same for abatacept (Orencia).

It’s imperative that a patient on a biologic for uveitis undergo weekly ophthalmologic examinations. Only after the intraocular pressure is normal and inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber have waned is it appropriate to discontinue the biologic and slowly taper the methotrexate and any other oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Some experts argue for lifelong therapy in patients who’ve experienced uveitis. Dr. Wells disagrees, preferring to treat acute uveitis flares as they arise, although if underlying disease such as psoriatic arthritis or axSpA is present, some form of background therapy will probably be necessary.
 

Get to know teprotumumab

Rheumatologists who operate an infusion center are likely to increasingly be called upon by endocrinologists and ophthalmologists to administer intravenous teprotumumab-trbw (Tepezza), a human monoclonal antibody directed against the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor that was approved earlier this year by the Food and Drug Administration as the first-ever drug for thyroid eye disease, a disfiguring and potentially blinding condition.

“This is really exciting,” Dr. Wells said. “The disease has an acute inflammatory stage, and that’s when you’ll be called on to give this drug. It makes a dramatic difference. Once a patient gets to the scarring phase there’s not a whole lot they can do other than surgery.”

In the pivotal phase 3 randomized trial, 83% of the teprotumumab group achieved the primary endpoint, a reduction in proptosis, or eye bulging, of at least 2 mm at week 24, compared with 10% of placebo-treated controls. The number needed to treat was 1.4. The chief side effects were muscle spasms, hair loss, fatigue, and nausea.

“You might say, ‘two millimeters, that’s nothing.’ But the primary drug used before teprotumumab was IV steroids, and there a 0.6-mm reduction in proptosis was considered improvement,” Dr. Wells observed.

Obtaining payer approval

“I’ve found over the last 10 years that when it comes to eye disease, insurance companies have a little more wiggle room,” he said. “They’re not going to let somebody go blind. You can get the references I’ve mentioned and show them the data. After all, we only have one biologic drug that’s been approved, and not everybody responds to it.

“Titrate your therapy based upon the intraocular pressure, the number of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber, and any visual changes. You’ve got to be very aggressive with therapy, and don’t take no for an answer from the insurance companies,” he advised.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a member of an advisory board and/or speakers bureau for more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – When a rheumatologist gets a call from an ophthalmologist regarding a patient with an inflamed eye and elevated intraocular pressure unresponsive to the eye specialist’s customary array of topical, systemic, and intraocular implanted corticosteroids, that’s a patient who needs to be seen immediately, Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Elevated intraocular pressure due to uveitis or scleritis can result in blindness. Eye specialists call upon rheumatologists here because of their expertise in step-up therapy with methotrexate and other traditional oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as well as biologic agents.

“Here’s my treatment approach to inflammatory eye disease: We’re pulling out all the guns,” declared Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist with a special interest in eye disease. He is director of the Rheumatology and Immunotherapy Center in Franklin, Wisc., with academic appointments to the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Duke University, and Marquette University.

Uveitis involves inflammation of the iris, choroid, and ciliary body. A straightforward case of noninfectious anterior uveitis will typically respond to 2 weeks of topical steroid drops, or sometimes even topical NSAID drops.

However, noninfectious posterior, intermediate, or panuveitis is another matter. In those circumstances, he gives the patient 125 mg of methylprednisolone by intramuscular injection and a 20-mg dose of oral methotrexate at that first clinic visit. The patient is sent home with a prescription for oral prednisone, tapering over 2-3 weeks, and another for methotrexate at 15-25 mg/week plus 1-2 mg/day of folic acid. Dr. Wells also gives consideration to add-on azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil. He views multidrug therapy as having a sound rationale because multiple inflammatory pathways are involved in noninfectious uveitis.

“Ophthalmologists like to push for cyclophosphamide, but there’s no controlled data out there showing it’s effective in inflammatory eye disorders. It’s a pretty toxic regimen, and when you think about all the complications we see in using this drug to treat patients with lupus, I’d rather hold it in reserve for severe cases where we can go to it if we need to,” the rheumatologist explained.

