Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

SAN FRANCISCO – Long-term maintenance therapy with hydroxychloroquine initiated after patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have discontinued immunosuppressant medication during remission greatly reduces their likelihood of disease flare, Margherita Zen, MD, reported at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Dr. Zen, a rheumatologist at the University of Padova in Padua, Italy, presented a retrospective study of 319 SLE patients actively followed in the Padova Lupus Cohort. All of them were treated at some point with one or more immunosuppressants, most commonly mycophenolate, azathioprine, or methotrexate. Fifty-six percent of them never discontinued immunosuppressant therapy during long-term follow-up. Of the 139 patients who did, three-quarters of them were in remission at the time of discontinuation, while the remainder discontinued immunosuppressant medication because of intolerance or poor adherence.

The research question of greatest interest to Dr. Zen and her coinvestigators was whether withdrawal of immunosuppressant medication in lupus patients who have responded well and are in remission is a sound strategy or one fraught with an unacceptably high risk of flare.

“The benefits of drug tapering and discontinuation have been proven for glucocorticoids, but there is not enough evidence available for discontinuation of immunosuppressants,” she said.

The good news: 75% of patients who discontinued immunosuppressant therapy while in remission never experienced a flare during a mean 7.6 years of follow-up after discontinuation. And the median time to flare in those who did was 4.75 years. In contrast, more than two-thirds of patients who discontinued immunosuppressants while not in remission experienced an SLE flare, and the mean time to this event was a mere 8 months. In a Cox regression analysis, patients who discontinued their immunosuppressant medication because of intolerance or poor adherence were 6.9-fold more likely to flare during follow-up than were those who quit immunosuppressants while in remission.

Patients who’d been on methotrexate were significantly more likely to flare after discontinuing the drug than were those who’d been on other immunosuppressant medications. However, flare risk post immunosuppressants was unaffected by whether the medication was given for treatment of lupus nephritis, arthritis, neuropsychiatric involvement, vasculitis, hematologic manifestations of the disease, or skin involvement.

In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, by far the strongest independent protective factor against the occurrence of flare after immunosuppressant discontinuation was maintenance therapy with hydroxychloroquine; it was associated with a 76% reduction in flare risk. Put another way, patients not on maintenance antimalarial therapy after immunosuppressant discontinuation were at an adjusted 5.3-fold increased risk of flare. Combining hydroxychloroquine with low-dose prednisone didn’t provide any added benefit beyond the antimalarial alone in terms of protection against flares.

The other protective factor was duration of remission at the time of immunosuppressant discontinuation: the longer, the better. Patients who experienced a lupus flare had been in remission for an average of 28 months when they stopped taking their immunosuppressant medication. Those who remained flare free throughout follow-up had been in remission for an average of 46 months at discontinuation.

Reassuringly, median damage accrual as assessed by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index was similar in patients regardless of whether or not they discontinued immunosuppressant therapy.

Dr. Zen reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Long-term maintenance therapy with hydroxychloroquine initiated after patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have discontinued immunosuppressant medication during remission greatly reduces their likelihood of disease flare, Margherita Zen, MD, reported at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Dr. Zen, a rheumatologist at the University of Padova in Padua, Italy, presented a retrospective study of 319 SLE patients actively followed in the Padova Lupus Cohort. All of them were treated at some point with one or more immunosuppressants, most commonly mycophenolate, azathioprine, or methotrexate. Fifty-six percent of them never discontinued immunosuppressant therapy during long-term follow-up. Of the 139 patients who did, three-quarters of them were in remission at the time of discontinuation, while the remainder discontinued immunosuppressant medication because of intolerance or poor adherence.

The research question of greatest interest to Dr. Zen and her coinvestigators was whether withdrawal of immunosuppressant medication in lupus patients who have responded well and are in remission is a sound strategy or one fraught with an unacceptably high risk of flare.

“The benefits of drug tapering and discontinuation have been proven for glucocorticoids, but there is not enough evidence available for discontinuation of immunosuppressants,” she said.

The good news: 75% of patients who discontinued immunosuppressant therapy while in remission never experienced a flare during a mean 7.6 years of follow-up after discontinuation. And the median time to flare in those who did was 4.75 years. In contrast, more than two-thirds of patients who discontinued immunosuppressants while not in remission experienced an SLE flare, and the mean time to this event was a mere 8 months. In a Cox regression analysis, patients who discontinued their immunosuppressant medication because of intolerance or poor adherence were 6.9-fold more likely to flare during follow-up than were those who quit immunosuppressants while in remission.

Patients who’d been on methotrexate were significantly more likely to flare after discontinuing the drug than were those who’d been on other immunosuppressant medications. However, flare risk post immunosuppressants was unaffected by whether the medication was given for treatment of lupus nephritis, arthritis, neuropsychiatric involvement, vasculitis, hematologic manifestations of the disease, or skin involvement.

In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, by far the strongest independent protective factor against the occurrence of flare after immunosuppressant discontinuation was maintenance therapy with hydroxychloroquine; it was associated with a 76% reduction in flare risk. Put another way, patients not on maintenance antimalarial therapy after immunosuppressant discontinuation were at an adjusted 5.3-fold increased risk of flare. Combining hydroxychloroquine with low-dose prednisone didn’t provide any added benefit beyond the antimalarial alone in terms of protection against flares.

The other protective factor was duration of remission at the time of immunosuppressant discontinuation: the longer, the better. Patients who experienced a lupus flare had been in remission for an average of 28 months when they stopped taking their immunosuppressant medication. Those who remained flare free throughout follow-up had been in remission for an average of 46 months at discontinuation.

Reassuringly, median damage accrual as assessed by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index was similar in patients regardless of whether or not they discontinued immunosuppressant therapy.

Dr. Zen reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Long-term maintenance therapy with hydroxychloroquine initiated after patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) have discontinued immunosuppressant medication during remission greatly reduces their likelihood of disease flare, Margherita Zen, MD, reported at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Dr. Zen, a rheumatologist at the University of Padova in Padua, Italy, presented a retrospective study of 319 SLE patients actively followed in the Padova Lupus Cohort. All of them were treated at some point with one or more immunosuppressants, most commonly mycophenolate, azathioprine, or methotrexate. Fifty-six percent of them never discontinued immunosuppressant therapy during long-term follow-up. Of the 139 patients who did, three-quarters of them were in remission at the time of discontinuation, while the remainder discontinued immunosuppressant medication because of intolerance or poor adherence.

The research question of greatest interest to Dr. Zen and her coinvestigators was whether withdrawal of immunosuppressant medication in lupus patients who have responded well and are in remission is a sound strategy or one fraught with an unacceptably high risk of flare.

“The benefits of drug tapering and discontinuation have been proven for glucocorticoids, but there is not enough evidence available for discontinuation of immunosuppressants,” she said.

The good news: 75% of patients who discontinued immunosuppressant therapy while in remission never experienced a flare during a mean 7.6 years of follow-up after discontinuation. And the median time to flare in those who did was 4.75 years. In contrast, more than two-thirds of patients who discontinued immunosuppressants while not in remission experienced an SLE flare, and the mean time to this event was a mere 8 months. In a Cox regression analysis, patients who discontinued their immunosuppressant medication because of intolerance or poor adherence were 6.9-fold more likely to flare during follow-up than were those who quit immunosuppressants while in remission.

Patients who’d been on methotrexate were significantly more likely to flare after discontinuing the drug than were those who’d been on other immunosuppressant medications. However, flare risk post immunosuppressants was unaffected by whether the medication was given for treatment of lupus nephritis, arthritis, neuropsychiatric involvement, vasculitis, hematologic manifestations of the disease, or skin involvement.

In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, by far the strongest independent protective factor against the occurrence of flare after immunosuppressant discontinuation was maintenance therapy with hydroxychloroquine; it was associated with a 76% reduction in flare risk. Put another way, patients not on maintenance antimalarial therapy after immunosuppressant discontinuation were at an adjusted 5.3-fold increased risk of flare. Combining hydroxychloroquine with low-dose prednisone didn’t provide any added benefit beyond the antimalarial alone in terms of protection against flares.

The other protective factor was duration of remission at the time of immunosuppressant discontinuation: the longer, the better. Patients who experienced a lupus flare had been in remission for an average of 28 months when they stopped taking their immunosuppressant medication. Those who remained flare free throughout follow-up had been in remission for an average of 46 months at discontinuation.

Reassuringly, median damage accrual as assessed by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index was similar in patients regardless of whether or not they discontinued immunosuppressant therapy.

Dr. Zen reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The announcement of a first-ever multicenter randomized trial of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients generated some of the biggest buzz at LUPUS 2019.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The time has come to implement clinical trials in lupus to see if we can address what is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease to patients,” Betty Diamond, MD, said in announcing the planned trial at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Neuropsychiatric lupus, characterized most often by cognitive impairment, affects 40%-90% of SLE patients, according to various epidemiologic studies. This confusion and memory loss has been shown to be independent of systemic disease activity.

“Cognitive impairment is a very common problem and a very insidious problem in lupus patients,” emphasized Dr. Diamond, professor and head of the Center for Autoimmune Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York.

