User login
Bronchiolitis is a feared complication of connective tissue disease
MAUI, HAWAII – 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.
“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.
MAUI, HAWAII – 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.
“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.
MAUI, HAWAII – 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.
“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.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2019
Tackling the challenges of pediatric localized scleroderma
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2019
Powerful breast-implant testimony constrained by limited evidence
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
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.
“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.
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.
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
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.
“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.
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.
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
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.
“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.
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.
Mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide found equal as induction therapy in pediatric lupus nephritis
according to findings in the real-world U.K. Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study.
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.
SOURCE: Smith EMD et al. Lupus. 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1177/0961203319836712.
according to findings in the real-world U.K. Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study.
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.
SOURCE: Smith EMD et al. Lupus. 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1177/0961203319836712.
according to findings in the real-world U.K. Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Cohort Study.
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.
SOURCE: Smith EMD et al. Lupus. 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1177/0961203319836712.
FROM LUPUS
Rituximab does not improve fatigue symptoms of ME/CFS
according to results from the phase 3 RituxME trial.
“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
The RituxME trial’s results weaken the case for the use of rituximab to treat myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), but there are opportunities to test other treatments targeting immunologic abnormalities in ME/CFS, Peter C. Rowe, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a related editorial.
“Persons with ME/CFS often meet criteria for several comorbid conditions, each of which could flare during a trial, possibly obscuring a true beneficial effect of an intervention,” Dr. Rowe wrote.
Trials with open treatment periods, in which ME/CFS patients all receive rituximab and then are grouped based on nontargeted conditions, could be warranted to “allow better control” of these conditions. Other trial designs could include randomizing patients to continue or discontinue therapy for responders, he added.
“The profound level of impaired function of affected individuals warrants a new commitment to hypothesis-driven clinical trials that incorporate and expand on the methodological sophistication of the rituximab trial,” Dr. Rowe wrote.
Dr. Rowe is with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. These comments summarize his editorial in response to Fluge et al. (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0643). Dr. Rowe reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and is a scientific advisory board member for Solve ME/CFS, all outside the submitted work.
The RituxME trial’s results weaken the case for the use of rituximab to treat myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), but there are opportunities to test other treatments targeting immunologic abnormalities in ME/CFS, Peter C. Rowe, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a related editorial.
“Persons with ME/CFS often meet criteria for several comorbid conditions, each of which could flare during a trial, possibly obscuring a true beneficial effect of an intervention,” Dr. Rowe wrote.
Trials with open treatment periods, in which ME/CFS patients all receive rituximab and then are grouped based on nontargeted conditions, could be warranted to “allow better control” of these conditions. Other trial designs could include randomizing patients to continue or discontinue therapy for responders, he added.
“The profound level of impaired function of affected individuals warrants a new commitment to hypothesis-driven clinical trials that incorporate and expand on the methodological sophistication of the rituximab trial,” Dr. Rowe wrote.
Dr. Rowe is with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. These comments summarize his editorial in response to Fluge et al. (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0643). Dr. Rowe reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and is a scientific advisory board member for Solve ME/CFS, all outside the submitted work.
The RituxME trial’s results weaken the case for the use of rituximab to treat myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), but there are opportunities to test other treatments targeting immunologic abnormalities in ME/CFS, Peter C. Rowe, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a related editorial.
“Persons with ME/CFS often meet criteria for several comorbid conditions, each of which could flare during a trial, possibly obscuring a true beneficial effect of an intervention,” Dr. Rowe wrote.
Trials with open treatment periods, in which ME/CFS patients all receive rituximab and then are grouped based on nontargeted conditions, could be warranted to “allow better control” of these conditions. Other trial designs could include randomizing patients to continue or discontinue therapy for responders, he added.
“The profound level of impaired function of affected individuals warrants a new commitment to hypothesis-driven clinical trials that incorporate and expand on the methodological sophistication of the rituximab trial,” Dr. Rowe wrote.
Dr. Rowe is with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. These comments summarize his editorial in response to Fluge et al. (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0643). Dr. Rowe reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and is a scientific advisory board member for Solve ME/CFS, all outside the submitted work.
according to results from the phase 3 RituxME trial.
“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
according to results from the phase 3 RituxME trial.
“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
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
FDA panel calls for changes to breast implant rupture screening
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
AT AN FDA ADVISORY PANEL MEETING
FDA panel leans toward more robust breast implant surveillance
SILVER SPRING, MD. – A mandatory, comprehensive approach to collecting adverse event data from breast implant recipients was favored during a March 25 hearing by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that oversees surgical devices.
This additional data could offer more complete information during the informed consent process for breast implants and potentially validate a new, autoimmune-like syndrome – breast implant illness (BII).
On the first day of a scheduled 2-day hearing, the advisory panel held no votes and took no formal actions. After a day of expert presentations and comments from more than 40 members of the public – mostly personal stories from affected patients and from plastic surgeons who place breast implants, panel members discussed a handful of questions from the FDA about relevant data to collect to better define the risks posed to breast implant recipients from breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and BII.
The advisory panel meeting took place as reports recently appeared documenting the scope of BIA-ALCL (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:65S-73S) and how to diagnose and manage BIA-ALCL (Aesthetic Surg J. 2019 March;39[S1}:S3-S13), and the existence of BII (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S).
During the day’s two public comment periods, the panel heard from several women who gave brief accounts of developing and dealing with BIA-ALCL or BII.
