User login
Immunological response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in rituximab-treated RA patients
Key clinical point: A longer interval between rituximab infusion and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine may elicit an optimal response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking rituximab, with a third vaccination dose given 6-9 months after rituximab, boosting the cellular response despite the absence of a noticeable serological response.
Major finding: The median time between the last rituximab infusion and the first vaccination dose was significantly longer in responders vs. nonresponders (267 days vs. 107 days; P < .0001). A third vaccine dose in patients with insufficient serological response to 2 doses induced T-cell responses in all patients assessed, despite serological response in only 16.3% of patients. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported.
Study details: A prospective cohort study, Nor-vaC included patients with RA taking rituximab (n = 90) and healthy controls (n = 1,114) who received 2 or 3 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Research Council of Norway COVID, and others. Several authors reported receiving speaker/consulting fees or grants/financial support from various sources.
Source: I Jyssum et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 (Dec 23). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00394-5.
Key clinical point: A longer interval between rituximab infusion and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine may elicit an optimal response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking rituximab, with a third vaccination dose given 6-9 months after rituximab, boosting the cellular response despite the absence of a noticeable serological response.
Major finding: The median time between the last rituximab infusion and the first vaccination dose was significantly longer in responders vs. nonresponders (267 days vs. 107 days; P < .0001). A third vaccine dose in patients with insufficient serological response to 2 doses induced T-cell responses in all patients assessed, despite serological response in only 16.3% of patients. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported.
Study details: A prospective cohort study, Nor-vaC included patients with RA taking rituximab (n = 90) and healthy controls (n = 1,114) who received 2 or 3 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Research Council of Norway COVID, and others. Several authors reported receiving speaker/consulting fees or grants/financial support from various sources.
Source: I Jyssum et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 (Dec 23). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00394-5.
Key clinical point: A longer interval between rituximab infusion and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine may elicit an optimal response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking rituximab, with a third vaccination dose given 6-9 months after rituximab, boosting the cellular response despite the absence of a noticeable serological response.
Major finding: The median time between the last rituximab infusion and the first vaccination dose was significantly longer in responders vs. nonresponders (267 days vs. 107 days; P < .0001). A third vaccine dose in patients with insufficient serological response to 2 doses induced T-cell responses in all patients assessed, despite serological response in only 16.3% of patients. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported.
Study details: A prospective cohort study, Nor-vaC included patients with RA taking rituximab (n = 90) and healthy controls (n = 1,114) who received 2 or 3 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Research Council of Norway COVID, and others. Several authors reported receiving speaker/consulting fees or grants/financial support from various sources.
Source: I Jyssum et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 (Dec 23). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00394-5.
Rituximab and COVID-19 vaccines: Studies begin to answer key questions
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.
As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?
Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination
First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.
“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.
For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.
“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.
One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.
One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.
The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.
While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.
“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?
Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”
“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.
In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.
The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.
“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.
Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.
“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.
However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.
Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”
Should clinicians measure antibodies?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.
“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”
However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”
Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.
“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”
Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?
As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.
In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.
All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.
When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”
Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.
“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”
Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.
“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.
The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Proactive infliximab monitoring found best for sustaining control of inflammatory diseases
A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.
The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.
TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK
“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.
“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”
For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.
“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”
As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.
“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
Study details
To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.
The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.
Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.
A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.
Removing barriers to TDM
It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.
Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.
For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”
The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.
The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.
TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK
“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.
“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”
For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.
“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”
As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.
“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
Study details
To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.
The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.
Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.
A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.
Removing barriers to TDM
It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.
Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.
For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”
The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study has found that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with maintenance infliximab is more effective than standard therapy in sustaining control of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.
The findings from the Norwegian Drug Monitoring B (NOR-DRUM B) trial, published Dec. 21, 2021, in JAMA, provide greater support to the usefulness of TDM in proactively monitoring serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies to infliximab, which has been previously shown to have benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, but leave the benefits of proactive versus reactive monitoring and the cost-effectiveness of the approach in individual immune-mediated inflammatory diseases still open to questioning.