Dr. Diamond was the recipient of the 2018 Lupus Insight Prize awarded by the Lupus Research Alliance, which is funding the multicenter randomized trial. For the study, roughly 70 SLE patients with cognitive impairment not associated with a focal brain lesion will be randomized to receive a centrally acting ACE inhibitor – captopril was the one she and her coinvestigators have used in their mouse model and preliminary clinical studies – or to a non–centrally acting ACE inhibitor, such as enalapril.

“The clinical trial compares an ACE inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier with one that doesn’t. They both have the same renal protection and systemic anti-inflammatory effects,” explained Dr. Diamond, who is also professor of molecular medicine and of medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, East Garden City, N.Y.

In a recent publication (J Exp Med. 2018 Oct 1;215[10]:2554-66), Dr. Diamond and her coinvestigators presented much of the background work that underpins the upcoming randomized trial. Sixteen years ago, they discovered two anti-DNA antibodies that cross-react with the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and enhance NMDAR signaling. They showed that while the NMDARs are critical in learning and memory, their prolonged stimulation results in a high degree of calcium influx, causing neuronal death. These anti-DNA/anti-NMDAR antibodies, known as DNRAbs, are present at elevated titers in 30%-40% of SLE patients, and in a higher proportion of those with neuropsychiatric lupus.

“Most importantly, DNRAbs are present in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients who have nonfocal CNS manifestations of lupus,” Dr. Diamond said.

She and her coworkers developed a mouse model of cognitive impairment in lupus and utilized it to identify a two-stage model of the pathogenesis of DNRAb-mediated neuropsychiatric lupus. First, a traumatic event such as an infection causes a temporary opening in the blood-brain barrier, allowing the DNRAbs to reach the brain. This results in acute excitotoxic neuronal death. This is followed by a second stage, which entails activation of microglia – known as the macrophages of the CNS – with resultant loss of neuronal dendritic arborization and complexity. In the mouse model, this causes a selective impairment in spatial memory that corresponds well to the spatial memory deficit the investigators documented in DNRAb-positive SLE patients, compared with healthy controls and DNRAb-negative lupus patients.

A key finding in this project, Dr. Diamond continued, was that activated microglia turn out to be critical for dendritic loss. If the microglia are deactivated, regrowth of the dendritic processes occurs. This raises a possibility that attendees at LUPUS 2019 found thrilling: Perhaps the cognitive impairment of neuropsychiatric SLE can be prevented and even reversed by suppressing microglial activation.

Promising work in the field of Alzheimer’s disease suggests that centrally acting ACE inhibitors can indeed suppress microglial activation and actually improve cognition. Dr. Diamond and her colleagues showed this also was the case in their mouse model. Moreover, in a small clinical study they used PET brain imaging to show that captopril reduced the increased glucose uptake and hippocampal hypermetabolism associated with DNRAb-positive neuropsychiatric lupus, an effect maintained through 18 months of follow-up.

“We think DNRAbs contribute to cognitive impairment in SLE patients, but we certainly wouldn’t say that antibodies are the only mechanism. Other investigators have shown that interferon can also do this, and that, like the antibodies, interferon acts through microglial activation. We think that this microglial activation is going to be a general paradigm in cognitive impairment in lupus and in other diseases, so microglia are a very good therapeutic target,” Dr. Diamond said.

The primary outcomes in the forthcoming randomized trial involve PET neuronal imaging. They investigators are hoping to see reduced hippocampal hypermetabolism and suppression of activated microglial cells.

“We’ll see if we’re actually hitting our target. We’re doing neuropsychologic testing, too, but we’re really concentrating on imaging outcomes, because those are objective and have many fewer variables to confound them,” according to Dr. Diamond.

Microglial activation is a current topic of intense research interest within the pharmaceutical industry, she added. If the imaging study is positive, she anticipates drug companies will quickly ramp up and conduct large clinical trials powered to show significant results in terms of neuropsychologic test scores and clinical outcomes.

Dr. Diamond reported having no financial conflicts regarding her work, which has been supported largely by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The announcement of a first-ever multicenter randomized trial of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients generated some of the biggest buzz at LUPUS 2019.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The time has come to implement clinical trials in lupus to see if we can address what is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease to patients,” Betty Diamond, MD, said in announcing the planned trial at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Neuropsychiatric lupus, characterized most often by cognitive impairment, affects 40%-90% of SLE patients, according to various epidemiologic studies. This confusion and memory loss has been shown to be independent of systemic disease activity.

“Cognitive impairment is a very common problem and a very insidious problem in lupus patients,” emphasized Dr. Diamond, professor and head of the Center for Autoimmune Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York.

Dr. Diamond was the recipient of the 2018 Lupus Insight Prize awarded by the Lupus Research Alliance, which is funding the multicenter randomized trial. For the study, roughly 70 SLE patients with cognitive impairment not associated with a focal brain lesion will be randomized to receive a centrally acting ACE inhibitor – captopril was the one she and her coinvestigators have used in their mouse model and preliminary clinical studies – or to a non–centrally acting ACE inhibitor, such as enalapril.

“The clinical trial compares an ACE inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier with one that doesn’t. They both have the same renal protection and systemic anti-inflammatory effects,” explained Dr. Diamond, who is also professor of molecular medicine and of medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, East Garden City, N.Y.

In a recent publication (J Exp Med. 2018 Oct 1;215[10]:2554-66), Dr. Diamond and her coinvestigators presented much of the background work that underpins the upcoming randomized trial. Sixteen years ago, they discovered two anti-DNA antibodies that cross-react with the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and enhance NMDAR signaling. They showed that while the NMDARs are critical in learning and memory, their prolonged stimulation results in a high degree of calcium influx, causing neuronal death. These anti-DNA/anti-NMDAR antibodies, known as DNRAbs, are present at elevated titers in 30%-40% of SLE patients, and in a higher proportion of those with neuropsychiatric lupus.

“Most importantly, DNRAbs are present in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients who have nonfocal CNS manifestations of lupus,” Dr. Diamond said.

She and her coworkers developed a mouse model of cognitive impairment in lupus and utilized it to identify a two-stage model of the pathogenesis of DNRAb-mediated neuropsychiatric lupus. First, a traumatic event such as an infection causes a temporary opening in the blood-brain barrier, allowing the DNRAbs to reach the brain. This results in acute excitotoxic neuronal death. This is followed by a second stage, which entails activation of microglia – known as the macrophages of the CNS – with resultant loss of neuronal dendritic arborization and complexity. In the mouse model, this causes a selective impairment in spatial memory that corresponds well to the spatial memory deficit the investigators documented in DNRAb-positive SLE patients, compared with healthy controls and DNRAb-negative lupus patients.

A key finding in this project, Dr. Diamond continued, was that activated microglia turn out to be critical for dendritic loss. If the microglia are deactivated, regrowth of the dendritic processes occurs. This raises a possibility that attendees at LUPUS 2019 found thrilling: Perhaps the cognitive impairment of neuropsychiatric SLE can be prevented and even reversed by suppressing microglial activation.

Promising work in the field of Alzheimer’s disease suggests that centrally acting ACE inhibitors can indeed suppress microglial activation and actually improve cognition. Dr. Diamond and her colleagues showed this also was the case in their mouse model. Moreover, in a small clinical study they used PET brain imaging to show that captopril reduced the increased glucose uptake and hippocampal hypermetabolism associated with DNRAb-positive neuropsychiatric lupus, an effect maintained through 18 months of follow-up.

“We think DNRAbs contribute to cognitive impairment in SLE patients, but we certainly wouldn’t say that antibodies are the only mechanism. Other investigators have shown that interferon can also do this, and that, like the antibodies, interferon acts through microglial activation. We think that this microglial activation is going to be a general paradigm in cognitive impairment in lupus and in other diseases, so microglia are a very good therapeutic target,” Dr. Diamond said.

The primary outcomes in the forthcoming randomized trial involve PET neuronal imaging. They investigators are hoping to see reduced hippocampal hypermetabolism and suppression of activated microglial cells.

“We’ll see if we’re actually hitting our target. We’re doing neuropsychologic testing, too, but we’re really concentrating on imaging outcomes, because those are objective and have many fewer variables to confound them,” according to Dr. Diamond.

Microglial activation is a current topic of intense research interest within the pharmaceutical industry, she added. If the imaging study is positive, she anticipates drug companies will quickly ramp up and conduct large clinical trials powered to show significant results in terms of neuropsychologic test scores and clinical outcomes.

Dr. Diamond reported having no financial conflicts regarding her work, which has been supported largely by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The announcement of a first-ever multicenter randomized trial of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients generated some of the biggest buzz at LUPUS 2019.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The time has come to implement clinical trials in lupus to see if we can address what is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease to patients,” Betty Diamond, MD, said in announcing the planned trial at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Neuropsychiatric lupus, characterized most often by cognitive impairment, affects 40%-90% of SLE patients, according to various epidemiologic studies. This confusion and memory loss has been shown to be independent of systemic disease activity.

“Cognitive impairment is a very common problem and a very insidious problem in lupus patients,” emphasized Dr. Diamond, professor and head of the Center for Autoimmune Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York.

Dr. Diamond was the recipient of the 2018 Lupus Insight Prize awarded by the Lupus Research Alliance, which is funding the multicenter randomized trial. For the study, roughly 70 SLE patients with cognitive impairment not associated with a focal brain lesion will be randomized to receive a centrally acting ACE inhibitor – captopril was the one she and her coinvestigators have used in their mouse model and preliminary clinical studies – or to a non–centrally acting ACE inhibitor, such as enalapril.