“We think it’s important that all breast implant patients be aware of the risk for BIA-ALCL,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDAs Division of Surgical Devices. The FDA “is asking the panel what further steps need to be taken to understand the BIA-ALCL risk,” said Dr. Ashar as she opened the meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
While the agency, as well as the plastic surgery community, have acknowledged the existence of BIA-ALCL since 2011, only recently have good data emerged on the scope of the complication. During the hearing, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported on his analysis of 457 unique cases of BIA-ALCL reported to the FDA since 2011. He found that the vast majority of cases had occurred in women who had received textured implants while a relatively small minority were linked with the placement of smooth implants.
Further scrutiny of the reported details of each case showed that none of the lymphomas were linked with a confirmed instance of “pure” smooth implant exposure. He also estimated the U.S. incidence of BIA-ALCL as roughly one case for every 20,000 implants. Complete, en bloc removal of the implant seems to be the most effective way to treat the cancer; most explanted patients have a good prognosis, he said.
Despite the apparent link between textured implants specifically and onset of BIA-ALCL, some panel members did not see a ban on textured implants as the answer.
Texturing the implant helps to stabilize the implant in position. Without texturing “we would need to use something else to stabilize the implant, or there would be a tsunami of reoperations,” said panel member Mary H. McGrath, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. The main alternative to texturing for stabilizing implants is to wrap them in place using surgical mesh, but that approach may also cause problems.
“Instead of just taking textured implants off the market, we need to also look at their advantages. A critical issue is informed consent,” said panel member Marc E. Lippman, MD, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, Washington. Banning smooth implants based on what’s known so far “would be an extraordinary over reaction,” he said during the first day’s session.
Current U.S. anecdotal experience suggests that a ban may not even be necessary because “plastic surgeons are more and more walking away from textured implants” because of the apparent link to BIA-ALCL, Dr. McGrath said.
BII has been a more recent and more controversial complication of breast implants. As recently as September 2018, Dr. Ashar said in a written statement that “the agency continues to believe that the weight of the currently available scientific evidence does not conclusively demonstrate an association between breast implants and connective tissue diseases,” the types of symptoms that characterize BII.
While the panel heard no new, conclusive evidence of a causal link between breast implants and the range of symptoms that some implant recipients report and is now collectively known as BII, several participants seemed convinced that the syndrome was real and needed better surveillance and study.
“It’s in the same family as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. It’s not a diagnosis, but a set of symptoms.” said Benjamin O. Anderson, MD, a surgical oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a panel member. “It’s a giant challenge. BII is a constellation of difficult symptoms. We need to think about how we ask patients, what are your symptoms?”
Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, committee chair, said a more standardized measure of the most common BII symptoms is needed. “That may be exceedingly difficult, with as many as a hundred reported symptoms,” said Dr. Lewis, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
The hearing featured results from some of the most research projects aimed at fleshing out an understanding of BII.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, reported data she and her associates collected in an online survey completed in late 2018 and early 2019 by 449 women who had approached the Center for help in getting health insurance coverage for medically-necessary explantation of their breast implants.
Their most common symptoms included joint, muscle or back pain, weakness or stiffness; fatigue; “brain fog;” and anxiety and depression. More than two-thirds of the respondents had a family history and 3% had a personal history of an autoimmune disease, and 61% said their symptoms improved after their implants were removed, Dr. Zuckerman reported during her presentation to the panel.
During the discussion, panel members seemed intent on expanding mandatory, routine surveillance to all breast implants placed in U.S. practice.
Andrea L. Pusic, MD, president of the Plastic Surgery Foundation, summarized the recent launch of the National Breast Implant Registry by the Foundation and its parent organization, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. These organizations, and plastic surgeons in general, would be amenable to collecting the data the FDA deemed necessary to better track BIA-ALCL and BII, said Dr. Pusic, professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Plastic surgeons are willing to enter these data because we know they are important,” she told the FDA panel.
Dr. Ashar, Dr. Clemens, Dr. McGrath, Dr. Lippman, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Pusic reported having no relevant commercial disclosures.
SILVER SPRING, MD. – A mandatory, comprehensive approach to collecting adverse event data from breast implant recipients was favored during a March 25 hearing by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that oversees surgical devices.
This additional data could offer more complete information during the informed consent process for breast implants and potentially validate a new, autoimmune-like syndrome – breast implant illness (BII).
On the first day of a scheduled 2-day hearing, the advisory panel held no votes and took no formal actions. After a day of expert presentations and comments from more than 40 members of the public – mostly personal stories from affected patients and from plastic surgeons who place breast implants, panel members discussed a handful of questions from the FDA about relevant data to collect to better define the risks posed to breast implant recipients from breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and BII.
The advisory panel meeting took place as reports recently appeared documenting the scope of BIA-ALCL (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:65S-73S) and how to diagnose and manage BIA-ALCL (Aesthetic Surg J. 2019 March;39[S1}:S3-S13), and the existence of BII (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S).
During the day’s two public comment periods, the panel heard from several women who gave brief accounts of developing and dealing with BIA-ALCL or BII.
“We think it’s important that all breast implant patients be aware of the risk for BIA-ALCL,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDAs Division of Surgical Devices. The FDA “is asking the panel what further steps need to be taken to understand the BIA-ALCL risk,” said Dr. Ashar as she opened the meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
While the agency, as well as the plastic surgery community, have acknowledged the existence of BIA-ALCL since 2011, only recently have good data emerged on the scope of the complication. During the hearing, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported on his analysis of 457 unique cases of BIA-ALCL reported to the FDA since 2011. He found that the vast majority of cases had occurred in women who had received textured implants while a relatively small minority were linked with the placement of smooth implants.