TDM is ‘not the holy grail,’ and that’s OK
“This is an important milestone in the field of TDM with biologics for immunoinflammatory diseases,” Niels Vande Casteele, PharmD, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. He was not involved in the study.
“When you read through the study, you can see the authors used the TAXIT trial results to inform their study design and the sample size,” he added, referencing his 2015 study on infliximab guide dosing for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, “the first-ever randomized, controlled trial of proactive TDM with any biologic.”
For the TAXIT study’s primary outcome of clinical and biochemical remission at 1 year, “continued concentration-based dosing was not superior to clinically based dosing for achieving remission.” But in regard to their secondary outcome of sustained remission, their results were quite similar to the results of NOR-DRUM B.
“If anything, we already showed a benefit of proactive TDM in 2015,” he said, “but I’m very glad that the authors looked at the trial design and teased out where TDM could be the most important and have the biggest impact, which is to maintain that sustained disease remission over a prolonged period.”
As for next steps, Dr. Vande Casteele noted that TDM isn’t a one-size-fits-all upgrade for drug treatments. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be very useful in many patients.
“What the paper is saying, and what we’ve been finding all along, is that TDM is not the holy grail,” he said. “But it is a tool in the physicians’ toolbox to optimize treatments and maximize efficacy, and there are some patients who truly benefit from it.”
Study details
To determine if proactive TDM with infliximab led to more sustained disease control than standard therapy, first author Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, and coauthors conducted a 52-week, randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial. From 20 Norwegian hospitals, they recruited 458 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 80), spondyloarthritis (n = 138), psoriatic arthritis (n = 54), ulcerative colitis (n = 81), Crohn’s disease (n = 68), or psoriasis (n = 37) who were undergoing maintenance therapy with the biologic.
The 454 patients who received at least one randomly allocated dose of infliximab were treated with one of two strategies: TDM (n = 227) or standard therapy (n = 227). The TDM group received dose and interval adjustments based on an algorithm that factored in serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies. The standard therapy group was treated on the basis of clinical judgment and physician discretion. The average age across groups was roughly 45 years, and just under 50% were women.
Overall, sustained disease control without worsening was achieved in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group, with an estimated adjusted difference of 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001). The estimated hazard ratio of disease worsening was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.5-2.9) for standard therapy, compared with TDM. A total of 27 patients (15%) in the standard therapy group and 21 patients (9.2%) in the TDM group developed significant levels of antidrug antibodies, defined here as 50 mcg/L or more.
A total of 34 patients discontinued infliximab in each group; in the TDM group, most discontinued because of antidrug antibody formation, while the main reason for discontinuing in the standard therapy group was disease worsening. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) in the TDM group and 142 patients (63%) in the standard therapy group.
Removing barriers to TDM
It’s not clear that proactive TDM will benefit treatment with all biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), but the findings from Dr. Syversen and colleagues state the clear value of using drug monitoring to guide maintenance therapy with infliximab, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The relatively large sample size and rigorous study design ... helped to overcome some limitations of previous observational studies and small clinical trials that yielded conflicting results regarding TDM,” they added, noting that these findings contrasted somewhat with the NOR-DRUM A trial in which TDM did not improve remission induction in patients initiating infliximab therapy.
Along those lines, they recognized that TDM appears to have a greater effect in patients on maintenance infliximab, compared with those just starting the drug, surmising – among several explanations – that achieving remission in someone beginning treatment is a more difficult outcome to achieve than controlling disease in a patient already in remission.
For now, more clinical trials assessing specific diseases and involving other bDMARDs are needed; Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks stated that it’s time to remove barriers to implementing TDM – including the need for medical insurance preauthorization before increasing drug doses – and potentially “introduce a new era in treatment approach to maintenance therapy for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including disease worsening being measured in part by patient-physician consensus and thus potentially subject to bias. In addition, they did not have the statistical ability to test TDM effectiveness in each of the six disease groups, noting that “these diseases have inherent differences, and findings may not be completely generalizable across groups.”