“The clinical trial compares an ACE inhibitor that crosses the blood-brain barrier with one that doesn’t. They both have the same renal protection and systemic anti-inflammatory effects,” explained Dr. Diamond, who is also professor of molecular medicine and of medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, East Garden City, N.Y.

In a recent publication (J Exp Med. 2018 Oct 1;215[10]:2554-66), Dr. Diamond and her coinvestigators presented much of the background work that underpins the upcoming randomized trial. Sixteen years ago, they discovered two anti-DNA antibodies that cross-react with the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and enhance NMDAR signaling. They showed that while the NMDARs are critical in learning and memory, their prolonged stimulation results in a high degree of calcium influx, causing neuronal death. These anti-DNA/anti-NMDAR antibodies, known as DNRAbs, are present at elevated titers in 30%-40% of SLE patients, and in a higher proportion of those with neuropsychiatric lupus.

“Most importantly, DNRAbs are present in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients who have nonfocal CNS manifestations of lupus,” Dr. Diamond said.

She and her coworkers developed a mouse model of cognitive impairment in lupus and utilized it to identify a two-stage model of the pathogenesis of DNRAb-mediated neuropsychiatric lupus. First, a traumatic event such as an infection causes a temporary opening in the blood-brain barrier, allowing the DNRAbs to reach the brain. This results in acute excitotoxic neuronal death. This is followed by a second stage, which entails activation of microglia – known as the macrophages of the CNS – with resultant loss of neuronal dendritic arborization and complexity. In the mouse model, this causes a selective impairment in spatial memory that corresponds well to the spatial memory deficit the investigators documented in DNRAb-positive SLE patients, compared with healthy controls and DNRAb-negative lupus patients.

A key finding in this project, Dr. Diamond continued, was that activated microglia turn out to be critical for dendritic loss. If the microglia are deactivated, regrowth of the dendritic processes occurs. This raises a possibility that attendees at LUPUS 2019 found thrilling: Perhaps the cognitive impairment of neuropsychiatric SLE can be prevented and even reversed by suppressing microglial activation.

Promising work in the field of Alzheimer’s disease suggests that centrally acting ACE inhibitors can indeed suppress microglial activation and actually improve cognition. Dr. Diamond and her colleagues showed this also was the case in their mouse model. Moreover, in a small clinical study they used PET brain imaging to show that captopril reduced the increased glucose uptake and hippocampal hypermetabolism associated with DNRAb-positive neuropsychiatric lupus, an effect maintained through 18 months of follow-up.

“We think DNRAbs contribute to cognitive impairment in SLE patients, but we certainly wouldn’t say that antibodies are the only mechanism. Other investigators have shown that interferon can also do this, and that, like the antibodies, interferon acts through microglial activation. We think that this microglial activation is going to be a general paradigm in cognitive impairment in lupus and in other diseases, so microglia are a very good therapeutic target,” Dr. Diamond said.

The primary outcomes in the forthcoming randomized trial involve PET neuronal imaging. They investigators are hoping to see reduced hippocampal hypermetabolism and suppression of activated microglial cells.

“We’ll see if we’re actually hitting our target. We’re doing neuropsychologic testing, too, but we’re really concentrating on imaging outcomes, because those are objective and have many fewer variables to confound them,” according to Dr. Diamond.

Microglial activation is a current topic of intense research interest within the pharmaceutical industry, she added. If the imaging study is positive, she anticipates drug companies will quickly ramp up and conduct large clinical trials powered to show significant results in terms of neuropsychologic test scores and clinical outcomes.

Dr. Diamond reported having no financial conflicts regarding her work, which has been supported largely by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

SAN FRANCISCO – The seasonality of lupus flares is likely the result of variations in atmospheric and climatic conditions, according to investigators from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The work helps solve a longstanding mystery in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): why symptoms seem to come and go with the seasons.
 

Johns Hopkins University research previously has shown that renal flares are more common in the winter; double-stranded DNA antibodies more common in late fall; and rashes more likely in late spring.

However, “the exact reasons of why the seasonality was there remained a big question,” said lead investigator George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology and the codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

To get a handle on the matter, Dr. Stojan and his team reviewed 1,628 patients treated at the university during 1999-2017. Using Environmental Protection Agency data, they examined atmospheric conditions within 350 km of Baltimore in the 10 days leading up to lupus visits for flares; the researchers adjusted for age, sex, income, ethnicity, rural versus urban residence, and how close patients lived to highways and airports.

“We [found] specific, strong associations between atmospheric variables and fine particulate matter concentrations ... and organ-specific lupus flares,” Dr. Stojan said. He explained why that matters in a video interview at an international congress on SLE.

In short, rash was directly associated with concentrations of ozone and inhalable, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 mcm in diameter (PM 2.5). Joint flares were associated with PM 2.5, ozone, resultant wind, and humidity.

Renal flares were inversely associated with temperature, and directly associated with wind and humidity. Pulmonary flares and serositis were associated with PM 2.5, and both hematologic and neurologic flares with wind and temperature.

The analysis was based on a per-unit basis. For example, each mcg/m³ increase in PM 2.5 increased the odds of a pulmonary flare about 4% (odds ratio, 1.042, P = .026). The other findings were mostly of smaller magnitude, but still statistically significant.

The National Institutes of Health funded the research. Dr. Stojan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. LUPUS 2019, Abstract M31.

SAN FRANCISCO – Not that many years ago, women with systemic lupus erythematosus were told not to get pregnant. It was just one more lupus heartbreak.

Times have changed, according to Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a lupus specialist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York.

While lupus certainly complicates pregnancy, it by no means rules it out these days. With careful management, the dream of motherhood can become a reality for many women. Dr. Sammaritano shared her insights about timing and treatment at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

It’s important that the disease is under control as much as possible; that means that timing – and contraception – are key. Antiphospholipid antibodies, common in lupus, complicate matters, but there are workarounds, she said.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Not that many years ago, women with systemic lupus erythematosus were told not to get pregnant. It was just one more lupus heartbreak.

Times have changed, according to Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a lupus specialist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York.

While lupus certainly complicates pregnancy, it by no means rules it out these days. With careful management, the dream of motherhood can become a reality for many women. Dr. Sammaritano shared her insights about timing and treatment at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

It’s important that the disease is under control as much as possible; that means that timing – and contraception – are key. Antiphospholipid antibodies, common in lupus, complicate matters, but there are workarounds, she said.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Not that many years ago, women with systemic lupus erythematosus were told not to get pregnant. It was just one more lupus heartbreak.

Times have changed, according to Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a lupus specialist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York.

While lupus certainly complicates pregnancy, it by no means rules it out these days. With careful management, the dream of motherhood can become a reality for many women. Dr. Sammaritano shared her insights about timing and treatment at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

It’s important that the disease is under control as much as possible; that means that timing – and contraception – are key. Antiphospholipid antibodies, common in lupus, complicate matters, but there are workarounds, she said.

[email protected]

New systemic lupus erythematosus guidelines from the European League Against Rheumatism go far beyond the group’s previous effort in 2008, with much broader and more detailed advice.

enot-poloskun/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The goal was “to update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE], based on literature review and expert consensus,” said authors led by Antonis Fanouriakis, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology and clinical immunology unit at Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The team accomplished their aim in 33 recommendations – about twice as many as in 2008 – covering goals of therapy, treatment, specific manifestations, and comorbidities (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215089).

A lot has changed in the past 11 years, and the new guidelines reflect that. Biologics, for instance, were barely mentioned in 2008, except as a topic for future research. The new document makes a strong recommendation for add-on belimumab (Benlysta) to be considered in persistently active or flaring extrarenal disease, and rituximab (Rituxan) for organ-threatening, refractory disease.

The group now also makes a strong recommendation for hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) for all lupus patients, barring contraindications, at a dose not exceeding 5 mg per kg real body weight, with ophthalmologic screening performed at baseline, after 5 years, and yearly thereafter. It also calls for routine antiphospholipid antibody testing.

Calcineurin inhibitors weren’t mentioned at all in 2008, but they show up in the new document with a moderate recommendation as first-line topical options for skin disease, along with glucocorticoids. The authors also made a moderate recommendation for diagnostic kidney biopsy, calling it “essential” to catch renal involvement early; EULAR was less certain in 2008. Also new in 2019, and barely mentioned in 2008, there’s an entire section on hematologic manifestations, as well as advice on thalidomide for cutaneous disease.

For hematologic disease, the group makes a weak recommendation for pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone and/or intravenous immunoglobulin, with mycophenolate, azathioprine, or cyclosporine for maintenance. Cyclophosphamide, along with rituximab, are options for severe hematologic cases.


Cardiovascular disease, like biologics, was mentioned mostly in 2008 as a topic for future research; the new guidelines contain an entire section on the issue. There’s a strong recommendation for regular assessment of traditional and disease-related risk factors, including persistently active disease; increased disease duration; medium or high titers of antiphospholipid antibodies; renal involvement; and chronic glucocorticoid use. High-risk people, the document notes, “may be candidates for preventative strategies as in the general population,” including low-dose aspirin and statins.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fanouriakis A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215089

New systemic lupus erythematosus guidelines from the European League Against Rheumatism go far beyond the group’s previous effort in 2008, with much broader and more detailed advice.

enot-poloskun/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The goal was “to update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE], based on literature review and expert consensus,” said authors led by Antonis Fanouriakis, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology and clinical immunology unit at Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The team accomplished their aim in 33 recommendations – about twice as many as in 2008 – covering goals of therapy, treatment, specific manifestations, and comorbidities (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215089).

