User login
Itch response faster with abrocitinib in trial comparing JAK inhibitor to dupilumab
, in a multicenter, randomized trial.
In addition, in the study, those on 200-mg and 100-mg daily doses of abrocitinib experienced significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of AD at 12 and 16 weeks, than those on placebo, the authors reported.
The findings from the JADE COMPARE trial, published on March 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggest abrocitinib will provide clinicians with another treatment option for patients who don’t get adequate relief from either topical medications or dupilumab. Abrocitinib is associated with a different set of adverse reactions than dupilumab, according to investigators.
In 2017, dupilumab (Dupixent) became the first systemic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for AD, though systemic steroids and other immunosuppressant drugs are sometimes prescribed. A monoclonal antibody delivered by subcutaneous injection, dupilumab binds to interleukin-4 receptors to block signaling pathways involved in AD; it is now approved for treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD down to age 6 years.
“It is sort of the bar for efficacy and for safety in those patients, because that’s what we have right now,” said one of the JADE Compare investigators and study author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For any new therapy coming to market, we really do want to understand how it compares to what’s out there.”
Abrocitinib is a small molecule that inhibits JAK1, which is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Two other JAK1 inhibitors, baricitinib and upadacitinib, are also being investigated as systemic treatments for AD.
In JADE COMPARE, people with moderate to severe AD from 18 countries on four continents, entered a 28-day screening period during which they discontinued treatments. They began using emollients twice a day at least 7 days before being randomly assigned to a treatment group, and continued on topical medication once daily. Topical treatments included low- or medium-potency topical glucocorticoids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors.
The researchers randomly assigned 838 to trial groups: 226 received 200 mg of abrocitinib orally once a day, 238 received 100 mg of abrocitinib once a day, 243 received a 300-mg dupilumab injection every other week, and 131 received placebo versions of both medications, for 16 weeks. The mean age of the patients overall was about 38 years; about two-thirds were White.
At 2 weeks, half of the patients on 200 mg of abrocitinib and 31.8% of those on the 100-mg dose had an itch response, defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline in the 0-10 Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale. This was compared with 26.4% of those on dupilumab and 13.8% of those on placebo.
And at 12 weeks, more of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group than in the other groups had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as clear or almost clear) and more had an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response (defined as an improvement of at least 75%). (See Table) EASI-75 and IGA responses at week 12 were the primary outcomes of the study.
The differences between both abrocitinib groups and the placebo group were statistically significant by all these measures (P < .001). The difference between the 200-mg abrocitinib and the dupilumab group was only significant for itch at 2 weeks, and the difference in itch response between the 100-mg group and the dupilumab group at 2 weeks was not significant (P < .20).
At 16 weeks, the EASI-75 response (a secondary endpoint) among those on either dose of abrocitinib was not significantly different than among those on dupilumab (71% and 60.3% among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively; and 65.5% among those on dupilumab, compared with 30.6% of those on placebo).
“The patients I have on this medicine [abrocitinib] are very happy,” said one of the study authors, Melinda Gooderham, MsC, MD, an assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., an investigator in the trial. “It works very quickly for itch,” she said in an interview.
The study didn’t have sufficient statistical power to fully explore the comparison to dupilumab, and future trials will go deeper into the comparison, she added.
Still, in this trial, abrocitinib demonstrated a clear advantage in the speed and depth of efficacy, Dr. Silverberg noted. “The 100-mg dose of abrocitinib was about as effective as, or maybe slightly less effective than, dupilumab, and the 200-mg dose was more effective than dupilumab.”
The overall incidence of adverse events was higher in the 200-mg abrocitinib arm than in the other groups, but the incidence of serious or severe adverse events, and the incidence of adverse events that resulted in discontinuing the medication, were similar across the trial groups.
However, nausea affected 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group. Acne was also reported in these groups (6.6% and 2.9%, among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 1.2% of those on dupilumab and none of those on placebo). In a few of those on abrocitinib, herpes zoster flared up. And median platelet counts decreased among the patients taking abrocitinib, although none dropped below 75,000/mm3. Serious infections were reported in two patients on abrocitinib, but resolved.
By contrast, only 2.9% of the patients on dupilumab had nausea. But 6.2% in the dupilumab group had conjunctivitis, compared with 1.3% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 0.8 in the 100-mg abrocitinib group.
As an oral medication, abrocitinib will appeal to patients who want to avoid injections, and dosing will be easier to adjust, Dr. Silverberg said. On the other hand, he added, dupilumab will have an advantage for patients who don’t want to take a daily medication, or who are concerned about the adverse events associated with abrocitinib, particularly those with blood-clotting disorders.
On the basis of two previous JADE phase 3 trials, Pfizer has submitted a new drug application for abrocitinib for treating moderate to severe AD in patients aged 12 and older to the FDA; a decision is expected in April, according to the company. The company has also applied to market the drug in Europe and the United Kingdom.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Silverberg’s disclosures included serving as a consultant to companies including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Several authors are Pfizer employees; other authors had disclosures related to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.
, in a multicenter, randomized trial.
In addition, in the study, those on 200-mg and 100-mg daily doses of abrocitinib experienced significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of AD at 12 and 16 weeks, than those on placebo, the authors reported.
The findings from the JADE COMPARE trial, published on March 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggest abrocitinib will provide clinicians with another treatment option for patients who don’t get adequate relief from either topical medications or dupilumab. Abrocitinib is associated with a different set of adverse reactions than dupilumab, according to investigators.
In 2017, dupilumab (Dupixent) became the first systemic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for AD, though systemic steroids and other immunosuppressant drugs are sometimes prescribed. A monoclonal antibody delivered by subcutaneous injection, dupilumab binds to interleukin-4 receptors to block signaling pathways involved in AD; it is now approved for treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD down to age 6 years.
“It is sort of the bar for efficacy and for safety in those patients, because that’s what we have right now,” said one of the JADE Compare investigators and study author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For any new therapy coming to market, we really do want to understand how it compares to what’s out there.”
Abrocitinib is a small molecule that inhibits JAK1, which is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Two other JAK1 inhibitors, baricitinib and upadacitinib, are also being investigated as systemic treatments for AD.
In JADE COMPARE, people with moderate to severe AD from 18 countries on four continents, entered a 28-day screening period during which they discontinued treatments. They began using emollients twice a day at least 7 days before being randomly assigned to a treatment group, and continued on topical medication once daily. Topical treatments included low- or medium-potency topical glucocorticoids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors.
The researchers randomly assigned 838 to trial groups: 226 received 200 mg of abrocitinib orally once a day, 238 received 100 mg of abrocitinib once a day, 243 received a 300-mg dupilumab injection every other week, and 131 received placebo versions of both medications, for 16 weeks. The mean age of the patients overall was about 38 years; about two-thirds were White.
At 2 weeks, half of the patients on 200 mg of abrocitinib and 31.8% of those on the 100-mg dose had an itch response, defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline in the 0-10 Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale. This was compared with 26.4% of those on dupilumab and 13.8% of those on placebo.
And at 12 weeks, more of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group than in the other groups had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as clear or almost clear) and more had an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response (defined as an improvement of at least 75%). (See Table) EASI-75 and IGA responses at week 12 were the primary outcomes of the study.
The differences between both abrocitinib groups and the placebo group were statistically significant by all these measures (P < .001). The difference between the 200-mg abrocitinib and the dupilumab group was only significant for itch at 2 weeks, and the difference in itch response between the 100-mg group and the dupilumab group at 2 weeks was not significant (P < .20).
At 16 weeks, the EASI-75 response (a secondary endpoint) among those on either dose of abrocitinib was not significantly different than among those on dupilumab (71% and 60.3% among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively; and 65.5% among those on dupilumab, compared with 30.6% of those on placebo).
“The patients I have on this medicine [abrocitinib] are very happy,” said one of the study authors, Melinda Gooderham, MsC, MD, an assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., an investigator in the trial. “It works very quickly for itch,” she said in an interview.
The study didn’t have sufficient statistical power to fully explore the comparison to dupilumab, and future trials will go deeper into the comparison, she added.
Still, in this trial, abrocitinib demonstrated a clear advantage in the speed and depth of efficacy, Dr. Silverberg noted. “The 100-mg dose of abrocitinib was about as effective as, or maybe slightly less effective than, dupilumab, and the 200-mg dose was more effective than dupilumab.”