The study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Regional Health Authorities and the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wallace and Dr. Sparks also reported receiving research support and fees from pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Vande Casteele reported receiving research grants and personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies, all outside of the reviewed work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary: RA January 2022
Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.1 examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.
Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.2 examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.
In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.3 evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.
References
- Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7).
- Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
- Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).
Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.1 examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.
Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.2 examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.
In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.3 evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.
References
- Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7).
- Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
- Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).
Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.1 examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.
Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.2 examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.
In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.3 evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.
References
- Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7).
- Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
- Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).
Circulating biomarkers may aid in screening for cardiac alterations in RA
Key clinical point: Circulating biomarkers for inflammation, abnormal extracellular matrix remodeling, congestion, and myocardial injury were associated with alterations in cardiac structure and function that affected prognosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Left ventricular mass index (LVMi), left atrial volume index (LAVi), and diastolic function (E/e′) were associated with biomarkers of inflammation (tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 11a, bone morphogenetic protein 9, and pentraxin-related protein 3), extracellular matrix remodeling (placental growth factor), congestion (N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide and adrenomedullin), and myocardial injury (troponin; all P < .05). Higher LVMi (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03; P < .001) and E/e¢ (aHR 1.06; P = .042) were associated with poor prognosis.
Study details: This study included 355 adult patients with RA from the RA Porto cohort.
Disclosures: No information on funding was provided. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Kobayashi M et al. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:754784 (Nov 18). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.754784.
Key clinical point: Circulating biomarkers for inflammation, abnormal extracellular matrix remodeling, congestion, and myocardial injury were associated with alterations in cardiac structure and function that affected prognosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Left ventricular mass index (LVMi), left atrial volume index (LAVi), and diastolic function (E/e′) were associated with biomarkers of inflammation (tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 11a, bone morphogenetic protein 9, and pentraxin-related protein 3), extracellular matrix remodeling (placental growth factor), congestion (N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide and adrenomedullin), and myocardial injury (troponin; all P < .05). Higher LVMi (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03; P < .001) and E/e¢ (aHR 1.06; P = .042) were associated with poor prognosis.
Study details: This study included 355 adult patients with RA from the RA Porto cohort.
Disclosures: No information on funding was provided. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Kobayashi M et al. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:754784 (Nov 18). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.754784.
Key clinical point: Circulating biomarkers for inflammation, abnormal extracellular matrix remodeling, congestion, and myocardial injury were associated with alterations in cardiac structure and function that affected prognosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Left ventricular mass index (LVMi), left atrial volume index (LAVi), and diastolic function (E/e′) were associated with biomarkers of inflammation (tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 11a, bone morphogenetic protein 9, and pentraxin-related protein 3), extracellular matrix remodeling (placental growth factor), congestion (N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide and adrenomedullin), and myocardial injury (troponin; all P < .05). Higher LVMi (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03; P < .001) and E/e¢ (aHR 1.06; P = .042) were associated with poor prognosis.
Study details: This study included 355 adult patients with RA from the RA Porto cohort.
Disclosures: No information on funding was provided. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Kobayashi M et al. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:754784 (Nov 18). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.754784.
Herpes zoster events are common in tofacitinib-treated RA patients but are clinically manageable
Key clinical point: Herpes zoster (HZ) events occur in tofacitinib-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but most of them are nonserious, mild, or moderate with HZ events resolving in most patients.
Major finding: Overall, 11.1% and 8.0% of patients with RA experienced at least 1 or recurring HZ events, respectively. Most events were nonserious, mild, or moderate in severity, with the majority of the first (97.6%) and second (96.8%) HZ events resolved in most patients. Tofacitinib treatment remained unchanged in 47.3% of patients with the first HZ event and was temporarily or permanently discontinued in 42.8% and 9.1% of patients, respectively.
Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical studies involving 7,061 and 783 tofacitinib-treated patients with RA and PsA, respectively.