A lot has changed in the past 11 years, and the new guidelines reflect that. Biologics, for instance, were barely mentioned in 2008, except as a topic for future research. The new document makes a strong recommendation for add-on belimumab (Benlysta) to be considered in persistently active or flaring extrarenal disease, and rituximab (Rituxan) for organ-threatening, refractory disease.

The group now also makes a strong recommendation for hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) for all lupus patients, barring contraindications, at a dose not exceeding 5 mg per kg real body weight, with ophthalmologic screening performed at baseline, after 5 years, and yearly thereafter. It also calls for routine antiphospholipid antibody testing.

Calcineurin inhibitors weren’t mentioned at all in 2008, but they show up in the new document with a moderate recommendation as first-line topical options for skin disease, along with glucocorticoids. The authors also made a moderate recommendation for diagnostic kidney biopsy, calling it “essential” to catch renal involvement early; EULAR was less certain in 2008. Also new in 2019, and barely mentioned in 2008, there’s an entire section on hematologic manifestations, as well as advice on thalidomide for cutaneous disease.

For hematologic disease, the group makes a weak recommendation for pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone and/or intravenous immunoglobulin, with mycophenolate, azathioprine, or cyclosporine for maintenance. Cyclophosphamide, along with rituximab, are options for severe hematologic cases.


Cardiovascular disease, like biologics, was mentioned mostly in 2008 as a topic for future research; the new guidelines contain an entire section on the issue. There’s a strong recommendation for regular assessment of traditional and disease-related risk factors, including persistently active disease; increased disease duration; medium or high titers of antiphospholipid antibodies; renal involvement; and chronic glucocorticoid use. High-risk people, the document notes, “may be candidates for preventative strategies as in the general population,” including low-dose aspirin and statins.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fanouriakis A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215089

New systemic lupus erythematosus guidelines from the European League Against Rheumatism go far beyond the group’s previous effort in 2008, with much broader and more detailed advice.

enot-poloskun/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The goal was “to update the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE], based on literature review and expert consensus,” said authors led by Antonis Fanouriakis, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology and clinical immunology unit at Attikon University Hospital, Athens.

The team accomplished their aim in 33 recommendations – about twice as many as in 2008 – covering goals of therapy, treatment, specific manifestations, and comorbidities (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215089).

A lot has changed in the past 11 years, and the new guidelines reflect that. Biologics, for instance, were barely mentioned in 2008, except as a topic for future research. The new document makes a strong recommendation for add-on belimumab (Benlysta) to be considered in persistently active or flaring extrarenal disease, and rituximab (Rituxan) for organ-threatening, refractory disease.

The group now also makes a strong recommendation for hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) for all lupus patients, barring contraindications, at a dose not exceeding 5 mg per kg real body weight, with ophthalmologic screening performed at baseline, after 5 years, and yearly thereafter. It also calls for routine antiphospholipid antibody testing.

Calcineurin inhibitors weren’t mentioned at all in 2008, but they show up in the new document with a moderate recommendation as first-line topical options for skin disease, along with glucocorticoids. The authors also made a moderate recommendation for diagnostic kidney biopsy, calling it “essential” to catch renal involvement early; EULAR was less certain in 2008. Also new in 2019, and barely mentioned in 2008, there’s an entire section on hematologic manifestations, as well as advice on thalidomide for cutaneous disease.

For hematologic disease, the group makes a weak recommendation for pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone and/or intravenous immunoglobulin, with mycophenolate, azathioprine, or cyclosporine for maintenance. Cyclophosphamide, along with rituximab, are options for severe hematologic cases.


Cardiovascular disease, like biologics, was mentioned mostly in 2008 as a topic for future research; the new guidelines contain an entire section on the issue. There’s a strong recommendation for regular assessment of traditional and disease-related risk factors, including persistently active disease; increased disease duration; medium or high titers of antiphospholipid antibodies; renal involvement; and chronic glucocorticoid use. High-risk people, the document notes, “may be candidates for preventative strategies as in the general population,” including low-dose aspirin and statins.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fanouriakis A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Mar 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215089

MAUI, HAWAII – Vigilance for the possibility of bronchiolitis is warranted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren’s syndrome, or systemic lupus erythematosus who develop shortness of breath and cough or a precipitous drop in their forced expiratory volume on pulmonary function testing, Aryeh Fischer, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is an underappreciated – and I think among the most potentially devastating – of the lung diseases we as rheumatologists will encounter in our patients,” said Dr. Fischer, a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a special interest in autoimmune lung disease.

“If you’re seeing patients with rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, or Sjögren’s and they’ve got bad asthma they can’t get under control, you’ve got to think about bronchiolitis because I can tell you your lung doc quite often is not thinking about this,” he added.

Bronchiolitis involves inflammation, narrowing, or obliteration of the small airways. The diagnosis is often missed because of the false sense of reassurance provided by the normal chest x-ray and regular CT findings, which are a feature of the disease.

“This is really important: You have to get a high-resolution CT that includes expiratory images, because that’s the only way you’re going to be able to tell if your patient has small airways disease,” he explained. “You must, must, must do an expiratory CT.”

A normal expiratory CT image should be gray, since the lungs are empty. Air is black on CT, so large areas of black intermixed with gray on an expiratory CT – a finding known as mosaicism – indicate air trapping due to small airways disease, Dr. Fischer noted.

Surgical lung biopsy will yield a pathologic report documenting isolated constrictive, follicular, and/or lymphocytic bronchiolitis. However, the terminology can be confusing: What pathologists describe as constrictive bronchiolitis is called obliterative by pulmonologists and radiologists.

Pulmonary function testing shows an obstructive defect. The diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) is fairly normal, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) is sharply reduced, and the forced vital capacity (FVC) is near normal, with a resultant abnormally low FEV₁/FVC ratio. A patient with bronchiolitis may or may not have a response to bronchodilators.

“I tell you, I’ve seen a bunch of these patients. They typically have a precipitous drop in their FEV1 and then stay stable at a very low level of lung function without much opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Fischer said. “Stability equals success in these patients. It’s really unusual to see much improvement.”

In theory, patients with follicular or lymphocytic bronchiolitis have an ongoing inflammatory process that should be amenable to rheumatologic ministrations. But there is no convincing evidence of treatment efficacy to date. And in obliterative bronchiolitis, marked by airway scarring, there is no reason to think anti-inflammatory therapies should be helpful. Anecdotally, Dr. Fischer said, he has seen immunosuppression help patients with obliterative bronchiolitis.

“Actually, the only proven therapy is lung transplantation,” he said.

He recommended that his fellow rheumatologists periodically use office spirometry to check the FEV₁ in their patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren’s, or SLE, the forms of connective tissue disease most often associated with bronchiolitis. Compared with all the other testing rheumatologists routinely order in their patients, having them blow into a tube is a simple enough matter.

“We really don’t have anything to impact the natural history, but I like the notion of not being surprised. What are you going to do with that [abnormal] FEV₁ data? I have no idea. But maybe it’s better to know earlier,” he said.

Dr. Fischer reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Vigilance for the possibility of bronchiolitis is warranted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren’s syndrome, or systemic lupus erythematosus who develop shortness of breath and cough or a precipitous drop in their forced expiratory volume on pulmonary function testing, Aryeh Fischer, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is an underappreciated – and I think among the most potentially devastating – of the lung diseases we as rheumatologists will encounter in our patients,” said Dr. Fischer, a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a special interest in autoimmune lung disease.

“If you’re seeing patients with rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, or Sjögren’s and they’ve got bad asthma they can’t get under control, you’ve got to think about bronchiolitis because I can tell you your lung doc quite often is not thinking about this,” he added.

Bronchiolitis involves inflammation, narrowing, or obliteration of the small airways. The diagnosis is often missed because of the false sense of reassurance provided by the normal chest x-ray and regular CT findings, which are a feature of the disease.

“This is really important: You have to get a high-resolution CT that includes expiratory images, because that’s the only way you’re going to be able to tell if your patient has small airways disease,” he explained. “You must, must, must do an expiratory CT.”

A normal expiratory CT image should be gray, since the lungs are empty. Air is black on CT, so large areas of black intermixed with gray on an expiratory CT – a finding known as mosaicism – indicate air trapping due to small airways disease, Dr. Fischer noted.

Surgical lung biopsy will yield a pathologic report documenting isolated constrictive, follicular, and/or lymphocytic bronchiolitis. However, the terminology can be confusing: What pathologists describe as constrictive bronchiolitis is called obliterative by pulmonologists and radiologists.

Pulmonary function testing shows an obstructive defect. The diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) is fairly normal, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) is sharply reduced, and the forced vital capacity (FVC) is near normal, with a resultant abnormally low FEV₁/FVC ratio. A patient with bronchiolitis may or may not have a response to bronchodilators.