Further scrutiny of the reported details of each case showed that none of the lymphomas were linked with a confirmed instance of “pure” smooth implant exposure. He also estimated the U.S. incidence of BIA-ALCL as roughly one case for every 20,000 implants. Complete, en bloc removal of the implant seems to be the most effective way to treat the cancer; most explanted patients have a good prognosis, he said.
Despite the apparent link between textured implants specifically and onset of BIA-ALCL, some panel members did not see a ban on textured implants as the answer.
Texturing the implant helps to stabilize the implant in position. Without texturing “we would need to use something else to stabilize the implant, or there would be a tsunami of reoperations,” said panel member Mary H. McGrath, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. The main alternative to texturing for stabilizing implants is to wrap them in place using surgical mesh, but that approach may also cause problems.
“Instead of just taking textured implants off the market, we need to also look at their advantages. A critical issue is informed consent,” said panel member Marc E. Lippman, MD, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, Washington. Banning smooth implants based on what’s known so far “would be an extraordinary over reaction,” he said during the first day’s session.
Current U.S. anecdotal experience suggests that a ban may not even be necessary because “plastic surgeons are more and more walking away from textured implants” because of the apparent link to BIA-ALCL, Dr. McGrath said.
BII has been a more recent and more controversial complication of breast implants. As recently as September 2018, Dr. Ashar said in a written statement that “the agency continues to believe that the weight of the currently available scientific evidence does not conclusively demonstrate an association between breast implants and connective tissue diseases,” the types of symptoms that characterize BII.
While the panel heard no new, conclusive evidence of a causal link between breast implants and the range of symptoms that some implant recipients report and is now collectively known as BII, several participants seemed convinced that the syndrome was real and needed better surveillance and study.
“It’s in the same family as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. It’s not a diagnosis, but a set of symptoms.” said Benjamin O. Anderson, MD, a surgical oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a panel member. “It’s a giant challenge. BII is a constellation of difficult symptoms. We need to think about how we ask patients, what are your symptoms?”
Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, committee chair, said a more standardized measure of the most common BII symptoms is needed. “That may be exceedingly difficult, with as many as a hundred reported symptoms,” said Dr. Lewis, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
The hearing featured results from some of the most research projects aimed at fleshing out an understanding of BII.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, reported data she and her associates collected in an online survey completed in late 2018 and early 2019 by 449 women who had approached the Center for help in getting health insurance coverage for medically-necessary explantation of their breast implants.
Their most common symptoms included joint, muscle or back pain, weakness or stiffness; fatigue; “brain fog;” and anxiety and depression. More than two-thirds of the respondents had a family history and 3% had a personal history of an autoimmune disease, and 61% said their symptoms improved after their implants were removed, Dr. Zuckerman reported during her presentation to the panel.
During the discussion, panel members seemed intent on expanding mandatory, routine surveillance to all breast implants placed in U.S. practice.
Andrea L. Pusic, MD, president of the Plastic Surgery Foundation, summarized the recent launch of the National Breast Implant Registry by the Foundation and its parent organization, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. These organizations, and plastic surgeons in general, would be amenable to collecting the data the FDA deemed necessary to better track BIA-ALCL and BII, said Dr. Pusic, professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Plastic surgeons are willing to enter these data because we know they are important,” she told the FDA panel.
Dr. Ashar, Dr. Clemens, Dr. McGrath, Dr. Lippman, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Pusic reported having no relevant commercial disclosures.
SILVER SPRING, MD. – A mandatory, comprehensive approach to collecting adverse event data from breast implant recipients was favored during a March 25 hearing by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that oversees surgical devices.
This additional data could offer more complete information during the informed consent process for breast implants and potentially validate a new, autoimmune-like syndrome – breast implant illness (BII).
On the first day of a scheduled 2-day hearing, the advisory panel held no votes and took no formal actions. After a day of expert presentations and comments from more than 40 members of the public – mostly personal stories from affected patients and from plastic surgeons who place breast implants, panel members discussed a handful of questions from the FDA about relevant data to collect to better define the risks posed to breast implant recipients from breast-implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and BII.
The advisory panel meeting took place as reports recently appeared documenting the scope of BIA-ALCL (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:65S-73S) and how to diagnose and manage BIA-ALCL (Aesthetic Surg J. 2019 March;39[S1}:S3-S13), and the existence of BII (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S).
During the day’s two public comment periods, the panel heard from several women who gave brief accounts of developing and dealing with BIA-ALCL or BII.
“We think it’s important that all breast implant patients be aware of the risk for BIA-ALCL,” said Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDAs Division of Surgical Devices. The FDA “is asking the panel what further steps need to be taken to understand the BIA-ALCL risk,” said Dr. Ashar as she opened the meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
While the agency, as well as the plastic surgery community, have acknowledged the existence of BIA-ALCL since 2011, only recently have good data emerged on the scope of the complication. During the hearing, Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, reported on his analysis of 457 unique cases of BIA-ALCL reported to the FDA since 2011. He found that the vast majority of cases had occurred in women who had received textured implants while a relatively small minority were linked with the placement of smooth implants.
Further scrutiny of the reported details of each case showed that none of the lymphomas were linked with a confirmed instance of “pure” smooth implant exposure. He also estimated the U.S. incidence of BIA-ALCL as roughly one case for every 20,000 implants. Complete, en bloc removal of the implant seems to be the most effective way to treat the cancer; most explanted patients have a good prognosis, he said.
Despite the apparent link between textured implants specifically and onset of BIA-ALCL, some panel members did not see a ban on textured implants as the answer.