He conducted a literature review to rank rheumatologic medications in terms of their evidence base for treatment of inflammatory ocular disorders. Among oral agents, at the top of the heap is methotrexate, whose efficacy for both noninfectious uveitis and scleritis is supported by multiple randomized, controlled studies. But mycophenolate mofetil is a reasonable alternative first-line corticosteroid-sparing agent, as demonstrated in the 265-patient multicenter FAST (First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment) trial sponsored by the National Eye Institute. That trial demonstrated no significant difference in treatment success at 6 months between methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil.

Oral apremilast (Otezla) is approved for treatment of the oral ulcers of Behçet’s disease, but not for Behçet’s eye disease, where the experience is anecdotal.

Dr. Wells is quick to turn to adalimumab (Humira) when he deems a biologic to be warranted; indeed, it’s the only biologic approved for noninfectious uveitis. Of course, not everyone is a responder.

“Can we extrapolate that high-quality evidence of benefit for adalimumab to other drugs? Probably yes, and if you did that it would be for the IgG monoclonal antibodies that can cross the blood/aqueous barrier,” he said.

Infliximab (Remicade) is the biologic with the second-strongest supporting evidence in noninfectious uveitis. For the uveitis of Behçet’s disease, one of the most common rheumatic causes of inflammatory eye disease, Spanish investigators who conducted a nationwide nonrandomized study reported that both adalimumab and infliximab were effective, although adalimumab had superior outcomes at 1 year.

Uveitis is the most common extra-articular expression of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). In the open-label extension of the randomized RAPID-axSpA trial, patients randomized to certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) had a significantly lower incidence of uveitis flares than with placebo through 204 weeks of follow-up.

“The take-home message is we have some post hoc data here to say, ‘Hey, this could work in those patients who have inflammatory eye diseases in the setting of axSpA,’ ” Dr. Wells said.

The interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra) “definitely works” for noninfectious uveitis, according to Dr. Wells, pointing to the positive results of the multicenter U.S. STOP-Uveitis study.

“The caveat here is tocilizumab has only been studied in the IV formulation. It’s too bad they didn’t use the [subcutaneous formulation]; you can’t get IV tocilizumab approved by payers in the U.S.,” according to the rheumatologist.

Based upon positive anecdotal case reports, Dr. Wells has a few patients on rituximab (Rituxan) for uveitis, with favorable results. The same for abatacept (Orencia).

It’s imperative that a patient on a biologic for uveitis undergo weekly ophthalmologic examinations. Only after the intraocular pressure is normal and inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber have waned is it appropriate to discontinue the biologic and slowly taper the methotrexate and any other oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Some experts argue for lifelong therapy in patients who’ve experienced uveitis. Dr. Wells disagrees, preferring to treat acute uveitis flares as they arise, although if underlying disease such as psoriatic arthritis or axSpA is present, some form of background therapy will probably be necessary.
 

Get to know teprotumumab

Rheumatologists who operate an infusion center are likely to increasingly be called upon by endocrinologists and ophthalmologists to administer intravenous teprotumumab-trbw (Tepezza), a human monoclonal antibody directed against the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor that was approved earlier this year by the Food and Drug Administration as the first-ever drug for thyroid eye disease, a disfiguring and potentially blinding condition.

“This is really exciting,” Dr. Wells said. “The disease has an acute inflammatory stage, and that’s when you’ll be called on to give this drug. It makes a dramatic difference. Once a patient gets to the scarring phase there’s not a whole lot they can do other than surgery.”

In the pivotal phase 3 randomized trial, 83% of the teprotumumab group achieved the primary endpoint, a reduction in proptosis, or eye bulging, of at least 2 mm at week 24, compared with 10% of placebo-treated controls. The number needed to treat was 1.4. The chief side effects were muscle spasms, hair loss, fatigue, and nausea.

“You might say, ‘two millimeters, that’s nothing.’ But the primary drug used before teprotumumab was IV steroids, and there a 0.6-mm reduction in proptosis was considered improvement,” Dr. Wells observed.

Obtaining payer approval

“I’ve found over the last 10 years that when it comes to eye disease, insurance companies have a little more wiggle room,” he said. “They’re not going to let somebody go blind. You can get the references I’ve mentioned and show them the data. After all, we only have one biologic drug that’s been approved, and not everybody responds to it.

“Titrate your therapy based upon the intraocular pressure, the number of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber, and any visual changes. You’ve got to be very aggressive with therapy, and don’t take no for an answer from the insurance companies,” he advised.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a member of an advisory board and/or speakers bureau for more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]