“I tell you, I’ve seen a bunch of these patients. They typically have a precipitous drop in their FEV1 and then stay stable at a very low level of lung function without much opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Fischer said. “Stability equals success in these patients. It’s really unusual to see much improvement.”

In theory, patients with follicular or lymphocytic bronchiolitis have an ongoing inflammatory process that should be amenable to rheumatologic ministrations. But there is no convincing evidence of treatment efficacy to date. And in obliterative bronchiolitis, marked by airway scarring, there is no reason to think anti-inflammatory therapies should be helpful. Anecdotally, Dr. Fischer said, he has seen immunosuppression help patients with obliterative bronchiolitis.

“Actually, the only proven therapy is lung transplantation,” he said.

He recommended that his fellow rheumatologists periodically use office spirometry to check the FEV₁ in their patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren’s, or SLE, the forms of connective tissue disease most often associated with bronchiolitis. Compared with all the other testing rheumatologists routinely order in their patients, having them blow into a tube is a simple enough matter.

“We really don’t have anything to impact the natural history, but I like the notion of not being surprised. What are you going to do with that [abnormal] FEV₁ data? I have no idea. But maybe it’s better to know earlier,” he said.

Dr. Fischer reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Vigilance for the possibility of bronchiolitis is warranted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren’s syndrome, or systemic lupus erythematosus who develop shortness of breath and cough or a precipitous drop in their forced expiratory volume on pulmonary function testing, Aryeh Fischer, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is an underappreciated – and I think among the most potentially devastating – of the lung diseases we as rheumatologists will encounter in our patients,” said Dr. Fischer, a rheumatologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a special interest in autoimmune lung disease.

“If you’re seeing patients with rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, or Sjögren’s and they’ve got bad asthma they can’t get under control, you’ve got to think about bronchiolitis because I can tell you your lung doc quite often is not thinking about this,” he added.

Bronchiolitis involves inflammation, narrowing, or obliteration of the small airways. The diagnosis is often missed because of the false sense of reassurance provided by the normal chest x-ray and regular CT findings, which are a feature of the disease.

“This is really important: You have to get a high-resolution CT that includes expiratory images, because that’s the only way you’re going to be able to tell if your patient has small airways disease,” he explained. “You must, must, must do an expiratory CT.”

A normal expiratory CT image should be gray, since the lungs are empty. Air is black on CT, so large areas of black intermixed with gray on an expiratory CT – a finding known as mosaicism – indicate air trapping due to small airways disease, Dr. Fischer noted.

Surgical lung biopsy will yield a pathologic report documenting isolated constrictive, follicular, and/or lymphocytic bronchiolitis. However, the terminology can be confusing: What pathologists describe as constrictive bronchiolitis is called obliterative by pulmonologists and radiologists.

Pulmonary function testing shows an obstructive defect. The diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) is fairly normal, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) is sharply reduced, and the forced vital capacity (FVC) is near normal, with a resultant abnormally low FEV₁/FVC ratio. A patient with bronchiolitis may or may not have a response to bronchodilators.

“I tell you, I’ve seen a bunch of these patients. They typically have a precipitous drop in their FEV1 and then stay stable at a very low level of lung function without much opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Fischer said. “Stability equals success in these patients. It’s really unusual to see much improvement.”

In theory, patients with follicular or lymphocytic bronchiolitis have an ongoing inflammatory process that should be amenable to rheumatologic ministrations. But there is no convincing evidence of treatment efficacy to date. And in obliterative bronchiolitis, marked by airway scarring, there is no reason to think anti-inflammatory therapies should be helpful. Anecdotally, Dr. Fischer said, he has seen immunosuppression help patients with obliterative bronchiolitis.

“Actually, the only proven therapy is lung transplantation,” he said.

He recommended that his fellow rheumatologists periodically use office spirometry to check the FEV₁ in their patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren’s, or SLE, the forms of connective tissue disease most often associated with bronchiolitis. Compared with all the other testing rheumatologists routinely order in their patients, having them blow into a tube is a simple enough matter.

“We really don’t have anything to impact the natural history, but I like the notion of not being surprised. What are you going to do with that [abnormal] FEV₁ data? I have no idea. But maybe it’s better to know earlier,” he said.

Dr. Fischer reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – One of the most important steps to take when a child has received a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of localized scleroderma is to sit down with the family and explain the rationale for the aggressive therapies to come, Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It can be a tough sell at first, especially when a child has only a small red streak on the nose and perhaps a subtle linear lesion on the forehead or scalp. But the family has to come to understand that this is a serious, chronic, progressive fibrotic disease.

“Talk about what a big impact this disease can have on growth of a limb and the normal life of a child because of the cosmetic appearance. Explain that the length of treatment course is based on the long-term outcomes and quality of life. This discussion is usually sufficient” to convince people to give their children “these pretty serious medications,” said Dr. Stevens, professor of pediatrics and head of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“The treatment goal is to control inflammation and prevent damage in these patients, who we like to catch very early, when it’s a subtle lesion,” she added.
 

The biggest problem

The biggest contributors to poor quality of life in patients with juvenile localized scleroderma are the extracutaneous manifestations, which occur in up to 50% of cases. Joint pain occurs in roughly 20% of patients, joint contractures due to fibrosis of skin and/or tendons in 30%, and myalgia with or without myositis in 15%. Muscle atrophy due to the deep component of the scleroderma can occur. Moreover, growth problems – especially leg or arm length discrepancies – happen in about 20% of patients in prospective studies. These growth problems may not be obvious until a child enters a growth spurt, at which point there is a limited ability to achieve improvement. That’s why Dr. Stevens recommends that every child with localized scleroderma should get a full joint exam at every visit, with measurement and photos of lesions and recording of all erythematous, violaceous, and waxy-hued areas. And if there are lesions on the head, annual eye exams are warranted.

The prevalence of juvenile localized scleroderma in the United States is about 3 per 100,000, with a mean age of onset of 8.2 years. That makes it 100-fold more common than pediatric systemic sclerosis.
 

The treatment ladder

There are no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for localized scleroderma in children. It’s all off label. That being said, there is strong consensus among members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance that the first-line therapy is methotrexate at 15 mg/m² or a maximum of 20 mg/week plus intravenous corticosteroids weaned over the course of 3-6 months. This is the treatment regimen with the best supporting evidence of safety and efficacy, including a single Italian randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Jul;63[7]:1998-2006) and an accompanying long-term, open-label follow-up study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Dec;67[6]:1151-6).

All of the other treatments she uses for juvenile localized scleroderma – mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept), abatacept (Orencia), tocilizumab (Actemra), and occasionally others – are backed only by a smattering of small case series. However, given the serious potential trajectory of this disease, that modest evidence base has been sufficient for her to receive insurance coverage approval of these agents.

In the randomized trial of first-line methotrexate, 48 of 65 patients treated with methotrexate plus steroid (74%) were responders. And among those 48 responders, 35 (73%) maintained a clinical remission for a mean of 25 months off-drug, while another 13 (27%) were in clinical remission on methotrexate. Twenty-eight patients developed side effects that were generally mild; no one required treatment discontinuation. At the 5-year mark, after an average of an initial 2 years on methotrexate, half of the patients were in a sustained clinical remission, which Dr. Stevens deemed “pretty good” considering the well established and manageable safety profile of the drug.

If a patient fails to respond to methotrexate plus corticosteroids within a few months or later experiences disease progression, Dr. Stevens’ second-line therapy is mycophenolate mofetil in conjunction with corticosteroids. Its use in arresting juvenile localized scleroderma is supported by two favorable published case series, the largest of which includes 10 patients (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2009 Nov;48[11]:1410-3).

Dr. Stevens’ third-line therapy is intravenous abatacept at 10 mg/kg monthly along with intravenous methylprednisolone at 500 mg/week. There are five published case series, the most recent and largest of which included 13 adult patients, two of whom had en coup de sabre lesions (Acta Derm Venereol. 2018 Apr 16;98[4]:465-6). The biologic also shows promise in patients with advanced severe disease with deep tissue involvement (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017 Jun;46[6]:775-81). And abatacept has a plausible mechanism of action in localized scleroderma: French investigators have shown it induces regression of skin fibrosis in a mouse model of the disease (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Dec;75[12]:2142-9).

Her fourth-line strategy is the anti-interleukin-6 agent tocilizumab, again in conjunction with corticosteroids. In a translational study, tocilizumab has been shown to normalize dermal fibroblasts and collagen in patients with systemic sclerosis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Sep;77[9]:1362-71). And there have been two promising small retrospective case series as well. A more definitive clinical trial is planned.

Dr. Stevens said that when starting a biologic agent in a child with localized scleroderma, she routinely adds methotrexate until the disease is under control.

Drugs supported by case reports and worth considering on an individual basis as a last resort are hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and imatinib mesylate (Gleevec).

For mild, superficial lesions that don’t cross joints, ultraviolet light A phototherapy is a therapeutic option. It displayed significant benefit in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies comparing it to methotrexate, although the results with methotrexate were deemed superior (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018 Dec;48[3]:495-503).

The pros and cons of getting a baseline brain MRI

Children with localized scleroderma have increased rates of severe headache, peripheral neuropathy, complex partial seizures, and stroke. So it had been Dr. Stevens’ routine practice to obtain an initial brain MRI at the time of diagnosis. Of late, though, she has reconsidered that practice.