Texturing the implant helps to stabilize the implant in position. Without texturing “we would need to use something else to stabilize the implant, or there would be a tsunami of reoperations,” said panel member Mary H. McGrath, MD, professor of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. The main alternative to texturing for stabilizing implants is to wrap them in place using surgical mesh, but that approach may also cause problems.
“Instead of just taking textured implants off the market, we need to also look at their advantages. A critical issue is informed consent,” said panel member Marc E. Lippman, MD, a professor of medicine at Georgetown University, Washington. Banning smooth implants based on what’s known so far “would be an extraordinary over reaction,” he said during the first day’s session.
Current U.S. anecdotal experience suggests that a ban may not even be necessary because “plastic surgeons are more and more walking away from textured implants” because of the apparent link to BIA-ALCL, Dr. McGrath said.
BII has been a more recent and more controversial complication of breast implants. As recently as September 2018, Dr. Ashar said in a written statement that “the agency continues to believe that the weight of the currently available scientific evidence does not conclusively demonstrate an association between breast implants and connective tissue diseases,” the types of symptoms that characterize BII.
While the panel heard no new, conclusive evidence of a causal link between breast implants and the range of symptoms that some implant recipients report and is now collectively known as BII, several participants seemed convinced that the syndrome was real and needed better surveillance and study.
“It’s in the same family as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. It’s not a diagnosis, but a set of symptoms.” said Benjamin O. Anderson, MD, a surgical oncologist and professor of surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a panel member. “It’s a giant challenge. BII is a constellation of difficult symptoms. We need to think about how we ask patients, what are your symptoms?”
Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, committee chair, said a more standardized measure of the most common BII symptoms is needed. “That may be exceedingly difficult, with as many as a hundred reported symptoms,” said Dr. Lewis, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
The hearing featured results from some of the most research projects aimed at fleshing out an understanding of BII.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, reported data she and her associates collected in an online survey completed in late 2018 and early 2019 by 449 women who had approached the Center for help in getting health insurance coverage for medically-necessary explantation of their breast implants.
Their most common symptoms included joint, muscle or back pain, weakness or stiffness; fatigue; “brain fog;” and anxiety and depression. More than two-thirds of the respondents had a family history and 3% had a personal history of an autoimmune disease, and 61% said their symptoms improved after their implants were removed, Dr. Zuckerman reported during her presentation to the panel.
During the discussion, panel members seemed intent on expanding mandatory, routine surveillance to all breast implants placed in U.S. practice.
Andrea L. Pusic, MD, president of the Plastic Surgery Foundation, summarized the recent launch of the National Breast Implant Registry by the Foundation and its parent organization, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. These organizations, and plastic surgeons in general, would be amenable to collecting the data the FDA deemed necessary to better track BIA-ALCL and BII, said Dr. Pusic, professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School and chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Plastic surgeons are willing to enter these data because we know they are important,” she told the FDA panel.
Dr. Ashar, Dr. Clemens, Dr. McGrath, Dr. Lippman, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Pusic reported having no relevant commercial disclosures.
REPORTING FROM AN FDA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Industry-funded rheumatology RCTs are higher quality
MAUI, HAWAII – Industry-funded randomized, controlled clinical trials published in the three top-rated rheumatology journals during the past 20 years are of significantly higher overall quality than the nonindustry-funded ones, Michael Putman, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Putman, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, analyzed all randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy featuring a comparator – either placebo or an active agent – published in 1998, 2008, and 2018 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, and Arthritis & Rheumatology.
His main takeaway: “Rheumatologic interventions seem to work pretty well. The mean absolute risk reduction in the trials is 17.5%, so the average number of patients who need to be treated with a rheumatologic intervention is about five. This is why it’s such a great specialty to be a part of: A lot of our patients get better.”
He created an RCT quality rating scale that captured the strength of study design, methodology, and findings based upon whether a randomized trial used a double-blind design; identified a prespecified primary outcome; and featured patient-reported outcomes, power calculations, sensitivity analysis, adjustment for multiple hypotheses, and intention-to-treat analysis. He then applied the rating scale to the 85 published RCTs in the three study years.
Of note, 84% of the trials published in 2018 were industry funded, up from 74% in 2008 and 1998.
“Industry funds the vast majority of studies. Industry studies are significantly more likely to be appropriately double blinded, report patient-reported outcome measures, use intention to treat, and they have a higher overall quality,” according to Dr. Putman.
Indeed, the industry-funded studies averaged a 66% score on his quality grading scale, compared with 45% for nonindustry-funded studies.
Utilization of most of the quality metrics remained stable over time. The exceptions: Incorporation of intent-to-treat analysis increased from 58% in 1998 to 87% in 2018, and sensitivity analysis was employed in just 5% of the trials published in 1998, compared with 37% in 2008 and 26% in 2018.
The most important change over the past 2 decades, in his view, has been the shrinking proportion of RCTs featuring an active-drug, head-to-head comparator arm. In 1998, 42% of studies featured that design; for example, comparing methotrexate to sulfasalazine. By 2018, that figure had dropped to just 13%.
“Most of our trials today compare an active compound, such an interleukin-17 inhibitor, to a placebo. I think that’s a big change in how we do things,” Dr. Putman observed. “With 84% of our studies being funded by industry, the incentives in medicine right now don’t support active comparator research. It’s harder to show a difference between two things that work than it is to show a difference between something and nothing.”
However, he’d welcome a revival of head-to-head active comparator trials.
“I’d really love to have that happen,” he said. “We have basic questions we haven’t answered yet about a lot of our basic drugs: Like in myositis, should you start with Imuran [azathioprine], CellCept [mycophenolate mofetil], or methotrexate?”