The overall incidence of adverse events was higher in the 200-mg abrocitinib arm than in the other groups, but the incidence of serious or severe adverse events, and the incidence of adverse events that resulted in discontinuing the medication, were similar across the trial groups.
However, nausea affected 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group. Acne was also reported in these groups (6.6% and 2.9%, among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 1.2% of those on dupilumab and none of those on placebo). In a few of those on abrocitinib, herpes zoster flared up. And median platelet counts decreased among the patients taking abrocitinib, although none dropped below 75,000/mm3. Serious infections were reported in two patients on abrocitinib, but resolved.
By contrast, only 2.9% of the patients on dupilumab had nausea. But 6.2% in the dupilumab group had conjunctivitis, compared with 1.3% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 0.8 in the 100-mg abrocitinib group.
As an oral medication, abrocitinib will appeal to patients who want to avoid injections, and dosing will be easier to adjust, Dr. Silverberg said. On the other hand, he added, dupilumab will have an advantage for patients who don’t want to take a daily medication, or who are concerned about the adverse events associated with abrocitinib, particularly those with blood-clotting disorders.
On the basis of two previous JADE phase 3 trials, Pfizer has submitted a new drug application for abrocitinib for treating moderate to severe AD in patients aged 12 and older to the FDA; a decision is expected in April, according to the company. The company has also applied to market the drug in Europe and the United Kingdom.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Silverberg’s disclosures included serving as a consultant to companies including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Several authors are Pfizer employees; other authors had disclosures related to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.
, in a multicenter, randomized trial.
In addition, in the study, those on 200-mg and 100-mg daily doses of abrocitinib experienced significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of AD at 12 and 16 weeks, than those on placebo, the authors reported.
The findings from the JADE COMPARE trial, published on March 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggest abrocitinib will provide clinicians with another treatment option for patients who don’t get adequate relief from either topical medications or dupilumab. Abrocitinib is associated with a different set of adverse reactions than dupilumab, according to investigators.
In 2017, dupilumab (Dupixent) became the first systemic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for AD, though systemic steroids and other immunosuppressant drugs are sometimes prescribed. A monoclonal antibody delivered by subcutaneous injection, dupilumab binds to interleukin-4 receptors to block signaling pathways involved in AD; it is now approved for treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD down to age 6 years.
“It is sort of the bar for efficacy and for safety in those patients, because that’s what we have right now,” said one of the JADE Compare investigators and study author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For any new therapy coming to market, we really do want to understand how it compares to what’s out there.”
Abrocitinib is a small molecule that inhibits JAK1, which is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Two other JAK1 inhibitors, baricitinib and upadacitinib, are also being investigated as systemic treatments for AD.
In JADE COMPARE, people with moderate to severe AD from 18 countries on four continents, entered a 28-day screening period during which they discontinued treatments. They began using emollients twice a day at least 7 days before being randomly assigned to a treatment group, and continued on topical medication once daily. Topical treatments included low- or medium-potency topical glucocorticoids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors.
The researchers randomly assigned 838 to trial groups: 226 received 200 mg of abrocitinib orally once a day, 238 received 100 mg of abrocitinib once a day, 243 received a 300-mg dupilumab injection every other week, and 131 received placebo versions of both medications, for 16 weeks. The mean age of the patients overall was about 38 years; about two-thirds were White.
At 2 weeks, half of the patients on 200 mg of abrocitinib and 31.8% of those on the 100-mg dose had an itch response, defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline in the 0-10 Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale. This was compared with 26.4% of those on dupilumab and 13.8% of those on placebo.
And at 12 weeks, more of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group than in the other groups had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as clear or almost clear) and more had an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response (defined as an improvement of at least 75%). (See Table) EASI-75 and IGA responses at week 12 were the primary outcomes of the study.
The differences between both abrocitinib groups and the placebo group were statistically significant by all these measures (P < .001). The difference between the 200-mg abrocitinib and the dupilumab group was only significant for itch at 2 weeks, and the difference in itch response between the 100-mg group and the dupilumab group at 2 weeks was not significant (P < .20).
At 16 weeks, the EASI-75 response (a secondary endpoint) among those on either dose of abrocitinib was not significantly different than among those on dupilumab (71% and 60.3% among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively; and 65.5% among those on dupilumab, compared with 30.6% of those on placebo).
“The patients I have on this medicine [abrocitinib] are very happy,” said one of the study authors, Melinda Gooderham, MsC, MD, an assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., an investigator in the trial. “It works very quickly for itch,” she said in an interview.
The study didn’t have sufficient statistical power to fully explore the comparison to dupilumab, and future trials will go deeper into the comparison, she added.
Still, in this trial, abrocitinib demonstrated a clear advantage in the speed and depth of efficacy, Dr. Silverberg noted. “The 100-mg dose of abrocitinib was about as effective as, or maybe slightly less effective than, dupilumab, and the 200-mg dose was more effective than dupilumab.”
The overall incidence of adverse events was higher in the 200-mg abrocitinib arm than in the other groups, but the incidence of serious or severe adverse events, and the incidence of adverse events that resulted in discontinuing the medication, were similar across the trial groups.
However, nausea affected 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group. Acne was also reported in these groups (6.6% and 2.9%, among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 1.2% of those on dupilumab and none of those on placebo). In a few of those on abrocitinib, herpes zoster flared up. And median platelet counts decreased among the patients taking abrocitinib, although none dropped below 75,000/mm3. Serious infections were reported in two patients on abrocitinib, but resolved.
By contrast, only 2.9% of the patients on dupilumab had nausea. But 6.2% in the dupilumab group had conjunctivitis, compared with 1.3% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 0.8 in the 100-mg abrocitinib group.
As an oral medication, abrocitinib will appeal to patients who want to avoid injections, and dosing will be easier to adjust, Dr. Silverberg said. On the other hand, he added, dupilumab will have an advantage for patients who don’t want to take a daily medication, or who are concerned about the adverse events associated with abrocitinib, particularly those with blood-clotting disorders.
On the basis of two previous JADE phase 3 trials, Pfizer has submitted a new drug application for abrocitinib for treating moderate to severe AD in patients aged 12 and older to the FDA; a decision is expected in April, according to the company. The company has also applied to market the drug in Europe and the United Kingdom.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Silverberg’s disclosures included serving as a consultant to companies including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Several authors are Pfizer employees; other authors had disclosures related to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.
‘Reassuring’ data on COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population. 
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population.
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women can safely get vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest.
More than 30,000 women who received these vaccines have reported pregnancies through the CDC’s V-Safe voluntary reporting system, and their rates of complications are not significantly different from those of unvaccinated pregnant women, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office.
“Overall, the data are reassuring with respect to vaccine safety in pregnant women,” he told this news organization.
Dr. Shimabukuro presented the data during a March 1 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of health experts selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
The CDC has included pregnancy along with other underlying conditions that qualify people to be offered vaccines in the third priority tier (Phase 1c).
“There is evidence that pregnant women who get COVID-19 are at increased risk of severe illness and complications from severe illness,” Dr. Shimabukuro explained. “And there is also evidence that pregnant persons who get COVID-19 may be at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends that “COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.”
By contrast, the World Health Organization recommends the vaccines only for those pregnant women who are “at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (for example, health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease.”
Not enough information was available from the pivotal trials of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines to assess risk in pregnant women, according to these manufacturers. Pfizer has announced a follow-up trial of its vaccine in healthy pregnant women.
Analyzing surveillance data
To better assess whether the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines cause problems in pregnancy or childbirth, Dr. Shimabukuro and colleagues analyzed data from V-Safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The CDC encourages providers to inform people they vaccinate about the V-Safe program. Participants can voluntarily enter their data through a website, and may receive follow-up text messages and phone calls from the CDC asking for additional information at various times after vaccination. It is not a systematic survey, and the sample is not necessarily representative of everyone who gets the vaccine, Dr. Shimabukuro noted.
At the time of the study, V-Safe recorded 55,220,364 reports from people who received at least one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine through Feb. 16. These included 30,494 pregnancies, of which 16,039 were in women who received the Pfizer vaccine and 14,455 in women who received the Moderna vaccine.
Analyzing data collected through Jan. 13, 2021, the researchers found that both local and systemic reactions were similar between pregnant and nonpregnant women aged 16-54 years.