“The problem is that some patients with abnormal MRI lesions have no CNS disease at all, and there are also a fair number of patients with a normal MRI who have CNS symptoms. So in our practice we’re pulling back on doing screening MRIs because we don’t know what to do with the findings, and it just makes everybody worried,” she said.

However, if a child with localized scleroderma develops headaches, seizures, neuropathies, or other CNS symptoms, then by all means get an MRI, and if it shows findings such as brain atrophy, white matter lesions, calcifications, or leptomeningeal enhancement, consider treatment, she added.

Dr. Stevens reported receiving research funding from Kineta and Seattle Genetics.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – One of the most important steps to take when a child has received a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of localized scleroderma is to sit down with the family and explain the rationale for the aggressive therapies to come, Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It can be a tough sell at first, especially when a child has only a small red streak on the nose and perhaps a subtle linear lesion on the forehead or scalp. But the family has to come to understand that this is a serious, chronic, progressive fibrotic disease.

“Talk about what a big impact this disease can have on growth of a limb and the normal life of a child because of the cosmetic appearance. Explain that the length of treatment course is based on the long-term outcomes and quality of life. This discussion is usually sufficient” to convince people to give their children “these pretty serious medications,” said Dr. Stevens, professor of pediatrics and head of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“The treatment goal is to control inflammation and prevent damage in these patients, who we like to catch very early, when it’s a subtle lesion,” she added.
 

The biggest problem

The biggest contributors to poor quality of life in patients with juvenile localized scleroderma are the extracutaneous manifestations, which occur in up to 50% of cases. Joint pain occurs in roughly 20% of patients, joint contractures due to fibrosis of skin and/or tendons in 30%, and myalgia with or without myositis in 15%. Muscle atrophy due to the deep component of the scleroderma can occur. Moreover, growth problems – especially leg or arm length discrepancies – happen in about 20% of patients in prospective studies. These growth problems may not be obvious until a child enters a growth spurt, at which point there is a limited ability to achieve improvement. That’s why Dr. Stevens recommends that every child with localized scleroderma should get a full joint exam at every visit, with measurement and photos of lesions and recording of all erythematous, violaceous, and waxy-hued areas. And if there are lesions on the head, annual eye exams are warranted.

The prevalence of juvenile localized scleroderma in the United States is about 3 per 100,000, with a mean age of onset of 8.2 years. That makes it 100-fold more common than pediatric systemic sclerosis.
 

The treatment ladder

There are no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for localized scleroderma in children. It’s all off label. That being said, there is strong consensus among members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance that the first-line therapy is methotrexate at 15 mg/m² or a maximum of 20 mg/week plus intravenous corticosteroids weaned over the course of 3-6 months. This is the treatment regimen with the best supporting evidence of safety and efficacy, including a single Italian randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Jul;63[7]:1998-2006) and an accompanying long-term, open-label follow-up study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Dec;67[6]:1151-6).

All of the other treatments she uses for juvenile localized scleroderma – mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept), abatacept (Orencia), tocilizumab (Actemra), and occasionally others – are backed only by a smattering of small case series. However, given the serious potential trajectory of this disease, that modest evidence base has been sufficient for her to receive insurance coverage approval of these agents.

In the randomized trial of first-line methotrexate, 48 of 65 patients treated with methotrexate plus steroid (74%) were responders. And among those 48 responders, 35 (73%) maintained a clinical remission for a mean of 25 months off-drug, while another 13 (27%) were in clinical remission on methotrexate. Twenty-eight patients developed side effects that were generally mild; no one required treatment discontinuation. At the 5-year mark, after an average of an initial 2 years on methotrexate, half of the patients were in a sustained clinical remission, which Dr. Stevens deemed “pretty good” considering the well established and manageable safety profile of the drug.

If a patient fails to respond to methotrexate plus corticosteroids within a few months or later experiences disease progression, Dr. Stevens’ second-line therapy is mycophenolate mofetil in conjunction with corticosteroids. Its use in arresting juvenile localized scleroderma is supported by two favorable published case series, the largest of which includes 10 patients (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2009 Nov;48[11]:1410-3).

Dr. Stevens’ third-line therapy is intravenous abatacept at 10 mg/kg monthly along with intravenous methylprednisolone at 500 mg/week. There are five published case series, the most recent and largest of which included 13 adult patients, two of whom had en coup de sabre lesions (Acta Derm Venereol. 2018 Apr 16;98[4]:465-6). The biologic also shows promise in patients with advanced severe disease with deep tissue involvement (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017 Jun;46[6]:775-81). And abatacept has a plausible mechanism of action in localized scleroderma: French investigators have shown it induces regression of skin fibrosis in a mouse model of the disease (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Dec;75[12]:2142-9).

Her fourth-line strategy is the anti-interleukin-6 agent tocilizumab, again in conjunction with corticosteroids. In a translational study, tocilizumab has been shown to normalize dermal fibroblasts and collagen in patients with systemic sclerosis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Sep;77[9]:1362-71). And there have been two promising small retrospective case series as well. A more definitive clinical trial is planned.

Dr. Stevens said that when starting a biologic agent in a child with localized scleroderma, she routinely adds methotrexate until the disease is under control.

Drugs supported by case reports and worth considering on an individual basis as a last resort are hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and imatinib mesylate (Gleevec).

For mild, superficial lesions that don’t cross joints, ultraviolet light A phototherapy is a therapeutic option. It displayed significant benefit in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies comparing it to methotrexate, although the results with methotrexate were deemed superior (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018 Dec;48[3]:495-503).

The pros and cons of getting a baseline brain MRI

Children with localized scleroderma have increased rates of severe headache, peripheral neuropathy, complex partial seizures, and stroke. So it had been Dr. Stevens’ routine practice to obtain an initial brain MRI at the time of diagnosis. Of late, though, she has reconsidered that practice.

“The problem is that some patients with abnormal MRI lesions have no CNS disease at all, and there are also a fair number of patients with a normal MRI who have CNS symptoms. So in our practice we’re pulling back on doing screening MRIs because we don’t know what to do with the findings, and it just makes everybody worried,” she said.

However, if a child with localized scleroderma develops headaches, seizures, neuropathies, or other CNS symptoms, then by all means get an MRI, and if it shows findings such as brain atrophy, white matter lesions, calcifications, or leptomeningeal enhancement, consider treatment, she added.

Dr. Stevens reported receiving research funding from Kineta and Seattle Genetics.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – One of the most important steps to take when a child has received a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of localized scleroderma is to sit down with the family and explain the rationale for the aggressive therapies to come, Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It can be a tough sell at first, especially when a child has only a small red streak on the nose and perhaps a subtle linear lesion on the forehead or scalp. But the family has to come to understand that this is a serious, chronic, progressive fibrotic disease.

“Talk about what a big impact this disease can have on growth of a limb and the normal life of a child because of the cosmetic appearance. Explain that the length of treatment course is based on the long-term outcomes and quality of life. This discussion is usually sufficient” to convince people to give their children “these pretty serious medications,” said Dr. Stevens, professor of pediatrics and head of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“The treatment goal is to control inflammation and prevent damage in these patients, who we like to catch very early, when it’s a subtle lesion,” she added.
 

The biggest problem

The biggest contributors to poor quality of life in patients with juvenile localized scleroderma are the extracutaneous manifestations, which occur in up to 50% of cases. Joint pain occurs in roughly 20% of patients, joint contractures due to fibrosis of skin and/or tendons in 30%, and myalgia with or without myositis in 15%. Muscle atrophy due to the deep component of the scleroderma can occur. Moreover, growth problems – especially leg or arm length discrepancies – happen in about 20% of patients in prospective studies. These growth problems may not be obvious until a child enters a growth spurt, at which point there is a limited ability to achieve improvement. That’s why Dr. Stevens recommends that every child with localized scleroderma should get a full joint exam at every visit, with measurement and photos of lesions and recording of all erythematous, violaceous, and waxy-hued areas. And if there are lesions on the head, annual eye exams are warranted.

The prevalence of juvenile localized scleroderma in the United States is about 3 per 100,000, with a mean age of onset of 8.2 years. That makes it 100-fold more common than pediatric systemic sclerosis.
 

The treatment ladder

There are no Food and Drug Administration–approved medications for localized scleroderma in children. It’s all off label. That being said, there is strong consensus among members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance that the first-line therapy is methotrexate at 15 mg/m² or a maximum of 20 mg/week plus intravenous corticosteroids weaned over the course of 3-6 months. This is the treatment regimen with the best supporting evidence of safety and efficacy, including a single Italian randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Jul;63[7]:1998-2006) and an accompanying long-term, open-label follow-up study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Dec;67[6]:1151-6).

All of the other treatments she uses for juvenile localized scleroderma – mycophenolate mofetil (CellCept), abatacept (Orencia), tocilizumab (Actemra), and occasionally others – are backed only by a smattering of small case series. However, given the serious potential trajectory of this disease, that modest evidence base has been sufficient for her to receive insurance coverage approval of these agents.

In the randomized trial of first-line methotrexate, 48 of 65 patients treated with methotrexate plus steroid (74%) were responders. And among those 48 responders, 35 (73%) maintained a clinical remission for a mean of 25 months off-drug, while another 13 (27%) were in clinical remission on methotrexate. Twenty-eight patients developed side effects that were generally mild; no one required treatment discontinuation. At the 5-year mark, after an average of an initial 2 years on methotrexate, half of the patients were in a sustained clinical remission, which Dr. Stevens deemed “pretty good” considering the well established and manageable safety profile of the drug.