Another striking change over time has been the dwindling proportion of published trials with a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome: 79% in 1998, 46% in 2008, and 36% last year. Dr. Putman suspects the explanation lies in the steady improvement in the effectiveness of standard background therapy for many conditions, which makes it tougher to show a striking difference between the add-on study drug and add-on placebo.
“We’re a victim of our own success,” he commented.
In any event, many key secondary outcomes in the RCTs were positive, even when the primary endpoint wasn’t, according to Dr. Putman, and there was a notable dearth of completely negative clinical RCTs published in the three top journals.
“The more cynical interpretation is there’s an incredible amount of publication bias, where we’re only publishing studies that show an effect and the journals or investigators are censoring the ones that don’t. The more charitable explanation, which is probably also true, is that by the time you get to putting on an RCT you kind of think, ‘This thing works.’ You’re not testing random stuff, so your pretest probability of a drug being effective when it enters into an RCT is probably shifted toward effectiveness,” Dr. Putman speculated.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.
MAUI, HAWAII – Industry-funded randomized, controlled clinical trials published in the three top-rated rheumatology journals during the past 20 years are of significantly higher overall quality than the nonindustry-funded ones, Michael Putman, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Putman, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, analyzed all randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy featuring a comparator – either placebo or an active agent – published in 1998, 2008, and 2018 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, and Arthritis & Rheumatology.
His main takeaway: “Rheumatologic interventions seem to work pretty well. The mean absolute risk reduction in the trials is 17.5%, so the average number of patients who need to be treated with a rheumatologic intervention is about five. This is why it’s such a great specialty to be a part of: A lot of our patients get better.”
He created an RCT quality rating scale that captured the strength of study design, methodology, and findings based upon whether a randomized trial used a double-blind design; identified a prespecified primary outcome; and featured patient-reported outcomes, power calculations, sensitivity analysis, adjustment for multiple hypotheses, and intention-to-treat analysis. He then applied the rating scale to the 85 published RCTs in the three study years.
Of note, 84% of the trials published in 2018 were industry funded, up from 74% in 2008 and 1998.
“Industry funds the vast majority of studies. Industry studies are significantly more likely to be appropriately double blinded, report patient-reported outcome measures, use intention to treat, and they have a higher overall quality,” according to Dr. Putman.
Indeed, the industry-funded studies averaged a 66% score on his quality grading scale, compared with 45% for nonindustry-funded studies.
Utilization of most of the quality metrics remained stable over time. The exceptions: Incorporation of intent-to-treat analysis increased from 58% in 1998 to 87% in 2018, and sensitivity analysis was employed in just 5% of the trials published in 1998, compared with 37% in 2008 and 26% in 2018.
The most important change over the past 2 decades, in his view, has been the shrinking proportion of RCTs featuring an active-drug, head-to-head comparator arm. In 1998, 42% of studies featured that design; for example, comparing methotrexate to sulfasalazine. By 2018, that figure had dropped to just 13%.
“Most of our trials today compare an active compound, such an interleukin-17 inhibitor, to a placebo. I think that’s a big change in how we do things,” Dr. Putman observed. “With 84% of our studies being funded by industry, the incentives in medicine right now don’t support active comparator research. It’s harder to show a difference between two things that work than it is to show a difference between something and nothing.”
However, he’d welcome a revival of head-to-head active comparator trials.
“I’d really love to have that happen,” he said. “We have basic questions we haven’t answered yet about a lot of our basic drugs: Like in myositis, should you start with Imuran [azathioprine], CellCept [mycophenolate mofetil], or methotrexate?”
Another striking change over time has been the dwindling proportion of published trials with a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome: 79% in 1998, 46% in 2008, and 36% last year. Dr. Putman suspects the explanation lies in the steady improvement in the effectiveness of standard background therapy for many conditions, which makes it tougher to show a striking difference between the add-on study drug and add-on placebo.
“We’re a victim of our own success,” he commented.
In any event, many key secondary outcomes in the RCTs were positive, even when the primary endpoint wasn’t, according to Dr. Putman, and there was a notable dearth of completely negative clinical RCTs published in the three top journals.
“The more cynical interpretation is there’s an incredible amount of publication bias, where we’re only publishing studies that show an effect and the journals or investigators are censoring the ones that don’t. The more charitable explanation, which is probably also true, is that by the time you get to putting on an RCT you kind of think, ‘This thing works.’ You’re not testing random stuff, so your pretest probability of a drug being effective when it enters into an RCT is probably shifted toward effectiveness,” Dr. Putman speculated.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.
MAUI, HAWAII – Industry-funded randomized, controlled clinical trials published in the three top-rated rheumatology journals during the past 20 years are of significantly higher overall quality than the nonindustry-funded ones, Michael Putman, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Putman, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, analyzed all randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy featuring a comparator – either placebo or an active agent – published in 1998, 2008, and 2018 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, and Arthritis & Rheumatology.
His main takeaway: “Rheumatologic interventions seem to work pretty well. The mean absolute risk reduction in the trials is 17.5%, so the average number of patients who need to be treated with a rheumatologic intervention is about five. This is why it’s such a great specialty to be a part of: A lot of our patients get better.”
He created an RCT quality rating scale that captured the strength of study design, methodology, and findings based upon whether a randomized trial used a double-blind design; identified a prespecified primary outcome; and featured patient-reported outcomes, power calculations, sensitivity analysis, adjustment for multiple hypotheses, and intention-to-treat analysis. He then applied the rating scale to the 85 published RCTs in the three study years.
Of note, 84% of the trials published in 2018 were industry funded, up from 74% in 2008 and 1998.