Most women reported pain, and some reported swelling, redness, and itching at the injection site. Of systemic reactions, fatigue was the most common, followed by headache, myalgia, chills, nausea, and fever. The systemic reactions were more common with the second Pfizer dose; fatigue affected a majority of both pregnant and nonpregnant women. Data on the second Moderna dose were not available.
The CDC enrolled 1,815 pregnant women for additional follow-up, among whom there were 275 completed pregnancies and 232 live births.
Rates of outcomes “of interest” were no higher among these women than in the general population.
In contrast to V-Safe, data from VAERS, comanaged by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are from spontaneous reports of adverse events. The sources for those reports are varied. “That could be the health care provider,” Dr. Shimabukuro said. “That could be the patient themselves. It could be a caregiver for children.”
Just 154 VAERS reports through Feb. 16 concerned pregnant women, and of these, only 42 (27%) were for pregnancy-specific conditions, with the other 73% representing the types of adverse events reported for the general population of vaccinated people, such as headache and fatigue.
Of the 42 pregnancy-related events, there were 29 spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, with the remainder divided among 10 other pregnancy and neonatal conditions.
“When we looked at those outcomes and we compared the reporting rates, based on known background rates of these conditions, we did not see anything unexpected or concerning with respect to pregnancy or neonatal-specific conditions,” Dr. Shimabukuro said about the VAERS data.
The CDC did not collect data on fertility. “We’ve done a lot of work with other vaccines,” said Dr. Shimabukuro. “And just from a biological basis, we don’t have any evidence that vaccination, just in general, causes fertility problems.”
Also, Dr. Shimabukuro noted that the COVID-19 vaccine made by Janssen/Johnson & Johnson did not receive emergency authorization from the FDA in time to be included in the current report, but is being tracked for future reports.
Vaccination could benefit infants
In addition to the new safety data, experts continue to remind clinicians and the public that vaccination during pregnancy could benefit offspring. The unborn babies of pregnant women who receive the COVID-19 vaccine could be protected from the virus for the first several months of their lives, said White House COVID-19 czar Anthony Fauci, MD, at a briefing on March 10.
“We’ve seen this with many other vaccines,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s a very good way you can get protection for the mother during pregnancy and also a transfer of protection for the infant, which will last a few months following the birth.”
Dr. Fauci also noted that the same vaccine platform used in Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine was successfully used for Ebola in pregnant women in Africa.
Dr. Shimabukuro has reported no relevant financial relationships.
Lindsay Kalter contributed to the reporting for this story.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AI detects ugly-duckling skin lesions for melanoma follow-up
.
The system could use photographs of large areas of patients’ bodies taken with ordinary cameras in primary care or by the patients themselves to screen for early-stage melanoma, said Luis R. Soenksen, PhD, a postdoctoral associate and venture builder at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.
“We believe we’re providing technology for that to happen at a massive scale, which is what is needed to reduce mortality rates,” he said in an interview.
He and his colleagues published their findings in Science Translational Medicine.
Diagnosing skin lesions has already proved one of the most promising medical applications of AI. In a 2017 paper, researchers reported that a deep neural network had classified skin lesions more accurately than did dermatologists. But so far, most such programs depend on experts to preselect the lesions worthy of analysis. And they use images from dermoscopy or single-lesion near-field photography.
Dr. Soenksen and colleagues wanted a system that could use a variety of cameras such as those in smartphones under a variety of conditions to assess lesions over wide areas of anatomy.
So they programmed their convolutional neural network to simultaneously use two approaches for screening lesions. Like the earlier systems, theirs looks for characteristics of individual lesions, such as asymmetry, border unevenness, color distribution, diameter, and evolution (ABCDE.) But it also looks for lesion saliency, a comparison of the lesions on the skin of one individual to identify the “ugly ducklings” that stand out from the rest.
They trained the system using 20,388 wide-field images from 133 patients at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid, as well as publicly available images. The images were taken with a variety of consumer-grade cameras, about half of them nondermoscopy, and included backgrounds, skin edges, bare skin sections, nonsuspicious pigmented lesions, and suspicious pigmented lesions. The lesions in the images were visually classified by a consensus of three board-certified dermatologists.
Once they trained the system, the researchers tested it on another 6,796 images from the same patients, using the dermatologists’ classification as the gold standard. The system distinguished the suspicious lesions with 90.3% sensitivity (true positive), 89.9% specificity (true negative), and 86.56% accuracy.
Dr. Soenksen said he could envision photos acquired for screening in three scenarios. First, people could photograph themselves, or someone else at their homes could photograph them. These photos could even include whole nude bodies.
Second, clinicians could photograph patients’ body parts during medical visits for other purposes. “It makes sense to do these evaluations in the point of care where a referral can actually happen, like the primary care office,” said Dr. Soenksen.
Third, photos could be taken at places where people show up in bathing suits.
In each scenario, the system would then tell patients whether any lesions needed evaluation by a dermatologist.
To ensure privacy, Dr. Soenksen envisions using devices that do not transmit all the data to the cloud but instead do at least some of the calculations on their own. High-end smartphones have sufficient computing capacity for that, he said.
In their next phase of this work, the researchers would like to test the system on more skin of color cases and in more varied conditions, said Dr. Soenksen. And they would like to put it through randomized clinical trials, potentially using biopsies to validate the results.
That’s a key step, said Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, director of the dermatology imaging informatics program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Usually when we think about melanoma, we think of histology as the gold standard, or specific subtypes of melanoma as a gold standard,” she said in an interview.
The technology also raises the question of excessive screening, she said. “Identifying the ugly duckling could be extremely important in finding more melanoma,” she said. “But in a patient who doesn’t have melanoma, it could lead to a lot of unnecessary biopsies.”
The sheer number of referrals generated by such a system could overwhelm the dermatologists assigned to follow up on them, she added.
Still, Dr. Rotemberg said, the study is “a good proof of concept.” Ugly duckling analysis is a very active area of AI research with thousands of teams of researchers worldwide working on systems similar to this one, she added. “I’m so excited for the authors.”
Neither Dr. Soenksen nor Dr. Rotemberg disclosed any relevant financial interests.
.
The system could use photographs of large areas of patients’ bodies taken with ordinary cameras in primary care or by the patients themselves to screen for early-stage melanoma, said Luis R. Soenksen, PhD, a postdoctoral associate and venture builder at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.
“We believe we’re providing technology for that to happen at a massive scale, which is what is needed to reduce mortality rates,” he said in an interview.
He and his colleagues published their findings in Science Translational Medicine.
Diagnosing skin lesions has already proved one of the most promising medical applications of AI. In a 2017 paper, researchers reported that a deep neural network had classified skin lesions more accurately than did dermatologists. But so far, most such programs depend on experts to preselect the lesions worthy of analysis. And they use images from dermoscopy or single-lesion near-field photography.
Dr. Soenksen and colleagues wanted a system that could use a variety of cameras such as those in smartphones under a variety of conditions to assess lesions over wide areas of anatomy.
So they programmed their convolutional neural network to simultaneously use two approaches for screening lesions. Like the earlier systems, theirs looks for characteristics of individual lesions, such as asymmetry, border unevenness, color distribution, diameter, and evolution (ABCDE.) But it also looks for lesion saliency, a comparison of the lesions on the skin of one individual to identify the “ugly ducklings” that stand out from the rest.
They trained the system using 20,388 wide-field images from 133 patients at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid, as well as publicly available images. The images were taken with a variety of consumer-grade cameras, about half of them nondermoscopy, and included backgrounds, skin edges, bare skin sections, nonsuspicious pigmented lesions, and suspicious pigmented lesions. The lesions in the images were visually classified by a consensus of three board-certified dermatologists.
Once they trained the system, the researchers tested it on another 6,796 images from the same patients, using the dermatologists’ classification as the gold standard. The system distinguished the suspicious lesions with 90.3% sensitivity (true positive), 89.9% specificity (true negative), and 86.56% accuracy.
Dr. Soenksen said he could envision photos acquired for screening in three scenarios. First, people could photograph themselves, or someone else at their homes could photograph them. These photos could even include whole nude bodies.
Second, clinicians could photograph patients’ body parts during medical visits for other purposes. “It makes sense to do these evaluations in the point of care where a referral can actually happen, like the primary care office,” said Dr. Soenksen.