If a patient fails to respond to methotrexate plus corticosteroids within a few months or later experiences disease progression, Dr. Stevens’ second-line therapy is mycophenolate mofetil in conjunction with corticosteroids. Its use in arresting juvenile localized scleroderma is supported by two favorable published case series, the largest of which includes 10 patients (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2009 Nov;48[11]:1410-3).

Dr. Stevens’ third-line therapy is intravenous abatacept at 10 mg/kg monthly along with intravenous methylprednisolone at 500 mg/week. There are five published case series, the most recent and largest of which included 13 adult patients, two of whom had en coup de sabre lesions (Acta Derm Venereol. 2018 Apr 16;98[4]:465-6). The biologic also shows promise in patients with advanced severe disease with deep tissue involvement (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017 Jun;46[6]:775-81). And abatacept has a plausible mechanism of action in localized scleroderma: French investigators have shown it induces regression of skin fibrosis in a mouse model of the disease (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Dec;75[12]:2142-9).

Her fourth-line strategy is the anti-interleukin-6 agent tocilizumab, again in conjunction with corticosteroids. In a translational study, tocilizumab has been shown to normalize dermal fibroblasts and collagen in patients with systemic sclerosis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Sep;77[9]:1362-71). And there have been two promising small retrospective case series as well. A more definitive clinical trial is planned.

Dr. Stevens said that when starting a biologic agent in a child with localized scleroderma, she routinely adds methotrexate until the disease is under control.

Drugs supported by case reports and worth considering on an individual basis as a last resort are hydroxychloroquine, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and imatinib mesylate (Gleevec).

For mild, superficial lesions that don’t cross joints, ultraviolet light A phototherapy is a therapeutic option. It displayed significant benefit in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies comparing it to methotrexate, although the results with methotrexate were deemed superior (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018 Dec;48[3]:495-503).

The pros and cons of getting a baseline brain MRI

Children with localized scleroderma have increased rates of severe headache, peripheral neuropathy, complex partial seizures, and stroke. So it had been Dr. Stevens’ routine practice to obtain an initial brain MRI at the time of diagnosis. Of late, though, she has reconsidered that practice.

“The problem is that some patients with abnormal MRI lesions have no CNS disease at all, and there are also a fair number of patients with a normal MRI who have CNS symptoms. So in our practice we’re pulling back on doing screening MRIs because we don’t know what to do with the findings, and it just makes everybody worried,” she said.

However, if a child with localized scleroderma develops headaches, seizures, neuropathies, or other CNS symptoms, then by all means get an MRI, and if it shows findings such as brain atrophy, white matter lesions, calcifications, or leptomeningeal enhancement, consider treatment, she added.

Dr. Stevens reported receiving research funding from Kineta and Seattle Genetics.

[email protected]

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Two days of testimony and discussion by a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that gave new scrutiny to emerging complications and signals of complications in patients who received breast implants showed that powerful, emotion-filled vignettes from affected patients could engender sympathy and recommendations for action by an expert panel. But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.

The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.

Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),

Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.

The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.

Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.

In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.

In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.

Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”

Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Children with proliferative lupus nephritis appear to do similarly well after using induction treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or IV cyclophosphamide, according to findings in the real-world U.K. Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

The study involved 34 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and 17 who received IV cyclophosphamide as induction therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE). Along with her coinvestigators, first author Eve M.D. Smith, MD, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, described it as the largest study to date investigating induction treatments for proliferative lupus nephritis in JSLE.

The patients were aged 16 years or younger at diagnosis and monitored during 2006-2018 as part of the U.K. JSLE Cohort Study. They met four or more American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria and had a renal biopsy result demonstrating proliferative lupus nephritis, defined as class III or IV lupus nephritis by the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society. Within the mycophenolate group, half received oral prednisolone only and half received both IV methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone, whereas 2 in the cyclophosphamide group received oral prednisolone only and 15 received both IV methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone.

All the patient demographic factors at baseline – including gender, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and age at lupus nephritis onset – were similar in both treatment groups.

The investigators detected no significant differences between the two treatment groups at 4-8 and 10-14 months post renal biopsy and last follow-up in renal pediatric British Isles Lupus Assessment Grade scores, urine albumin/creatinine ratio, serum creatinine, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, anti-double stranded DNA antibody, Complement 3 levels, and patient/physician global scores. JSLE-related damage on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Standardized Damage Index also was no different between the groups after a median 13 months following renal biopsy. Lupus nephritis became inactive in 82%-85% of each group, taking a median of 262 days with mycophenolate and 151 days with IV cyclophosphamide, while flares occurred in 69% treated with mycophenolate at a median of 451 days and in 50% with cyclophosphamide at a median of 343 days.

“Results from the presented study highlight the need for prospective comparison of mycophenolate mofetil versus IV cyclophosphamide induction treatment to better inform lupus nephritis treatment protocols for children, especially given IV cyclophosphamide’s poor safety profile,” the investigators wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith EMD et al. Lupus. 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1177/0961203319836712.

Children with proliferative lupus nephritis appear to do similarly well after using induction treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or IV cyclophosphamide, according to findings in the real-world U.K. Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

The study involved 34 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and 17 who received IV cyclophosphamide as induction therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE). Along with her coinvestigators, first author Eve M.D. Smith, MD, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, described it as the largest study to date investigating induction treatments for proliferative lupus nephritis in JSLE.

The patients were aged 16 years or younger at diagnosis and monitored during 2006-2018 as part of the U.K. JSLE Cohort Study. They met four or more American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria and had a renal biopsy result demonstrating proliferative lupus nephritis, defined as class III or IV lupus nephritis by the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society. Within the mycophenolate group, half received oral prednisolone only and half received both IV methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone, whereas 2 in the cyclophosphamide group received oral prednisolone only and 15 received both IV methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone.

All the patient demographic factors at baseline – including gender, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and age at lupus nephritis onset – were similar in both treatment groups.

The investigators detected no significant differences between the two treatment groups at 4-8 and 10-14 months post renal biopsy and last follow-up in renal pediatric British Isles Lupus Assessment Grade scores, urine albumin/creatinine ratio, serum creatinine, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, anti-double stranded DNA antibody, Complement 3 levels, and patient/physician global scores. JSLE-related damage on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Standardized Damage Index also was no different between the groups after a median 13 months following renal biopsy. Lupus nephritis became inactive in 82%-85% of each group, taking a median of 262 days with mycophenolate and 151 days with IV cyclophosphamide, while flares occurred in 69% treated with mycophenolate at a median of 451 days and in 50% with cyclophosphamide at a median of 343 days.

“Results from the presented study highlight the need for prospective comparison of mycophenolate mofetil versus IV cyclophosphamide induction treatment to better inform lupus nephritis treatment protocols for children, especially given IV cyclophosphamide’s poor safety profile,” the investigators wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith EMD et al. Lupus. 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1177/0961203319836712.

Children with proliferative lupus nephritis appear to do similarly well after using induction treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or IV cyclophosphamide, according to findings in the real-world U.K. Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study.

HYWARDS/Getty Images

The study involved 34 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and 17 who received IV cyclophosphamide as induction therapy for proliferative lupus nephritis in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE). Along with her coinvestigators, first author Eve M.D. Smith, MD, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, described it as the largest study to date investigating induction treatments for proliferative lupus nephritis in JSLE.

The patients were aged 16 years or younger at diagnosis and monitored during 2006-2018 as part of the U.K. JSLE Cohort Study. They met four or more American College of Rheumatology SLE classification criteria and had a renal biopsy result demonstrating proliferative lupus nephritis, defined as class III or IV lupus nephritis by the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society. Within the mycophenolate group, half received oral prednisolone only and half received both IV methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone, whereas 2 in the cyclophosphamide group received oral prednisolone only and 15 received both IV methylprednisolone and oral prednisolone.

All the patient demographic factors at baseline – including gender, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, and age at lupus nephritis onset – were similar in both treatment groups.

The investigators detected no significant differences between the two treatment groups at 4-8 and 10-14 months post renal biopsy and last follow-up in renal pediatric British Isles Lupus Assessment Grade scores, urine albumin/creatinine ratio, serum creatinine, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, anti-double stranded DNA antibody, Complement 3 levels, and patient/physician global scores. JSLE-related damage on the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Standardized Damage Index also was no different between the groups after a median 13 months following renal biopsy. Lupus nephritis became inactive in 82%-85% of each group, taking a median of 262 days with mycophenolate and 151 days with IV cyclophosphamide, while flares occurred in 69% treated with mycophenolate at a median of 451 days and in 50% with cyclophosphamide at a median of 343 days.

“Results from the presented study highlight the need for prospective comparison of mycophenolate mofetil versus IV cyclophosphamide induction treatment to better inform lupus nephritis treatment protocols for children, especially given IV cyclophosphamide’s poor safety profile,” the investigators wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith EMD et al. Lupus. 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1177/0961203319836712.

Use of rituximab for B-cell depletion was not associated with clinical improvement of fatigue scores for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), according to results from the phase 3 RituxME trial.