“Industry funds the vast majority of studies. Industry studies are significantly more likely to be appropriately double blinded, report patient-reported outcome measures, use intention to treat, and they have a higher overall quality,” according to Dr. Putman.
Indeed, the industry-funded studies averaged a 66% score on his quality grading scale, compared with 45% for nonindustry-funded studies.
Utilization of most of the quality metrics remained stable over time. The exceptions: Incorporation of intent-to-treat analysis increased from 58% in 1998 to 87% in 2018, and sensitivity analysis was employed in just 5% of the trials published in 1998, compared with 37% in 2008 and 26% in 2018.
The most important change over the past 2 decades, in his view, has been the shrinking proportion of RCTs featuring an active-drug, head-to-head comparator arm. In 1998, 42% of studies featured that design; for example, comparing methotrexate to sulfasalazine. By 2018, that figure had dropped to just 13%.
“Most of our trials today compare an active compound, such an interleukin-17 inhibitor, to a placebo. I think that’s a big change in how we do things,” Dr. Putman observed. “With 84% of our studies being funded by industry, the incentives in medicine right now don’t support active comparator research. It’s harder to show a difference between two things that work than it is to show a difference between something and nothing.”
However, he’d welcome a revival of head-to-head active comparator trials.
“I’d really love to have that happen,” he said. “We have basic questions we haven’t answered yet about a lot of our basic drugs: Like in myositis, should you start with Imuran [azathioprine], CellCept [mycophenolate mofetil], or methotrexate?”
Another striking change over time has been the dwindling proportion of published trials with a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome: 79% in 1998, 46% in 2008, and 36% last year. Dr. Putman suspects the explanation lies in the steady improvement in the effectiveness of standard background therapy for many conditions, which makes it tougher to show a striking difference between the add-on study drug and add-on placebo.
“We’re a victim of our own success,” he commented.
In any event, many key secondary outcomes in the RCTs were positive, even when the primary endpoint wasn’t, according to Dr. Putman, and there was a notable dearth of completely negative clinical RCTs published in the three top journals.
“The more cynical interpretation is there’s an incredible amount of publication bias, where we’re only publishing studies that show an effect and the journals or investigators are censoring the ones that don’t. The more charitable explanation, which is probably also true, is that by the time you get to putting on an RCT you kind of think, ‘This thing works.’ You’re not testing random stuff, so your pretest probability of a drug being effective when it enters into an RCT is probably shifted toward effectiveness,” Dr. Putman speculated.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2019
Sjögren’s syndrome risk increases with infections
Patients with a history of infection have nearly double the risk of developing Sjögren’s syndrome when compared with the general population (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.3), according to new findings reported online March 20 in the Journal of Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1111/joim.12888).
The risk is almost three times higher among patients with a history of infection plus Ro/SSA and La/SSB antibodies (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.0-3.5). The study included 945 Swedish patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and compared their data with those from 9,048 matched controls from the general population.
We previously covered results from this study when they were presented at the International Symposium on Sjögren’s Syndrome in Washington. Read our previous story at the link above.
Patients with a history of infection have nearly double the risk of developing Sjögren’s syndrome when compared with the general population (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.3), according to new findings reported online March 20 in the Journal of Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1111/joim.12888).
The risk is almost three times higher among patients with a history of infection plus Ro/SSA and La/SSB antibodies (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.0-3.5). The study included 945 Swedish patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and compared their data with those from 9,048 matched controls from the general population.
We previously covered results from this study when they were presented at the International Symposium on Sjögren’s Syndrome in Washington. Read our previous story at the link above.
Patients with a history of infection have nearly double the risk of developing Sjögren’s syndrome when compared with the general population (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.3), according to new findings reported online March 20 in the Journal of Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1111/joim.12888).
The risk is almost three times higher among patients with a history of infection plus Ro/SSA and La/SSB antibodies (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.0-3.5). The study included 945 Swedish patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and compared their data with those from 9,048 matched controls from the general population.
We previously covered results from this study when they were presented at the International Symposium on Sjögren’s Syndrome in Washington. Read our previous story at the link above.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Socioeconomic status affects scleroderma severity in African Americans
according to findings from an analysis of single-center cohort data over a 10-year period.
Indeed, among patients in the cohort of 402 scleroderma patients at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, lower household income was predictive of higher mortality during follow-up, independent of race, according to first author Duncan F. Moore, MD, and his colleagues at the hospital.
Previous studies have demonstrated increased risk for scleroderma in African American patients, who also are more likely than non–African Americans to be diagnosed at a younger age and to have conditions including more diffuse cutaneous disease, more severe restrictive lung disease, more cardiac and renal involvement, and increased mortality, the authors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.
“We did clearly show that African Americans have worse outcomes and severe pulmonary involvement, but I was surprised that there still was a major contribution of socioeconomic status affecting outcomes for all patients, even though only 10% of our patients were indigent and on medical assistance,” Virginia Steen, MD, senior author of the study and professor of rheumatology at Georgetown University, said in an interview. “I still feel strongly that there are likely genetic issues as to why African Americans have such severe disease. We are eager to learn more from the GRASP [Genome Research in African American Scleroderma Patients] study, which is specifically looking at the genetic issues in African American scleroderma patients,” she said.
Of the 402 scleroderma patients at MedStar Georgetown who were seen during 2006-2016, 202 were African American. A total of 186 African American and 184 non–African American patients in the study met the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc). Demographics including gender (87% female) and age (mean of 48 years) were similar between the groups.