Third, photos could be taken at places where people show up in bathing suits.
In each scenario, the system would then tell patients whether any lesions needed evaluation by a dermatologist.
To ensure privacy, Dr. Soenksen envisions using devices that do not transmit all the data to the cloud but instead do at least some of the calculations on their own. High-end smartphones have sufficient computing capacity for that, he said.
In their next phase of this work, the researchers would like to test the system on more skin of color cases and in more varied conditions, said Dr. Soenksen. And they would like to put it through randomized clinical trials, potentially using biopsies to validate the results.
That’s a key step, said Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, director of the dermatology imaging informatics program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Usually when we think about melanoma, we think of histology as the gold standard, or specific subtypes of melanoma as a gold standard,” she said in an interview.
The technology also raises the question of excessive screening, she said. “Identifying the ugly duckling could be extremely important in finding more melanoma,” she said. “But in a patient who doesn’t have melanoma, it could lead to a lot of unnecessary biopsies.”
The sheer number of referrals generated by such a system could overwhelm the dermatologists assigned to follow up on them, she added.
Still, Dr. Rotemberg said, the study is “a good proof of concept.” Ugly duckling analysis is a very active area of AI research with thousands of teams of researchers worldwide working on systems similar to this one, she added. “I’m so excited for the authors.”
Neither Dr. Soenksen nor Dr. Rotemberg disclosed any relevant financial interests.
.
The system could use photographs of large areas of patients’ bodies taken with ordinary cameras in primary care or by the patients themselves to screen for early-stage melanoma, said Luis R. Soenksen, PhD, a postdoctoral associate and venture builder at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.
“We believe we’re providing technology for that to happen at a massive scale, which is what is needed to reduce mortality rates,” he said in an interview.
He and his colleagues published their findings in Science Translational Medicine.
Diagnosing skin lesions has already proved one of the most promising medical applications of AI. In a 2017 paper, researchers reported that a deep neural network had classified skin lesions more accurately than did dermatologists. But so far, most such programs depend on experts to preselect the lesions worthy of analysis. And they use images from dermoscopy or single-lesion near-field photography.
Dr. Soenksen and colleagues wanted a system that could use a variety of cameras such as those in smartphones under a variety of conditions to assess lesions over wide areas of anatomy.
So they programmed their convolutional neural network to simultaneously use two approaches for screening lesions. Like the earlier systems, theirs looks for characteristics of individual lesions, such as asymmetry, border unevenness, color distribution, diameter, and evolution (ABCDE.) But it also looks for lesion saliency, a comparison of the lesions on the skin of one individual to identify the “ugly ducklings” that stand out from the rest.
They trained the system using 20,388 wide-field images from 133 patients at the Hospital Gregorio Marañón in Madrid, as well as publicly available images. The images were taken with a variety of consumer-grade cameras, about half of them nondermoscopy, and included backgrounds, skin edges, bare skin sections, nonsuspicious pigmented lesions, and suspicious pigmented lesions. The lesions in the images were visually classified by a consensus of three board-certified dermatologists.
Once they trained the system, the researchers tested it on another 6,796 images from the same patients, using the dermatologists’ classification as the gold standard. The system distinguished the suspicious lesions with 90.3% sensitivity (true positive), 89.9% specificity (true negative), and 86.56% accuracy.
Dr. Soenksen said he could envision photos acquired for screening in three scenarios. First, people could photograph themselves, or someone else at their homes could photograph them. These photos could even include whole nude bodies.
Second, clinicians could photograph patients’ body parts during medical visits for other purposes. “It makes sense to do these evaluations in the point of care where a referral can actually happen, like the primary care office,” said Dr. Soenksen.
Third, photos could be taken at places where people show up in bathing suits.
In each scenario, the system would then tell patients whether any lesions needed evaluation by a dermatologist.
To ensure privacy, Dr. Soenksen envisions using devices that do not transmit all the data to the cloud but instead do at least some of the calculations on their own. High-end smartphones have sufficient computing capacity for that, he said.
In their next phase of this work, the researchers would like to test the system on more skin of color cases and in more varied conditions, said Dr. Soenksen. And they would like to put it through randomized clinical trials, potentially using biopsies to validate the results.
That’s a key step, said Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, director of the dermatology imaging informatics program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
“Usually when we think about melanoma, we think of histology as the gold standard, or specific subtypes of melanoma as a gold standard,” she said in an interview.
The technology also raises the question of excessive screening, she said. “Identifying the ugly duckling could be extremely important in finding more melanoma,” she said. “But in a patient who doesn’t have melanoma, it could lead to a lot of unnecessary biopsies.”
The sheer number of referrals generated by such a system could overwhelm the dermatologists assigned to follow up on them, she added.
Still, Dr. Rotemberg said, the study is “a good proof of concept.” Ugly duckling analysis is a very active area of AI research with thousands of teams of researchers worldwide working on systems similar to this one, she added. “I’m so excited for the authors.”
Neither Dr. Soenksen nor Dr. Rotemberg disclosed any relevant financial interests.
COVID-19 vaccination recommended for rheumatology patients
People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.
“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”
The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.
“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.
So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
Some risks are real
The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.
Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.
It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.
Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.
Although it might be optimal to administer the vaccines when rheumatic diseases are quiescent, the urgency of getting vaccinated overrides that consideration, Dr. Curtis said. “By and large, there was a general consensus to not want to delay vaccination until somebody was stable and doing great, because you don’t know how long that’s going to be,” he said.
How well does it work?
One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.
The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.
For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”
The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.
It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.
For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.
For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.
None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.
“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”
The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.
“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.
So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
Some risks are real
The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.
Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.
It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.
Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.
Although it might be optimal to administer the vaccines when rheumatic diseases are quiescent, the urgency of getting vaccinated overrides that consideration, Dr. Curtis said. “By and large, there was a general consensus to not want to delay vaccination until somebody was stable and doing great, because you don’t know how long that’s going to be,” he said.
How well does it work?
One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.
The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.
For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”
The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.
It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.
For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.
For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.
None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.
“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”
The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.
“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.
So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
Some risks are real
The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.
Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.
It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.
Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.
Although it might be optimal to administer the vaccines when rheumatic diseases are quiescent, the urgency of getting vaccinated overrides that consideration, Dr. Curtis said. “By and large, there was a general consensus to not want to delay vaccination until somebody was stable and doing great, because you don’t know how long that’s going to be,” he said.
How well does it work?
One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.
The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.
For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”
The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.
It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.
For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.
For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.
None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Steroid and immunoglobulin standard of care for MIS-C
The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.
“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”
Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.
Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.
Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.
But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.
Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.
The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.
Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).
Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).
There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.
The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”
In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.
This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.
Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.
The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.
“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”
Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.
Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.
Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.
But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.
Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.
The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.
Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).
Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).
There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.
The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”
In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.
This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.
Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.
The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.
“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”
Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.
Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.
Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.
But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.
Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.
The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.
Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).
Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).
There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.
The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”
In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.
This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.
Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.
The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with early arthritis may need tailored treatments
Patients with early, undifferentiated arthritis may benefit from milder or stronger treatments, depending on the number of their risk factors for developing rheumatoid arthritis, researchers say.
If the finding is borne out by further research, clinicians could consider treating some of these patients with hydroxychloroquine, steroids, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) rather than methotrexate, said Pascal de Jong, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Maybe those patients with fewer risk factors should get less intensive treatment,” he said in an interview. The study by de Jong and colleagues was published online Jan. 23 in Rheumatology.
The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends starting treatment with methotrexate for patients who are at risk for persistent arthritis, which it says is “factually synonymous” with rheumatoid arthritis.
But these recommendations are based on studies involving patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. de Jong said.
In an earlier study, he and his colleagues found that hydroxychloroquine can be just as effective as methotrexate for patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who don’t have autoantibodies. This led them to wonder whether their findings might apply to some subgroups of patients with early arthritis.
As an initial test of this idea, they identified 130 patients from the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial who had at least one swollen joint but who did meet the diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis.
They sorted the patients into groups on the basis of the number of risk factors for persistent arthritis. The risk factors were autoantibody positivity (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated protein antibody), polyarthritis (more than four swollen joints), erosive disease, and elevations in levels of acute-phase reactants.
Thirty-one patients had none of these risk factors, 66 patients had one risk factor, and the remaining 33 patients had at least two risk factors.
After 2 years of follow-up, 74% of the patients who had had no risk factors had recovered from their arthritis and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 6 months (DMARD-free remission). Among the patients who had had one risk factor, 48% achieved DMARD-free remission. Among those who had had two risk factors, 45% achieved DMARD-free remission. The differences between the group that had had no risk factors and the other two groups were statistically significant (P < .05).
The researchers found that those patients who had been experiencing their symptoms for fewer than 6 months were more likely to achieve disease-free remission.
They also sorted patients into different groups on the basis of the treatments they received. One group of 30 comprised all patients who had been initially treated with methotrexate and included patients who had also received other drugs. One group of 40 received hydroxychloroquine initially, and one group of 60 comprised patients who had received no DMARDs initially and included those who had received NSAIDs or glucocorticoids.
There was no statistically significant difference in DMARD-free remission rates among the treatment groups. However, among those patients who were not treated initially with DMARDs, the chance of sustaining DMARD-free remission for more than a year was lower in comparison with the patients who received methotrexate initially (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-13.72; P < .05).
Those patients who had fewer baseline risk factors were more likely to have their medication dosages tapered, and they were at lower risk for flares. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require an intensificiation of treatment, such as with the use of biologicals.
Methotrexate is more likely to cause side effects such as nausea, fatigue, and hair loss than hydroxychloroquine, Dr. de Jong said. “If the medication is better tolerated, it also influences the compliance of the patient,” he said.
The study could help rheumatologists determine which patients need the most aggressive treatment, agreed Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, the University of Colorado, Aurora.
“That’s a common clinical problem,” he said. “Somebody comes in with sort of mild arthritis, and you don’t quite know what it is yet.”
But he added that more research is needed to understand what treatment works best for those patients whose arthritis has not yet been differentiated. Primary care physicians who suspect inflammatory arthritis should refer their patients to rheumatologists and should test for rheumatoid factors and anticyclic citrullinated peptide, Dr. Deane said.
The authors and Dr. Deane have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with early, undifferentiated arthritis may benefit from milder or stronger treatments, depending on the number of their risk factors for developing rheumatoid arthritis, researchers say.
If the finding is borne out by further research, clinicians could consider treating some of these patients with hydroxychloroquine, steroids, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) rather than methotrexate, said Pascal de Jong, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Maybe those patients with fewer risk factors should get less intensive treatment,” he said in an interview. The study by de Jong and colleagues was published online Jan. 23 in Rheumatology.
The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends starting treatment with methotrexate for patients who are at risk for persistent arthritis, which it says is “factually synonymous” with rheumatoid arthritis.
But these recommendations are based on studies involving patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. de Jong said.
In an earlier study, he and his colleagues found that hydroxychloroquine can be just as effective as methotrexate for patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who don’t have autoantibodies. This led them to wonder whether their findings might apply to some subgroups of patients with early arthritis.
As an initial test of this idea, they identified 130 patients from the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial who had at least one swollen joint but who did meet the diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis.
They sorted the patients into groups on the basis of the number of risk factors for persistent arthritis. The risk factors were autoantibody positivity (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated protein antibody), polyarthritis (more than four swollen joints), erosive disease, and elevations in levels of acute-phase reactants.
Thirty-one patients had none of these risk factors, 66 patients had one risk factor, and the remaining 33 patients had at least two risk factors.
After 2 years of follow-up, 74% of the patients who had had no risk factors had recovered from their arthritis and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 6 months (DMARD-free remission). Among the patients who had had one risk factor, 48% achieved DMARD-free remission. Among those who had had two risk factors, 45% achieved DMARD-free remission. The differences between the group that had had no risk factors and the other two groups were statistically significant (P < .05).
The researchers found that those patients who had been experiencing their symptoms for fewer than 6 months were more likely to achieve disease-free remission.
They also sorted patients into different groups on the basis of the treatments they received. One group of 30 comprised all patients who had been initially treated with methotrexate and included patients who had also received other drugs. One group of 40 received hydroxychloroquine initially, and one group of 60 comprised patients who had received no DMARDs initially and included those who had received NSAIDs or glucocorticoids.
There was no statistically significant difference in DMARD-free remission rates among the treatment groups. However, among those patients who were not treated initially with DMARDs, the chance of sustaining DMARD-free remission for more than a year was lower in comparison with the patients who received methotrexate initially (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-13.72; P < .05).
Those patients who had fewer baseline risk factors were more likely to have their medication dosages tapered, and they were at lower risk for flares. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require an intensificiation of treatment, such as with the use of biologicals.
Methotrexate is more likely to cause side effects such as nausea, fatigue, and hair loss than hydroxychloroquine, Dr. de Jong said. “If the medication is better tolerated, it also influences the compliance of the patient,” he said.
The study could help rheumatologists determine which patients need the most aggressive treatment, agreed Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, the University of Colorado, Aurora.
“That’s a common clinical problem,” he said. “Somebody comes in with sort of mild arthritis, and you don’t quite know what it is yet.”
But he added that more research is needed to understand what treatment works best for those patients whose arthritis has not yet been differentiated. Primary care physicians who suspect inflammatory arthritis should refer their patients to rheumatologists and should test for rheumatoid factors and anticyclic citrullinated peptide, Dr. Deane said.
The authors and Dr. Deane have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with early, undifferentiated arthritis may benefit from milder or stronger treatments, depending on the number of their risk factors for developing rheumatoid arthritis, researchers say.
If the finding is borne out by further research, clinicians could consider treating some of these patients with hydroxychloroquine, steroids, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) rather than methotrexate, said Pascal de Jong, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Maybe those patients with fewer risk factors should get less intensive treatment,” he said in an interview. The study by de Jong and colleagues was published online Jan. 23 in Rheumatology.
The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommends starting treatment with methotrexate for patients who are at risk for persistent arthritis, which it says is “factually synonymous” with rheumatoid arthritis.
But these recommendations are based on studies involving patients with established rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. de Jong said.
In an earlier study, he and his colleagues found that hydroxychloroquine can be just as effective as methotrexate for patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who don’t have autoantibodies. This led them to wonder whether their findings might apply to some subgroups of patients with early arthritis.
As an initial test of this idea, they identified 130 patients from the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial who had at least one swollen joint but who did meet the diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis.
They sorted the patients into groups on the basis of the number of risk factors for persistent arthritis. The risk factors were autoantibody positivity (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated protein antibody), polyarthritis (more than four swollen joints), erosive disease, and elevations in levels of acute-phase reactants.
Thirty-one patients had none of these risk factors, 66 patients had one risk factor, and the remaining 33 patients had at least two risk factors.
After 2 years of follow-up, 74% of the patients who had had no risk factors had recovered from their arthritis and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 6 months (DMARD-free remission). Among the patients who had had one risk factor, 48% achieved DMARD-free remission. Among those who had had two risk factors, 45% achieved DMARD-free remission. The differences between the group that had had no risk factors and the other two groups were statistically significant (P < .05).
The researchers found that those patients who had been experiencing their symptoms for fewer than 6 months were more likely to achieve disease-free remission.
They also sorted patients into different groups on the basis of the treatments they received. One group of 30 comprised all patients who had been initially treated with methotrexate and included patients who had also received other drugs. One group of 40 received hydroxychloroquine initially, and one group of 60 comprised patients who had received no DMARDs initially and included those who had received NSAIDs or glucocorticoids.
There was no statistically significant difference in DMARD-free remission rates among the treatment groups. However, among those patients who were not treated initially with DMARDs, the chance of sustaining DMARD-free remission for more than a year was lower in comparison with the patients who received methotrexate initially (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-13.72; P < .05).
Those patients who had fewer baseline risk factors were more likely to have their medication dosages tapered, and they were at lower risk for flares. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require an intensificiation of treatment, such as with the use of biologicals.
Methotrexate is more likely to cause side effects such as nausea, fatigue, and hair loss than hydroxychloroquine, Dr. de Jong said. “If the medication is better tolerated, it also influences the compliance of the patient,” he said.
The study could help rheumatologists determine which patients need the most aggressive treatment, agreed Kevin Deane, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, the University of Colorado, Aurora.
“That’s a common clinical problem,” he said. “Somebody comes in with sort of mild arthritis, and you don’t quite know what it is yet.”
But he added that more research is needed to understand what treatment works best for those patients whose arthritis has not yet been differentiated. Primary care physicians who suspect inflammatory arthritis should refer their patients to rheumatologists and should test for rheumatoid factors and anticyclic citrullinated peptide, Dr. Deane said.
The authors and Dr. Deane have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Scant risk for SARS-CoV-2 from hospital air
Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.
The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.
“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”
The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.
Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”
To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.
They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.
Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.
Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 103 copies/m3 in toilets or bathrooms.
One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 103 copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m3 for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.
Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.
One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m3 for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m3 for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m3 for particles >4 mcm.
Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.
“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”
Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.
In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”
One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.
“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”
Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.
She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”
Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.
The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.
“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”
The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.
Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”
To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.
They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.
Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.
Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 103 copies/m3 in toilets or bathrooms.
One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 103 copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m3 for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.
Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.
One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m3 for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m3 for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m3 for particles >4 mcm.
Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.
“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”
Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.
In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”
One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.
“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”
Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.
She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”
Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Everywhere they look within hospitals, researchers find RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the air. But viable viruses typically are found only close to patients, according to a review of published studies.
The finding supports recommendations to use surgical masks in most parts of the hospital, reserving respirators (such as N95 or FFP2) for aerosol-generating procedures on patients’ respiratory tracts, said Gabriel Birgand, PhD, an infectious disease researcher at Imperial College London.
“When the virus is spreading a lot in the community, it’s probably more likely for you to be contaminated in your friends’ areas or in your building than in your work area, where you are well equipped and compliant with all the measures,” he said in an interview. “So it’s pretty good news.”
The systematic review by Dr. Birgand and colleagues was published in JAMA Network Open.
Recommended precautions to protect health care workers from SARS-CoV-2 infections remain controversial. Most authorities believe droplets are the primary route of transmission, which would mean surgical masks may be sufficient protection. But some research has suggested transmission by aerosols as well, making N95 respirators seem necessary. There is even disagreement about the definitions of the words “aerosol” and “droplet.”
To better understand where traces of the virus can be found in the air in hospitals, Dr. Birgand and colleagues analyzed all the studies they could find on the subject in English.
They identified 24 articles with original data. All of the studies used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In five studies, attempts were also made to culture viable viruses. Three studies assessed the particle size relative to RNA concentration or viral titer.
Of 893 air samples across the 24 studies, 52.7% were taken from areas close to patients, 26.5% were taken in clinical areas, 13.7% in staff areas, 4.7% in public areas, and 2.4% in toilets or bathrooms.
Among those studies that quantified RNA, the median interquartile range of concentrations varied from 1.0 x 103 copies/m3 in clinical areas to 9.7 x 103 copies/m3 in toilets or bathrooms.
One study found an RNA concentration of 2.0 x 103 copies for particle sizes >4 mcm and 1.3 x 103 copies/m3 for particle sizes ≤4 mcm, both in patients’ rooms.
Three studies included viral cultures; of those, two resulted in positive cultures, both in a non-ICU setting. In one study, 3 of 39 samples were positive, and in the other, 4 of 4 were positive. Viral cultures in toilets, clinical areas, staff areas, and public areas were negative.
One of these studies assessed viral concentration and found that the median interquartile range was 4.8 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50)/m3 for particles <1 mcm, 4.27 TCID50/m3 for particles 1-4 mcm, and 1.82 TCID50/m3 for particles >4 mcm.
Although viable viruses weren’t found in staff areas, the presence of viral RNA in places such as dining rooms and meeting rooms raises a concern, Dr. Birgand said.
“All of these staff areas are probably playing an important role in contamination,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to see when you are dining, you are not wearing a face mask, and it’s associated with a strong risk when there is a strong dissemination of the virus in the community.”
Studies on contact tracing among health care workers have also identified meeting rooms and dining rooms as the second most common source of infection after community contact, he said.
In general, the findings of the review correspond to epidemiologic studies, said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist with the Georgetown University Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, who was not involved in the review. “Absent aerosol-generating procedures, health care workers are largely not getting infected when they take droplet precautions.”
One reason may be that patients shed the most infectious viruses a couple of days before and after symptoms begin. By the time they’re hospitalized, they’re less likely to be contagious but may continue to shed viral RNA.
“We don’t really know the basis for the persistence of RNA being produced long after people have been infected and have recovered from the acute infection,” she said, “but it has been observed quite frequently.”
Although the virus cannot remain viable for very long in the air, remnants may still be detected in the form of RNA, Dr. Rasmussen said. In addition, hospitals often do a good job of ventilation.
She pointed out that it can be difficult to cultivate viruses in air samples because of contaminants such as bacteria and fungi. “That’s one of the limitations of a study like this. You’re not really sure if it’s because there’s no viable virus there or because you just aren’t able to collect samples that would allow you to determine that.”
Dr. Birgand and colleagues acknowledged other limitations. The studies they reviewed used different approaches to sampling. Different procedures may have been underway in the rooms being sampled, and factors such as temperature and humidity could have affected the results. In addition, the studies used different cycle thresholds for PCR positivity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Liquid oxygen recommended for mobile patients with lung disease
People with chronic lung disease who need significant amounts of oxygen should be able to take it in liquid form when they are able to leave home, according to a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
“For those patients, often the other types of devices either can’t supply enough oxygen or are not portable enough,” said Anne Holland, PT, PhD, a professor of physiotherapy at Monash University and Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. “They’re heavy and cumbersome to use.”
Dr. Holland and colleagues also gave a more general recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen – though not necessarily in liquid form – for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have severe exertional room air hypoxemia.
They published the recommendations as part of the ATS’ first-ever guideline on home oxygen therapy for adults with chronic lung disease in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The ATS identified the need for an updated guideline because of new research, and because an online survey of almost 2,000 U.S. oxygen users showed they were having problems accessing and using oxygen.
For long-term oxygen therapy, the guideline reinforces what most practitioners are already doing, Dr. Holland said. It recommends that adults with COPD or ILD who have severe chronic resting room air hypoxemia receive oxygen therapy at least 15 hours per day.
On the other hand, in adults with COPD who have moderate chronic resting room-air hypoxemia, the guideline recommends against long-term oxygen therapy.
The recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen for people with severe exertional room-air hypoxemia may have more effect on practice, Dr. Holland said. Laboratory-based tests have suggested oxygen can improve exercise capacity, but clinical trials used during daily life have had inconsistent results.
The evidence is particularly lacking for patients with ILD, Dr. Holland said in an interview. “It’s such an important part of practice to maintain oxygen therapy that it’s ethically very difficult to conduct such a trial. So, we did have to make use of indirect evidence from patients with COPD” for the guidelines.
The portable equipment comes with burdens, including managing its weight and bulk, social stigma, fear of cylinders running out, and equipment noise.
“We tried to clearly set out both the benefits and burdens of that therapy and made a conditional recommendation, and also a really strong call for shared decision-making with patients and health professionals,” Dr. Holland said.
In addition to looking at the evidence, the panel took into consideration the concerns identified by patients. This included the challenge of figuring out how to use the equipment. “All the oxygen equipment was ‘dumped’ on me,” wrote one oxygen user quoted in the guideline. “I knew nothing and was in a daze. I am sure that the delivery guy gave me some instructions when it was delivered but I retained nothing.”
For this reason, the guideline describes instruction and training on the use and maintenance of the equipment, including smoking cessation, fire prevention, and tripping hazards, as a “best practice.”
Nothing about the guideline is surprising, said MeiLan K. Han, MD, a spokesperson for the American Lung Association and professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. “I don’t think they’ve actually come to any new conclusion,” she said in an interview. “This is pretty much how I practice already.”
But the guideline could have an effect on policy, she said. The panel noted research showing that lower Medicare reimbursement to durable medical equipment companies since 2011 has forced many patients to switch from small, easily portable liquid oxygen to home-fill oxygen systems that include heavy cylinders.
“The impact of this decline in the availability and adequacy of portable oxygen devices in the United States has been profound,” Dr. Holland and colleagues wrote. “Supplemental oxygen users reported numerous problems, with the overarching theme being restricted mobility and isolation due to inadequate portable options.”
For this reason, the guideline recommends liquid oxygen for patients with chronic lung disease who are mobile outside of the home and require continuous oxygen flow rates of >3 L/min during exertion.
Many of Dr. Han’s patients have struggled with this problem, she said. “The clunkiest, most painful form of ‘ambulatory oxygen’ are these really large metal cylinders. They’re huge. And you have to carry them on a cart. It’s portable in theory only.”
Some of her patients have resorted to buying their own equipment on eBay, she said.
The authors report multiple disclosures including serving as advisory board members to foundations and pharmaceutical companies, and some are company employees or stockholders.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
People with chronic lung disease who need significant amounts of oxygen should be able to take it in liquid form when they are able to leave home, according to a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
“For those patients, often the other types of devices either can’t supply enough oxygen or are not portable enough,” said Anne Holland, PT, PhD, a professor of physiotherapy at Monash University and Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. “They’re heavy and cumbersome to use.”
Dr. Holland and colleagues also gave a more general recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen – though not necessarily in liquid form – for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have severe exertional room air hypoxemia.
They published the recommendations as part of the ATS’ first-ever guideline on home oxygen therapy for adults with chronic lung disease in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The ATS identified the need for an updated guideline because of new research, and because an online survey of almost 2,000 U.S. oxygen users showed they were having problems accessing and using oxygen.
For long-term oxygen therapy, the guideline reinforces what most practitioners are already doing, Dr. Holland said. It recommends that adults with COPD or ILD who have severe chronic resting room air hypoxemia receive oxygen therapy at least 15 hours per day.
On the other hand, in adults with COPD who have moderate chronic resting room-air hypoxemia, the guideline recommends against long-term oxygen therapy.
The recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen for people with severe exertional room-air hypoxemia may have more effect on practice, Dr. Holland said. Laboratory-based tests have suggested oxygen can improve exercise capacity, but clinical trials used during daily life have had inconsistent results.
The evidence is particularly lacking for patients with ILD, Dr. Holland said in an interview. “It’s such an important part of practice to maintain oxygen therapy that it’s ethically very difficult to conduct such a trial. So, we did have to make use of indirect evidence from patients with COPD” for the guidelines.
The portable equipment comes with burdens, including managing its weight and bulk, social stigma, fear of cylinders running out, and equipment noise.
“We tried to clearly set out both the benefits and burdens of that therapy and made a conditional recommendation, and also a really strong call for shared decision-making with patients and health professionals,” Dr. Holland said.
In addition to looking at the evidence, the panel took into consideration the concerns identified by patients. This included the challenge of figuring out how to use the equipment. “All the oxygen equipment was ‘dumped’ on me,” wrote one oxygen user quoted in the guideline. “I knew nothing and was in a daze. I am sure that the delivery guy gave me some instructions when it was delivered but I retained nothing.”
For this reason, the guideline describes instruction and training on the use and maintenance of the equipment, including smoking cessation, fire prevention, and tripping hazards, as a “best practice.”
Nothing about the guideline is surprising, said MeiLan K. Han, MD, a spokesperson for the American Lung Association and professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. “I don’t think they’ve actually come to any new conclusion,” she said in an interview. “This is pretty much how I practice already.”
But the guideline could have an effect on policy, she said. The panel noted research showing that lower Medicare reimbursement to durable medical equipment companies since 2011 has forced many patients to switch from small, easily portable liquid oxygen to home-fill oxygen systems that include heavy cylinders.
“The impact of this decline in the availability and adequacy of portable oxygen devices in the United States has been profound,” Dr. Holland and colleagues wrote. “Supplemental oxygen users reported numerous problems, with the overarching theme being restricted mobility and isolation due to inadequate portable options.”
For this reason, the guideline recommends liquid oxygen for patients with chronic lung disease who are mobile outside of the home and require continuous oxygen flow rates of >3 L/min during exertion.
Many of Dr. Han’s patients have struggled with this problem, she said. “The clunkiest, most painful form of ‘ambulatory oxygen’ are these really large metal cylinders. They’re huge. And you have to carry them on a cart. It’s portable in theory only.”
Some of her patients have resorted to buying their own equipment on eBay, she said.
The authors report multiple disclosures including serving as advisory board members to foundations and pharmaceutical companies, and some are company employees or stockholders.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
People with chronic lung disease who need significant amounts of oxygen should be able to take it in liquid form when they are able to leave home, according to a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.
“For those patients, often the other types of devices either can’t supply enough oxygen or are not portable enough,” said Anne Holland, PT, PhD, a professor of physiotherapy at Monash University and Alfred Hospital in Melbourne. “They’re heavy and cumbersome to use.”
Dr. Holland and colleagues also gave a more general recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen – though not necessarily in liquid form – for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have severe exertional room air hypoxemia.
They published the recommendations as part of the ATS’ first-ever guideline on home oxygen therapy for adults with chronic lung disease in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The ATS identified the need for an updated guideline because of new research, and because an online survey of almost 2,000 U.S. oxygen users showed they were having problems accessing and using oxygen.
For long-term oxygen therapy, the guideline reinforces what most practitioners are already doing, Dr. Holland said. It recommends that adults with COPD or ILD who have severe chronic resting room air hypoxemia receive oxygen therapy at least 15 hours per day.
On the other hand, in adults with COPD who have moderate chronic resting room-air hypoxemia, the guideline recommends against long-term oxygen therapy.
The recommendation to prescribe ambulatory oxygen for people with severe exertional room-air hypoxemia may have more effect on practice, Dr. Holland said. Laboratory-based tests have suggested oxygen can improve exercise capacity, but clinical trials used during daily life have had inconsistent results.
The evidence is particularly lacking for patients with ILD, Dr. Holland said in an interview. “It’s such an important part of practice to maintain oxygen therapy that it’s ethically very difficult to conduct such a trial. So, we did have to make use of indirect evidence from patients with COPD” for the guidelines.
The portable equipment comes with burdens, including managing its weight and bulk, social stigma, fear of cylinders running out, and equipment noise.
“We tried to clearly set out both the benefits and burdens of that therapy and made a conditional recommendation, and also a really strong call for shared decision-making with patients and health professionals,” Dr. Holland said.
In addition to looking at the evidence, the panel took into consideration the concerns identified by patients. This included the challenge of figuring out how to use the equipment. “All the oxygen equipment was ‘dumped’ on me,” wrote one oxygen user quoted in the guideline. “I knew nothing and was in a daze. I am sure that the delivery guy gave me some instructions when it was delivered but I retained nothing.”
For this reason, the guideline describes instruction and training on the use and maintenance of the equipment, including smoking cessation, fire prevention, and tripping hazards, as a “best practice.”
Nothing about the guideline is surprising, said MeiLan K. Han, MD, a spokesperson for the American Lung Association and professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor. “I don’t think they’ve actually come to any new conclusion,” she said in an interview. “This is pretty much how I practice already.”
But the guideline could have an effect on policy, she said. The panel noted research showing that lower Medicare reimbursement to durable medical equipment companies since 2011 has forced many patients to switch from small, easily portable liquid oxygen to home-fill oxygen systems that include heavy cylinders.
“The impact of this decline in the availability and adequacy of portable oxygen devices in the United States has been profound,” Dr. Holland and colleagues wrote. “Supplemental oxygen users reported numerous problems, with the overarching theme being restricted mobility and isolation due to inadequate portable options.”
For this reason, the guideline recommends liquid oxygen for patients with chronic lung disease who are mobile outside of the home and require continuous oxygen flow rates of >3 L/min during exertion.
Many of Dr. Han’s patients have struggled with this problem, she said. “The clunkiest, most painful form of ‘ambulatory oxygen’ are these really large metal cylinders. They’re huge. And you have to carry them on a cart. It’s portable in theory only.”
Some of her patients have resorted to buying their own equipment on eBay, she said.
The authors report multiple disclosures including serving as advisory board members to foundations and pharmaceutical companies, and some are company employees or stockholders.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Monthly needlestick rates suggest a steep learning curve
The rate of injuries with needles and other sharp instruments among hospital staff jumped sharply in July, which suggests the need for safety instruction early in the academic year, researchers say.
“The reason this is important is it gives us an idea of when the best time to intervene might be,” said Jonathan Zampella, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University.
The findings were published online Nov. 4 in a research letter in JAMA Surgery.
Hundreds of thousands of health care workers incur injuries with needles and other sharp instruments every year, which places them at risk for blood-borne infections.
“Especially amongst dermatologists, it’s not a question of if you get stuck, it’s a question of when,” Dr. Zampella said in an interview. “Most have been stuck at some point in their lives.”
Until now, studies of these injuries have mostly depended on surveys, he said. By contrast, for the current study, Dr. Zampella and colleagues used a dataset of injuries reported to NYU Langone Health’s Occupational Health Services.
They identified 5,395 such injuries that occurred between January 2000 and February 2020. The total number was similar among surgical and nonsurgical specialists, but the mean incident rate was 4.7 for every 10 people among the nonsurgical staff versus 9.4 for every 10 people in the surgical staff.
Dr. Zampella and colleagues further found that the highest rate of injury, at 16.0 incidents for every 10 people, occurred among urology house staff, followed by orthopedic surgery staff, with 14.1, and general surgery staff, with 14.0. The lowest staff rates were among psychiatrists (0.3), radiation oncologists (1.1), and neurologists (2.4).
But even some nonsurgical specialties had high rates. For example, the rate was 11.5 for pathology house staff and 11.3 for dermatology house staff.
Dr. Zampella said his first reaction to the data was, “What the heck? What are pathologists doing that they are getting needlestick injuries?
“But it makes sense,” he said. “Sometimes they do biopsies, and they do fine-needle aspirations – these kinds of things that we might not be paying as much attention to as we should.”
The finding suggests that nonsurgical specialists should receive more training in injury prevention, he said.
The training should be in person, and it should not just be for first-year residents. “Everybody needs to have refreshers on preventing needlesticks,” he said. “And we have to make sure everyone in the hospital is playing for the same team. Residents are learning, and if they see poor technique by one of their attendings, that’s something they may imitate.”
The study’s primary conclusion regards the importance of seasonality in needlestick and other injuries from sharp instruments.
Among house staff, 9.4% of the injuries occurred in July. The proportion then gradually rose to 10.5% in October before gradually going back down to a low of 6.2% in June.
The difference from one quarter to the next was statistically significant (P = .02).
July is when internships and residencies start, Dr. Zampella pointed out. Among the nonhouse staff, the rate was consistent throughout the year.
This suggests that the beginning of the academic year for trainees was the key factor driving the uptick in injuries, he said.
He said that residents are receiving instruction in injury prevention, but perhaps not at the right time of year. For example, dermatology residents at NYU are given a lecture in needlestick injury prevention in February.
Dr. Zampella has received personal fees from X4 pharmaceuticals. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The rate of injuries with needles and other sharp instruments among hospital staff jumped sharply in July, which suggests the need for safety instruction early in the academic year, researchers say.
“The reason this is important is it gives us an idea of when the best time to intervene might be,” said Jonathan Zampella, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University.
The findings were published online Nov. 4 in a research letter in JAMA Surgery.
Hundreds of thousands of health care workers incur injuries with needles and other sharp instruments every year, which places them at risk for blood-borne infections.
“Especially amongst dermatologists, it’s not a question of if you get stuck, it’s a question of when,” Dr. Zampella said in an interview. “Most have been stuck at some point in their lives.”
Until now, studies of these injuries have mostly depended on surveys, he said. By contrast, for the current study, Dr. Zampella and colleagues used a dataset of injuries reported to NYU Langone Health’s Occupational Health Services.
They identified 5,395 such injuries that occurred between January 2000 and February 2020. The total number was similar among surgical and nonsurgical specialists, but the mean incident rate was 4.7 for every 10 people among the nonsurgical staff versus 9.4 for every 10 people in the surgical staff.
Dr. Zampella and colleagues further found that the highest rate of injury, at 16.0 incidents for every 10 people, occurred among urology house staff, followed by orthopedic surgery staff, with 14.1, and general surgery staff, with 14.0. The lowest staff rates were among psychiatrists (0.3), radiation oncologists (1.1), and neurologists (2.4).
But even some nonsurgical specialties had high rates. For example, the rate was 11.5 for pathology house staff and 11.3 for dermatology house staff.
Dr. Zampella said his first reaction to the data was, “What the heck? What are pathologists doing that they are getting needlestick injuries?
“But it makes sense,” he said. “Sometimes they do biopsies, and they do fine-needle aspirations – these kinds of things that we might not be paying as much attention to as we should.”
The finding suggests that nonsurgical specialists should receive more training in injury prevention, he said.
The training should be in person, and it should not just be for first-year residents. “Everybody needs to have refreshers on preventing needlesticks,” he said. “And we have to make sure everyone in the hospital is playing for the same team. Residents are learning, and if they see poor technique by one of their attendings, that’s something they may imitate.”
The study’s primary conclusion regards the importance of seasonality in needlestick and other injuries from sharp instruments.
Among house staff, 9.4% of the injuries occurred in July. The proportion then gradually rose to 10.5% in October before gradually going back down to a low of 6.2% in June.
The difference from one quarter to the next was statistically significant (P = .02).
July is when internships and residencies start, Dr. Zampella pointed out. Among the nonhouse staff, the rate was consistent throughout the year.
This suggests that the beginning of the academic year for trainees was the key factor driving the uptick in injuries, he said.
He said that residents are receiving instruction in injury prevention, but perhaps not at the right time of year. For example, dermatology residents at NYU are given a lecture in needlestick injury prevention in February.
Dr. Zampella has received personal fees from X4 pharmaceuticals. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The rate of injuries with needles and other sharp instruments among hospital staff jumped sharply in July, which suggests the need for safety instruction early in the academic year, researchers say.
“The reason this is important is it gives us an idea of when the best time to intervene might be,” said Jonathan Zampella, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University.
The findings were published online Nov. 4 in a research letter in JAMA Surgery.
Hundreds of thousands of health care workers incur injuries with needles and other sharp instruments every year, which places them at risk for blood-borne infections.
“Especially amongst dermatologists, it’s not a question of if you get stuck, it’s a question of when,” Dr. Zampella said in an interview. “Most have been stuck at some point in their lives.”
Until now, studies of these injuries have mostly depended on surveys, he said. By contrast, for the current study, Dr. Zampella and colleagues used a dataset of injuries reported to NYU Langone Health’s Occupational Health Services.
They identified 5,395 such injuries that occurred between January 2000 and February 2020. The total number was similar among surgical and nonsurgical specialists, but the mean incident rate was 4.7 for every 10 people among the nonsurgical staff versus 9.4 for every 10 people in the surgical staff.
Dr. Zampella and colleagues further found that the highest rate of injury, at 16.0 incidents for every 10 people, occurred among urology house staff, followed by orthopedic surgery staff, with 14.1, and general surgery staff, with 14.0. The lowest staff rates were among psychiatrists (0.3), radiation oncologists (1.1), and neurologists (2.4).
But even some nonsurgical specialties had high rates. For example, the rate was 11.5 for pathology house staff and 11.3 for dermatology house staff.
Dr. Zampella said his first reaction to the data was, “What the heck? What are pathologists doing that they are getting needlestick injuries?
“But it makes sense,” he said. “Sometimes they do biopsies, and they do fine-needle aspirations – these kinds of things that we might not be paying as much attention to as we should.”
The finding suggests that nonsurgical specialists should receive more training in injury prevention, he said.
The training should be in person, and it should not just be for first-year residents. “Everybody needs to have refreshers on preventing needlesticks,” he said. “And we have to make sure everyone in the hospital is playing for the same team. Residents are learning, and if they see poor technique by one of their attendings, that’s something they may imitate.”
The study’s primary conclusion regards the importance of seasonality in needlestick and other injuries from sharp instruments.
Among house staff, 9.4% of the injuries occurred in July. The proportion then gradually rose to 10.5% in October before gradually going back down to a low of 6.2% in June.
The difference from one quarter to the next was statistically significant (P = .02).
July is when internships and residencies start, Dr. Zampella pointed out. Among the nonhouse staff, the rate was consistent throughout the year.
This suggests that the beginning of the academic year for trainees was the key factor driving the uptick in injuries, he said.
He said that residents are receiving instruction in injury prevention, but perhaps not at the right time of year. For example, dermatology residents at NYU are given a lecture in needlestick injury prevention in February.
Dr. Zampella has received personal fees from X4 pharmaceuticals. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 10% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 later readmitted
About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.
Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.
Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.
Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).
After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).
They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.
The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.
Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.
“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”
But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.
One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.
Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.
Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.
Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).
After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).
They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.
The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.
Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.
“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”
But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.
One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.
Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.
Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.
Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).
After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).
They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.
The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.
Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.
“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”
But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.
One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.