Courtesy Kristin Risa

“The lack of clinical effect of B-cell depletion in this trial weakens the case for an important role of B lymphocytes in ME/CFS but does not exclude an immunologic basis,” Øystein Fluge, MD, PhD, of the department of oncology and medical physics at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway, and his colleagues wrote April 1 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators noted that the basis for testing the effects of a B-cell–depleting intervention on clinical symptoms in patients with ME/CFS came from observations of its potential benefit in a subgroup of patients in previous studies. Dr. Fluge and his colleagues performed a three-patient case series in their own group that found benefit for patients who received rituximab for treatment of CFS (BMC Neurol. 2009 May 8;9:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-9-28). A phase 2 trial of 30 patients with CFS also performed by his own group found improved fatigue scores in 66.7% of patients in the rituximab group, compared with placebo (PLOS One. 2011 Oct 19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026358).

In the double-blinded RituxME trial, 151 patients with ME/CFS from four university hospitals and one general hospital in Norway were recruited and randomized to receive infusions of rituximab (n = 77) or placebo (n = 74). The patients were aged 18-65 years old and had the disease ranging from 2 years to 15 years. Patients reported and rated their ME/CFS symptoms at baseline as well as completed forms for the SF-36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, and modified DePaul Symptom Questionnaire out to 24 months. The rituximab group received two infusions at 500 mg/m² across body surface area at 2 weeks apart. They then received 500-mg maintenance infusions at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months where they also self-reported changes in ME/CFS symptoms.

There were no significant differences between groups regarding fatigue score at any follow-up period, with an average between-group difference of 0.02 at 24 months (95% confidence interval, –0.27 to 0.31). The overall response rate was 26% with rituximab and 35% with placebo. Dr. Fluge and his colleagues also noted no significant differences regarding SF-36 scores, function level, and fatigue severity between groups.

Adverse event rates were higher in the rituximab group (63 patients; 82%) than in the placebo group (48 patients; 65%), and these were more often attributed to treatment for those taking rituximab (26 patients [34%]) than for placebo (12 patients [16%]). Adverse events requiring hospitalization also occurred more often among those taking rituximab (31 events in 20 patients [26%]) than for those who took placebo (16 events in 14 patients [19%]).

Some of the weaknesses of the trial included its use of self-referral and self-reported symptom scores, which might have been subject to recall bias. In commenting on the difference in outcome between the phase 3 trial and others, Dr. Fluge and his associates said the discrepancy could potentially be high expectations in the placebo group, unknown factors surrounding symptom variation in ME/CFS patients, and unknown patient selection effects.

“[T]he negative outcome of RituxME should spur research to assess patient subgroups and further elucidate disease mechanisms, of which recently disclosed impairment of energy metabolism may be important,” Dr. Fluge and his coauthors wrote.

The trial was funded by grants to the researchers from the Norwegian Research Council, the Norwegian Regional Health Trusts, the MEandYou Foundation, the Norwegian ME Association, and the legacy of Torstein Hereid.

SOURCE: Fluge Ø et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.7326/M18-1451

Use of rituximab for B-cell depletion was not associated with clinical improvement of fatigue scores for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), according to results from the phase 3 RituxME trial.

Courtesy Kristin Risa

“The lack of clinical effect of B-cell depletion in this trial weakens the case for an important role of B lymphocytes in ME/CFS but does not exclude an immunologic basis,” Øystein Fluge, MD, PhD, of the department of oncology and medical physics at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway, and his colleagues wrote April 1 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators noted that the basis for testing the effects of a B-cell–depleting intervention on clinical symptoms in patients with ME/CFS came from observations of its potential benefit in a subgroup of patients in previous studies. Dr. Fluge and his colleagues performed a three-patient case series in their own group that found benefit for patients who received rituximab for treatment of CFS (BMC Neurol. 2009 May 8;9:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-9-28). A phase 2 trial of 30 patients with CFS also performed by his own group found improved fatigue scores in 66.7% of patients in the rituximab group, compared with placebo (PLOS One. 2011 Oct 19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026358).

In the double-blinded RituxME trial, 151 patients with ME/CFS from four university hospitals and one general hospital in Norway were recruited and randomized to receive infusions of rituximab (n = 77) or placebo (n = 74). The patients were aged 18-65 years old and had the disease ranging from 2 years to 15 years. Patients reported and rated their ME/CFS symptoms at baseline as well as completed forms for the SF-36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, and modified DePaul Symptom Questionnaire out to 24 months. The rituximab group received two infusions at 500 mg/m² across body surface area at 2 weeks apart. They then received 500-mg maintenance infusions at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months where they also self-reported changes in ME/CFS symptoms.

There were no significant differences between groups regarding fatigue score at any follow-up period, with an average between-group difference of 0.02 at 24 months (95% confidence interval, –0.27 to 0.31). The overall response rate was 26% with rituximab and 35% with placebo. Dr. Fluge and his colleagues also noted no significant differences regarding SF-36 scores, function level, and fatigue severity between groups.

Adverse event rates were higher in the rituximab group (63 patients; 82%) than in the placebo group (48 patients; 65%), and these were more often attributed to treatment for those taking rituximab (26 patients [34%]) than for placebo (12 patients [16%]). Adverse events requiring hospitalization also occurred more often among those taking rituximab (31 events in 20 patients [26%]) than for those who took placebo (16 events in 14 patients [19%]).

Some of the weaknesses of the trial included its use of self-referral and self-reported symptom scores, which might have been subject to recall bias. In commenting on the difference in outcome between the phase 3 trial and others, Dr. Fluge and his associates said the discrepancy could potentially be high expectations in the placebo group, unknown factors surrounding symptom variation in ME/CFS patients, and unknown patient selection effects.

“[T]he negative outcome of RituxME should spur research to assess patient subgroups and further elucidate disease mechanisms, of which recently disclosed impairment of energy metabolism may be important,” Dr. Fluge and his coauthors wrote.

The trial was funded by grants to the researchers from the Norwegian Research Council, the Norwegian Regional Health Trusts, the MEandYou Foundation, the Norwegian ME Association, and the legacy of Torstein Hereid.

SOURCE: Fluge Ø et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.7326/M18-1451

Use of rituximab for B-cell depletion was not associated with clinical improvement of fatigue scores for patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), according to results from the phase 3 RituxME trial.

Courtesy Kristin Risa

“The lack of clinical effect of B-cell depletion in this trial weakens the case for an important role of B lymphocytes in ME/CFS but does not exclude an immunologic basis,” Øystein Fluge, MD, PhD, of the department of oncology and medical physics at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway, and his colleagues wrote April 1 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators noted that the basis for testing the effects of a B-cell–depleting intervention on clinical symptoms in patients with ME/CFS came from observations of its potential benefit in a subgroup of patients in previous studies. Dr. Fluge and his colleagues performed a three-patient case series in their own group that found benefit for patients who received rituximab for treatment of CFS (BMC Neurol. 2009 May 8;9:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-9-28). A phase 2 trial of 30 patients with CFS also performed by his own group found improved fatigue scores in 66.7% of patients in the rituximab group, compared with placebo (PLOS One. 2011 Oct 19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026358).

In the double-blinded RituxME trial, 151 patients with ME/CFS from four university hospitals and one general hospital in Norway were recruited and randomized to receive infusions of rituximab (n = 77) or placebo (n = 74). The patients were aged 18-65 years old and had the disease ranging from 2 years to 15 years. Patients reported and rated their ME/CFS symptoms at baseline as well as completed forms for the SF-36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, and modified DePaul Symptom Questionnaire out to 24 months. The rituximab group received two infusions at 500 mg/m² across body surface area at 2 weeks apart. They then received 500-mg maintenance infusions at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months where they also self-reported changes in ME/CFS symptoms.

There were no significant differences between groups regarding fatigue score at any follow-up period, with an average between-group difference of 0.02 at 24 months (95% confidence interval, –0.27 to 0.31). The overall response rate was 26% with rituximab and 35% with placebo. Dr. Fluge and his colleagues also noted no significant differences regarding SF-36 scores, function level, and fatigue severity between groups.

Adverse event rates were higher in the rituximab group (63 patients; 82%) than in the placebo group (48 patients; 65%), and these were more often attributed to treatment for those taking rituximab (26 patients [34%]) than for placebo (12 patients [16%]). Adverse events requiring hospitalization also occurred more often among those taking rituximab (31 events in 20 patients [26%]) than for those who took placebo (16 events in 14 patients [19%]).

Some of the weaknesses of the trial included its use of self-referral and self-reported symptom scores, which might have been subject to recall bias. In commenting on the difference in outcome between the phase 3 trial and others, Dr. Fluge and his associates said the discrepancy could potentially be high expectations in the placebo group, unknown factors surrounding symptom variation in ME/CFS patients, and unknown patient selection effects.

“[T]he negative outcome of RituxME should spur research to assess patient subgroups and further elucidate disease mechanisms, of which recently disclosed impairment of energy metabolism may be important,” Dr. Fluge and his coauthors wrote.

The trial was funded by grants to the researchers from the Norwegian Research Council, the Norwegian Regional Health Trusts, the MEandYou Foundation, the Norwegian ME Association, and the legacy of Torstein Hereid.

SOURCE: Fluge Ø et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.7326/M18-1451