Overall, the African American patients showed more severe lung disease, more pulmonary hypertension, and more severe cardiac involvement than did non–African American patients, and autoantibodies were significantly different between the groups.
During follow-up, mortality proved much higher among African Americans at 21%, compared with 11% in non–African Americans (P = .005). However, the unadjusted hazard ratio for death declined from 2.061 (P = .006) to a nonsignificant 1.256 after adjustment for socioeconomic variables.
All socioeconomic measures showed significant differences between the groups. African Americans were more likely to be single and disabled at the initial study visit and to have Medicaid, but they were less likely to be a homemaker, have private insurance, or have a college degree. African Americans’ $74,000 median household income (based on ZIP code) was also a statistically significant $23,000 less than non–African American patients. But the researchers noted that “for every additional $10,000 of household income, independent of race, the hazard of death during follow-up declined by 15.5%.”
Notable differences in antibodies appeared between the groups, with more African American patients having isolated nucleolar ANA, anti-U1RNP antibody, or other positive antinuclear antibodies without SSc-specific antibodies. African American patients also were less likely to have anticentromere or anti-RNA polymerase III antibodies.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including possible bias in the matching process and the use of only index values for socioeconomic variables, the researchers noted.
Regardless of relative socioeconomic and genetic influences, “it is clear that African Americans with scleroderma merit more intensive efforts to facilitate timely diagnosis and access to continued evaluation and suppressive treatment, particularly with respect to cardiopulmonary involvement,” they wrote.
Next steps for research, according to Dr. Steen, include studying clinical subsets of African American patients to try to identify factors to predict outcomes, including the nucleolar pattern ANA, overlap with lupus, history of hypertension, and the relationship with renal crisis.
“We are also looking at whether the African American patients are less responsive to mycophenolate than the non–African American patients. We definitely need to find ways to be more aggressive at identifying and treating African American patients early in their disease,” she added.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Steen serves on the MDedge Rheumatology Editorial Advisory Board.
SOURCE: Moore DF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 March 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.23861.
“Not only do patients who manifest the diffuse cutaneous subset of disease experience a more severe course, but so do affected persons of African American race,” Nadia D. Morgan, MBBS, and Allan C. Gelber, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The effects of socioeconomic status should not be overlooked based on the current study, in which the inclusion of socioeconomic factors eliminated the significance of association between race and mortality among scleroderma patients, they wrote.
“Overall, and in the context of these published reports which underscore the disproportionate and adverse impact of scleroderma among African Americans, and in light of the ongoing efforts of the GRASP study, the current paper by Moore et al. emphasizes the importance of socioeconomic status, and of socioeconomic determinants of health, to account for differences in clinically relevant outcomes,” they wrote.
Dr. Gelber is affiliated with the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Morgan, who was also with Johns Hopkins, died before publication of the editorial. They made no conflict of interest disclosures.
“Not only do patients who manifest the diffuse cutaneous subset of disease experience a more severe course, but so do affected persons of African American race,” Nadia D. Morgan, MBBS, and Allan C. Gelber, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The effects of socioeconomic status should not be overlooked based on the current study, in which the inclusion of socioeconomic factors eliminated the significance of association between race and mortality among scleroderma patients, they wrote.
“Overall, and in the context of these published reports which underscore the disproportionate and adverse impact of scleroderma among African Americans, and in light of the ongoing efforts of the GRASP study, the current paper by Moore et al. emphasizes the importance of socioeconomic status, and of socioeconomic determinants of health, to account for differences in clinically relevant outcomes,” they wrote.
Dr. Gelber is affiliated with the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Morgan, who was also with Johns Hopkins, died before publication of the editorial. They made no conflict of interest disclosures.
“Not only do patients who manifest the diffuse cutaneous subset of disease experience a more severe course, but so do affected persons of African American race,” Nadia D. Morgan, MBBS, and Allan C. Gelber, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. The effects of socioeconomic status should not be overlooked based on the current study, in which the inclusion of socioeconomic factors eliminated the significance of association between race and mortality among scleroderma patients, they wrote.
“Overall, and in the context of these published reports which underscore the disproportionate and adverse impact of scleroderma among African Americans, and in light of the ongoing efforts of the GRASP study, the current paper by Moore et al. emphasizes the importance of socioeconomic status, and of socioeconomic determinants of health, to account for differences in clinically relevant outcomes,” they wrote.
Dr. Gelber is affiliated with the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Morgan, who was also with Johns Hopkins, died before publication of the editorial. They made no conflict of interest disclosures.
according to findings from an analysis of single-center cohort data over a 10-year period.
Indeed, among patients in the cohort of 402 scleroderma patients at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, lower household income was predictive of higher mortality during follow-up, independent of race, according to first author Duncan F. Moore, MD, and his colleagues at the hospital.
Previous studies have demonstrated increased risk for scleroderma in African American patients, who also are more likely than non–African Americans to be diagnosed at a younger age and to have conditions including more diffuse cutaneous disease, more severe restrictive lung disease, more cardiac and renal involvement, and increased mortality, the authors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.
“We did clearly show that African Americans have worse outcomes and severe pulmonary involvement, but I was surprised that there still was a major contribution of socioeconomic status affecting outcomes for all patients, even though only 10% of our patients were indigent and on medical assistance,” Virginia Steen, MD, senior author of the study and professor of rheumatology at Georgetown University, said in an interview. “I still feel strongly that there are likely genetic issues as to why African Americans have such severe disease. We are eager to learn more from the GRASP [Genome Research in African American Scleroderma Patients] study, which is specifically looking at the genetic issues in African American scleroderma patients,” she said.