Disclosures: These studies were sponsored by Pfizer Inc. T Hirose, J L Rivas, and K Kwok reported being employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. Other authors reported receiving grant/research support and speaker/consultancy fees from various companies including Pfizer.
Source: Winthrop KL et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00390-0.
Key clinical point: Herpes zoster (HZ) events occur in tofacitinib-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but most of them are nonserious, mild, or moderate with HZ events resolving in most patients.
Major finding: Overall, 11.1% and 8.0% of patients with RA experienced at least 1 or recurring HZ events, respectively. Most events were nonserious, mild, or moderate in severity, with the majority of the first (97.6%) and second (96.8%) HZ events resolved in most patients. Tofacitinib treatment remained unchanged in 47.3% of patients with the first HZ event and was temporarily or permanently discontinued in 42.8% and 9.1% of patients, respectively.
Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical studies involving 7,061 and 783 tofacitinib-treated patients with RA and PsA, respectively.
Disclosures: These studies were sponsored by Pfizer Inc. T Hirose, J L Rivas, and K Kwok reported being employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. Other authors reported receiving grant/research support and speaker/consultancy fees from various companies including Pfizer.
Source: Winthrop KL et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00390-0.
Key clinical point: Herpes zoster (HZ) events occur in tofacitinib-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but most of them are nonserious, mild, or moderate with HZ events resolving in most patients.
Major finding: Overall, 11.1% and 8.0% of patients with RA experienced at least 1 or recurring HZ events, respectively. Most events were nonserious, mild, or moderate in severity, with the majority of the first (97.6%) and second (96.8%) HZ events resolved in most patients. Tofacitinib treatment remained unchanged in 47.3% of patients with the first HZ event and was temporarily or permanently discontinued in 42.8% and 9.1% of patients, respectively.
Study details: The data come from a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical studies involving 7,061 and 783 tofacitinib-treated patients with RA and PsA, respectively.
Disclosures: These studies were sponsored by Pfizer Inc. T Hirose, J L Rivas, and K Kwok reported being employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. Other authors reported receiving grant/research support and speaker/consultancy fees from various companies including Pfizer.
Source: Winthrop KL et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00390-0.
Flaxseed shows promise as adjuvant therapy in RA
Key clinical point: Consumption of flaxseed for 12 weeks improved disease activity and reduced pain, morning stiffness, and disease feeling in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Disease Activity Score 28-joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate improved significantly in patients receiving flaxseed plus regular diet (RF; P = .001), but not in patients receiving flaxseed plus anti-inflammatory diet (AIF; P = .057) and roasted wheat plus regular diet (RW; P = .110). Significant reductions in pain severity (P ≤ .001), morning stiffness (P < .05), and disease feeling (P < .01) were observed in the AIF and RF groups.
Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 120 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to 12-week intervention with AIF, RF, or RW diet groups.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. No disclosures were reported.
Source: Ghaseminasab-Parizi M et al. Eur J Nutr. 2021 (Nov 27). Doi: 10.1007/s00394-021-02707-9.
Key clinical point: Consumption of flaxseed for 12 weeks improved disease activity and reduced pain, morning stiffness, and disease feeling in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Disease Activity Score 28-joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate improved significantly in patients receiving flaxseed plus regular diet (RF; P = .001), but not in patients receiving flaxseed plus anti-inflammatory diet (AIF; P = .057) and roasted wheat plus regular diet (RW; P = .110). Significant reductions in pain severity (P ≤ .001), morning stiffness (P < .05), and disease feeling (P < .01) were observed in the AIF and RF groups.
Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 120 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to 12-week intervention with AIF, RF, or RW diet groups.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. No disclosures were reported.
Source: Ghaseminasab-Parizi M et al. Eur J Nutr. 2021 (Nov 27). Doi: 10.1007/s00394-021-02707-9.
Key clinical point: Consumption of flaxseed for 12 weeks improved disease activity and reduced pain, morning stiffness, and disease feeling in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Disease Activity Score 28-joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate improved significantly in patients receiving flaxseed plus regular diet (RF; P = .001), but not in patients receiving flaxseed plus anti-inflammatory diet (AIF; P = .057) and roasted wheat plus regular diet (RW; P = .110). Significant reductions in pain severity (P ≤ .001), morning stiffness (P < .05), and disease feeling (P < .01) were observed in the AIF and RF groups.
Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 120 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to 12-week intervention with AIF, RF, or RW diet groups.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. No disclosures were reported.
Source: Ghaseminasab-Parizi M et al. Eur J Nutr. 2021 (Nov 27). Doi: 10.1007/s00394-021-02707-9.
No higher risk for surgical site infection following TKA in RA vs. osteoarthritis
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not exhibit an elevated risk for acute or 1-year postoperative surgical site infection following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared with patients with osteoarthritis.
Major finding: The risk for surgical site infection at 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.81; P = .598) and 1 year (aOR 0.463; P = .26) post-TKA was not significantly different between patients with RA and osteoarthritis.
Study details: This retrospective cohort study included patients with RA (n = 1,126) and osteoarthritis (n = 63,215) who underwent primary TKA.
Disclosures: No external funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Chung HK et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11:22704 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02153-x.
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not exhibit an elevated risk for acute or 1-year postoperative surgical site infection following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared with patients with osteoarthritis.
Major finding: The risk for surgical site infection at 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.81; P = .598) and 1 year (aOR 0.463; P = .26) post-TKA was not significantly different between patients with RA and osteoarthritis.
Study details: This retrospective cohort study included patients with RA (n = 1,126) and osteoarthritis (n = 63,215) who underwent primary TKA.
Disclosures: No external funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Chung HK et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11:22704 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02153-x.
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not exhibit an elevated risk for acute or 1-year postoperative surgical site infection following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared with patients with osteoarthritis.
Major finding: The risk for surgical site infection at 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.81; P = .598) and 1 year (aOR 0.463; P = .26) post-TKA was not significantly different between patients with RA and osteoarthritis.
Study details: This retrospective cohort study included patients with RA (n = 1,126) and osteoarthritis (n = 63,215) who underwent primary TKA.
Disclosures: No external funding was received for this study. The authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Chung HK et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11:22704 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02153-x.
Inflammatory cytokines positively correlate with coinhibitory checkpoint molecules in RA
Key clinical point: Positive correlations between circulating inflammatory cytokines and coinhibitory checkpoint molecules modulated by anticitrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA) or joint damage stage existed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-α) were positively associated with RA disease activity and galectin-9, independent of ACPA titers (all P < .05) and with soluble T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 in patients with ACPA <200 U/mL (P < .05). Galectin-9 was positively correlated with IL-6 (P = .005) only in patients without advanced joint damage and with TNF-a (P = .001) and IL-6 (P = .02) in patients with advanced joint damage.
Study details: This retrospective analysis included 132 patients with RA.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the Japan Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research. K Migita received grants from Chugai, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Other authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Matsumoto H et al. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0260254 (Nov 18). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260254.
Key clinical point: Positive correlations between circulating inflammatory cytokines and coinhibitory checkpoint molecules modulated by anticitrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA) or joint damage stage existed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-α) were positively associated with RA disease activity and galectin-9, independent of ACPA titers (all P < .05) and with soluble T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 in patients with ACPA <200 U/mL (P < .05). Galectin-9 was positively correlated with IL-6 (P = .005) only in patients without advanced joint damage and with TNF-a (P = .001) and IL-6 (P = .02) in patients with advanced joint damage.
Study details: This retrospective analysis included 132 patients with RA.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the Japan Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research. K Migita received grants from Chugai, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Other authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Matsumoto H et al. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0260254 (Nov 18). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260254.
Key clinical point: Positive correlations between circulating inflammatory cytokines and coinhibitory checkpoint molecules modulated by anticitrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA) or joint damage stage existed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-α) were positively associated with RA disease activity and galectin-9, independent of ACPA titers (all P < .05) and with soluble T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 in patients with ACPA <200 U/mL (P < .05). Galectin-9 was positively correlated with IL-6 (P = .005) only in patients without advanced joint damage and with TNF-a (P = .001) and IL-6 (P = .02) in patients with advanced joint damage.
Study details: This retrospective analysis included 132 patients with RA.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the Japan Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research. K Migita received grants from Chugai, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Other authors declared no conflict of interests.
Source: Matsumoto H et al. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0260254 (Nov 18). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260254.
Doctor-patient relation can help improve treatment adherence in RA
Key clinical point: Complete treatment adherence has still not been achieved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and factors like having patient-physician agreement on the treatment and the type of treatment prescribed are significant predictors of adherence.
Major finding: The 6-month prevalence of adherence was 59.1% (95% CI 48.1%-71.8%), with treatment agreement between patient and physician (odds ratio [OR] 4.29; P = .01) and information adaptation (OR 1.54; P = .015) being significant predictors of adherence. Treatment adherence was higher with second-line conventional synthetic disease-modifying rheumatic drug (csDMARD; OR 4.72; P = .005) and biological DMARDs/targeted synthetic DMARDs (OR 3.50; P = .029) vs. first-line csDMARDs.
Study details: This was a 6-month observational longitudinal prospective cohort study involving 180 patients with RA.
Disclosures: The ADHIERA trial was supported by a grant from Roche España to the Spanish Foundation of Rheumatology. A Balsa reported receiving speaker fees from various sources including Roche. Two other authors did not receive fees or personal grants from any laboratory, although their institute works by contract for laboratories for various sources.
Source: Balsa A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Nov 29). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221163.
Key clinical point: Complete treatment adherence has still not been achieved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and factors like having patient-physician agreement on the treatment and the type of treatment prescribed are significant predictors of adherence.
Major finding: The 6-month prevalence of adherence was 59.1% (95% CI 48.1%-71.8%), with treatment agreement between patient and physician (odds ratio [OR] 4.29; P = .01) and information adaptation (OR 1.54; P = .015) being significant predictors of adherence. Treatment adherence was higher with second-line conventional synthetic disease-modifying rheumatic drug (csDMARD; OR 4.72; P = .005) and biological DMARDs/targeted synthetic DMARDs (OR 3.50; P = .029) vs. first-line csDMARDs.
Study details: This was a 6-month observational longitudinal prospective cohort study involving 180 patients with RA.
Disclosures: The ADHIERA trial was supported by a grant from Roche España to the Spanish Foundation of Rheumatology. A Balsa reported receiving speaker fees from various sources including Roche. Two other authors did not receive fees or personal grants from any laboratory, although their institute works by contract for laboratories for various sources.
Source: Balsa A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Nov 29). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221163.
Key clinical point: Complete treatment adherence has still not been achieved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and factors like having patient-physician agreement on the treatment and the type of treatment prescribed are significant predictors of adherence.
Major finding: The 6-month prevalence of adherence was 59.1% (95% CI 48.1%-71.8%), with treatment agreement between patient and physician (odds ratio [OR] 4.29; P = .01) and information adaptation (OR 1.54; P = .015) being significant predictors of adherence. Treatment adherence was higher with second-line conventional synthetic disease-modifying rheumatic drug (csDMARD; OR 4.72; P = .005) and biological DMARDs/targeted synthetic DMARDs (OR 3.50; P = .029) vs. first-line csDMARDs.
Study details: This was a 6-month observational longitudinal prospective cohort study involving 180 patients with RA.
Disclosures: The ADHIERA trial was supported by a grant from Roche España to the Spanish Foundation of Rheumatology. A Balsa reported receiving speaker fees from various sources including Roche. Two other authors did not receive fees or personal grants from any laboratory, although their institute works by contract for laboratories for various sources.
Source: Balsa A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Nov 29). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221163.