Of the 402 scleroderma patients at MedStar Georgetown who were seen during 2006-2016, 202 were African American. A total of 186 African American and 184 non–African American patients in the study met the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc). Demographics including gender (87% female) and age (mean of 48 years) were similar between the groups.
Overall, the African American patients showed more severe lung disease, more pulmonary hypertension, and more severe cardiac involvement than did non–African American patients, and autoantibodies were significantly different between the groups.
During follow-up, mortality proved much higher among African Americans at 21%, compared with 11% in non–African Americans (P = .005). However, the unadjusted hazard ratio for death declined from 2.061 (P = .006) to a nonsignificant 1.256 after adjustment for socioeconomic variables.
All socioeconomic measures showed significant differences between the groups. African Americans were more likely to be single and disabled at the initial study visit and to have Medicaid, but they were less likely to be a homemaker, have private insurance, or have a college degree. African Americans’ $74,000 median household income (based on ZIP code) was also a statistically significant $23,000 less than non–African American patients. But the researchers noted that “for every additional $10,000 of household income, independent of race, the hazard of death during follow-up declined by 15.5%.”
Notable differences in antibodies appeared between the groups, with more African American patients having isolated nucleolar ANA, anti-U1RNP antibody, or other positive antinuclear antibodies without SSc-specific antibodies. African American patients also were less likely to have anticentromere or anti-RNA polymerase III antibodies.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including possible bias in the matching process and the use of only index values for socioeconomic variables, the researchers noted.
Regardless of relative socioeconomic and genetic influences, “it is clear that African Americans with scleroderma merit more intensive efforts to facilitate timely diagnosis and access to continued evaluation and suppressive treatment, particularly with respect to cardiopulmonary involvement,” they wrote.
Next steps for research, according to Dr. Steen, include studying clinical subsets of African American patients to try to identify factors to predict outcomes, including the nucleolar pattern ANA, overlap with lupus, history of hypertension, and the relationship with renal crisis.
“We are also looking at whether the African American patients are less responsive to mycophenolate than the non–African American patients. We definitely need to find ways to be more aggressive at identifying and treating African American patients early in their disease,” she added.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Steen serves on the MDedge Rheumatology Editorial Advisory Board.
SOURCE: Moore DF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 March 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.23861.
according to findings from an analysis of single-center cohort data over a 10-year period.
Indeed, among patients in the cohort of 402 scleroderma patients at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, lower household income was predictive of higher mortality during follow-up, independent of race, according to first author Duncan F. Moore, MD, and his colleagues at the hospital.
Previous studies have demonstrated increased risk for scleroderma in African American patients, who also are more likely than non–African Americans to be diagnosed at a younger age and to have conditions including more diffuse cutaneous disease, more severe restrictive lung disease, more cardiac and renal involvement, and increased mortality, the authors wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.
“We did clearly show that African Americans have worse outcomes and severe pulmonary involvement, but I was surprised that there still was a major contribution of socioeconomic status affecting outcomes for all patients, even though only 10% of our patients were indigent and on medical assistance,” Virginia Steen, MD, senior author of the study and professor of rheumatology at Georgetown University, said in an interview. “I still feel strongly that there are likely genetic issues as to why African Americans have such severe disease. We are eager to learn more from the GRASP [Genome Research in African American Scleroderma Patients] study, which is specifically looking at the genetic issues in African American scleroderma patients,” she said.
Of the 402 scleroderma patients at MedStar Georgetown who were seen during 2006-2016, 202 were African American. A total of 186 African American and 184 non–African American patients in the study met the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc). Demographics including gender (87% female) and age (mean of 48 years) were similar between the groups.
Overall, the African American patients showed more severe lung disease, more pulmonary hypertension, and more severe cardiac involvement than did non–African American patients, and autoantibodies were significantly different between the groups.
During follow-up, mortality proved much higher among African Americans at 21%, compared with 11% in non–African Americans (P = .005). However, the unadjusted hazard ratio for death declined from 2.061 (P = .006) to a nonsignificant 1.256 after adjustment for socioeconomic variables.
All socioeconomic measures showed significant differences between the groups. African Americans were more likely to be single and disabled at the initial study visit and to have Medicaid, but they were less likely to be a homemaker, have private insurance, or have a college degree. African Americans’ $74,000 median household income (based on ZIP code) was also a statistically significant $23,000 less than non–African American patients. But the researchers noted that “for every additional $10,000 of household income, independent of race, the hazard of death during follow-up declined by 15.5%.”
Notable differences in antibodies appeared between the groups, with more African American patients having isolated nucleolar ANA, anti-U1RNP antibody, or other positive antinuclear antibodies without SSc-specific antibodies. African American patients also were less likely to have anticentromere or anti-RNA polymerase III antibodies.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including possible bias in the matching process and the use of only index values for socioeconomic variables, the researchers noted.
Regardless of relative socioeconomic and genetic influences, “it is clear that African Americans with scleroderma merit more intensive efforts to facilitate timely diagnosis and access to continued evaluation and suppressive treatment, particularly with respect to cardiopulmonary involvement,” they wrote.
Next steps for research, according to Dr. Steen, include studying clinical subsets of African American patients to try to identify factors to predict outcomes, including the nucleolar pattern ANA, overlap with lupus, history of hypertension, and the relationship with renal crisis.
“We are also looking at whether the African American patients are less responsive to mycophenolate than the non–African American patients. We definitely need to find ways to be more aggressive at identifying and treating African American patients early in their disease,” she added.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Steen serves on the MDedge Rheumatology Editorial Advisory Board.
SOURCE: Moore DF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 March 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.23861.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH