Ankylosing spondylitis

Three autoantibodies to newly discovered axial spondyloarthritis peptides may improve early diagnosis of the disease, according to a cross-sectional cohort study reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria were not intended for diagnosis and do not differentiate well between patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, note the investigators, who conducted their research under senior investigator Veerle Somers, PhD, professor of molecular biology at Hasselt (Belgium) University and vice dean of the School of Life Sciences at Transnationale Universiteit Limburg, also in Hasselt.

“Therefore, for many patients, axSpA diagnosis may be challenging and is often delayed by several years after the occurrence of first clinical symptoms, posing a problem for early treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The investigators used plasma samples from patients with early disease and an axSpA complementary DNA phage display library developed with synovial tissue to screen for IgG antibodies that displayed significantly higher reactivity to plasma pools from the early axSpA patients than healthy controls.

They then assessed presence of the antibodies with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays in a mixed cohort (76 patients with early axSpA having mean disease duration of 2.8 years, 75 control patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, 60 patients with RA, and 94 healthy controls) and in an axSpA-only cohort (174 patients, 79 of whom had early disease with mean disease duration of 1.4 years).

Screening identified antibodies to nine novel peptides – eight peptides showing partial homology to human proteins and one novel axSpA autoantigen, double homeobox protein 4 (DUX4) – that were more commonly present in patients with early axSpA than in healthy controls, Dr. Somers and coinvestigators reported.

Subsequent analyses focused on the three antibodies having the highest positive likelihood ratios for differentiating axSpA from chronic low back pain.

Some 14.2% of the combined group of all patients with early axSpA had at least one antibody in this panel, compared with just 5.3% of the patients with chronic low back pain (P = .0484), corresponding to 95% specificity.

Prevalence did not differ significantly from that in patients with RA (10.0%; P = .5025) or healthy controls (8.4%; P = .2292).

The positive likelihood ratio for confirming early axSpA using the three antibodies was 2.7, on par with the historical ratio of 2.5 seen for C-reactive protein (CRP), the currently used laboratory marker, the investigators noted.

Among the patients with chronic low back pain, the posttest probability for axSpA increased from 79% with presence of inflammatory back pain and positive test results for HLA-B27 and CRP to 91% with addition of testing for the three antibodies.

The researchers proposed that, “in combination with other laboratory markers such as HLA-B27 and CRP, antibodies against our [three peptides] ... could provide a novel tool for the diagnosis of a subset of axSpA patients,” but the three-peptide panel needs to be studied more in larger cohorts of early axSpA patients and controls with low back pain.

Findings in context

“The authors did a number of steps laudably,” James T. Rosenbaum, MD, chair of the division of arthritis and rheumatic diseases and the Edward E. Rosenbaum Professor of Inflammation Research at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, commented in an interview. Specifically, they used a variety of appropriate controls, had discovery and validation sets, achieved a fairly good sample size, and applied the phage library technique.

“Despite this technological tour de force and the need for a sensitive and specific blood test to diagnose nonradiographic axSpA, this study is preliminary,” he cautioned. “For example, the authors found antibodies to DUX4 in 8% of axSpA patients versus 3% of healthy controls, 4% of patients with chronic low back pain, and 7% with RA. It took a combination of antigens to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of the ASAS criteria to diagnose axSpA. For each antigen that was studied, more than 80% of the axSpA patients had no detectable antibodies.”

Importantly, rheumatic diseases are often immune mediated without being autoimmune, calling into question the role of the antibodies, according to Dr. Rosenbaum.

“Even if further studies validate these observations, additional research needs to be done to support the concept that these antibodies cause disease as opposed to being mere epiphenomena as is suggested by the low prevalence,” he concluded. “Current hypotheses as to the cause of ankylosing spondylitis now point to the microbiome and autoinflammatory rather than autoimmune pathways, but the jury is still out.”

Dr. Somers and three coauthors disclosed having a patent pending on the markers. The study was funded by a personal grant from the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology Flanders. Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed that he consults for AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

SOURCE: Quaden D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.1002/art.41427.

Three autoantibodies to newly discovered axial spondyloarthritis peptides may improve early diagnosis of the disease, according to a cross-sectional cohort study reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria were not intended for diagnosis and do not differentiate well between patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, note the investigators, who conducted their research under senior investigator Veerle Somers, PhD, professor of molecular biology at Hasselt (Belgium) University and vice dean of the School of Life Sciences at Transnationale Universiteit Limburg, also in Hasselt.

“Therefore, for many patients, axSpA diagnosis may be challenging and is often delayed by several years after the occurrence of first clinical symptoms, posing a problem for early treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The investigators used plasma samples from patients with early disease and an axSpA complementary DNA phage display library developed with synovial tissue to screen for IgG antibodies that displayed significantly higher reactivity to plasma pools from the early axSpA patients than healthy controls.

They then assessed presence of the antibodies with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays in a mixed cohort (76 patients with early axSpA having mean disease duration of 2.8 years, 75 control patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, 60 patients with RA, and 94 healthy controls) and in an axSpA-only cohort (174 patients, 79 of whom had early disease with mean disease duration of 1.4 years).

Screening identified antibodies to nine novel peptides – eight peptides showing partial homology to human proteins and one novel axSpA autoantigen, double homeobox protein 4 (DUX4) – that were more commonly present in patients with early axSpA than in healthy controls, Dr. Somers and coinvestigators reported.

Subsequent analyses focused on the three antibodies having the highest positive likelihood ratios for differentiating axSpA from chronic low back pain.

Some 14.2% of the combined group of all patients with early axSpA had at least one antibody in this panel, compared with just 5.3% of the patients with chronic low back pain (P = .0484), corresponding to 95% specificity.

Prevalence did not differ significantly from that in patients with RA (10.0%; P = .5025) or healthy controls (8.4%; P = .2292).

The positive likelihood ratio for confirming early axSpA using the three antibodies was 2.7, on par with the historical ratio of 2.5 seen for C-reactive protein (CRP), the currently used laboratory marker, the investigators noted.

Among the patients with chronic low back pain, the posttest probability for axSpA increased from 79% with presence of inflammatory back pain and positive test results for HLA-B27 and CRP to 91% with addition of testing for the three antibodies.

The researchers proposed that, “in combination with other laboratory markers such as HLA-B27 and CRP, antibodies against our [three peptides] ... could provide a novel tool for the diagnosis of a subset of axSpA patients,” but the three-peptide panel needs to be studied more in larger cohorts of early axSpA patients and controls with low back pain.

Findings in context

“The authors did a number of steps laudably,” James T. Rosenbaum, MD, chair of the division of arthritis and rheumatic diseases and the Edward E. Rosenbaum Professor of Inflammation Research at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, commented in an interview. Specifically, they used a variety of appropriate controls, had discovery and validation sets, achieved a fairly good sample size, and applied the phage library technique.

“Despite this technological tour de force and the need for a sensitive and specific blood test to diagnose nonradiographic axSpA, this study is preliminary,” he cautioned. “For example, the authors found antibodies to DUX4 in 8% of axSpA patients versus 3% of healthy controls, 4% of patients with chronic low back pain, and 7% with RA. It took a combination of antigens to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of the ASAS criteria to diagnose axSpA. For each antigen that was studied, more than 80% of the axSpA patients had no detectable antibodies.”

Importantly, rheumatic diseases are often immune mediated without being autoimmune, calling into question the role of the antibodies, according to Dr. Rosenbaum.

“Even if further studies validate these observations, additional research needs to be done to support the concept that these antibodies cause disease as opposed to being mere epiphenomena as is suggested by the low prevalence,” he concluded. “Current hypotheses as to the cause of ankylosing spondylitis now point to the microbiome and autoinflammatory rather than autoimmune pathways, but the jury is still out.”

Dr. Somers and three coauthors disclosed having a patent pending on the markers. The study was funded by a personal grant from the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology Flanders. Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed that he consults for AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

SOURCE: Quaden D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.1002/art.41427.

Three autoantibodies to newly discovered axial spondyloarthritis peptides may improve early diagnosis of the disease, according to a cross-sectional cohort study reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria were not intended for diagnosis and do not differentiate well between patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, note the investigators, who conducted their research under senior investigator Veerle Somers, PhD, professor of molecular biology at Hasselt (Belgium) University and vice dean of the School of Life Sciences at Transnationale Universiteit Limburg, also in Hasselt.

“Therefore, for many patients, axSpA diagnosis may be challenging and is often delayed by several years after the occurrence of first clinical symptoms, posing a problem for early treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The investigators used plasma samples from patients with early disease and an axSpA complementary DNA phage display library developed with synovial tissue to screen for IgG antibodies that displayed significantly higher reactivity to plasma pools from the early axSpA patients than healthy controls.

They then assessed presence of the antibodies with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays in a mixed cohort (76 patients with early axSpA having mean disease duration of 2.8 years, 75 control patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, 60 patients with RA, and 94 healthy controls) and in an axSpA-only cohort (174 patients, 79 of whom had early disease with mean disease duration of 1.4 years).

Screening identified antibodies to nine novel peptides – eight peptides showing partial homology to human proteins and one novel axSpA autoantigen, double homeobox protein 4 (DUX4) – that were more commonly present in patients with early axSpA than in healthy controls, Dr. Somers and coinvestigators reported.

Subsequent analyses focused on the three antibodies having the highest positive likelihood ratios for differentiating axSpA from chronic low back pain.

Some 14.2% of the combined group of all patients with early axSpA had at least one antibody in this panel, compared with just 5.3% of the patients with chronic low back pain (P = .0484), corresponding to 95% specificity.

Prevalence did not differ significantly from that in patients with RA (10.0%; P = .5025) or healthy controls (8.4%; P = .2292).

The positive likelihood ratio for confirming early axSpA using the three antibodies was 2.7, on par with the historical ratio of 2.5 seen for C-reactive protein (CRP), the currently used laboratory marker, the investigators noted.

Among the patients with chronic low back pain, the posttest probability for axSpA increased from 79% with presence of inflammatory back pain and positive test results for HLA-B27 and CRP to 91% with addition of testing for the three antibodies.

The researchers proposed that, “in combination with other laboratory markers such as HLA-B27 and CRP, antibodies against our [three peptides] ... could provide a novel tool for the diagnosis of a subset of axSpA patients,” but the three-peptide panel needs to be studied more in larger cohorts of early axSpA patients and controls with low back pain.

Findings in context

“The authors did a number of steps laudably,” James T. Rosenbaum, MD, chair of the division of arthritis and rheumatic diseases and the Edward E. Rosenbaum Professor of Inflammation Research at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, commented in an interview. Specifically, they used a variety of appropriate controls, had discovery and validation sets, achieved a fairly good sample size, and applied the phage library technique.

“Despite this technological tour de force and the need for a sensitive and specific blood test to diagnose nonradiographic axSpA, this study is preliminary,” he cautioned. “For example, the authors found antibodies to DUX4 in 8% of axSpA patients versus 3% of healthy controls, 4% of patients with chronic low back pain, and 7% with RA. It took a combination of antigens to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of the ASAS criteria to diagnose axSpA. For each antigen that was studied, more than 80% of the axSpA patients had no detectable antibodies.”

Importantly, rheumatic diseases are often immune mediated without being autoimmune, calling into question the role of the antibodies, according to Dr. Rosenbaum.

“Even if further studies validate these observations, additional research needs to be done to support the concept that these antibodies cause disease as opposed to being mere epiphenomena as is suggested by the low prevalence,” he concluded. “Current hypotheses as to the cause of ankylosing spondylitis now point to the microbiome and autoinflammatory rather than autoimmune pathways, but the jury is still out.”

Dr. Somers and three coauthors disclosed having a patent pending on the markers. The study was funded by a personal grant from the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology Flanders. Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed that he consults for AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

SOURCE: Quaden D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jul 8. doi: 10.1002/art.41427.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.

“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).

They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.

In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.

Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.

The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.

SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

A German registry is providing new insight into the characteristics and real-world diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events of cancer therapy. Its first findings were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“We have limited knowledge on the interrelationships between malignant and rheumatic diseases on both the clinical and molecular level, and we have a large unmet need for management guidelines in the case of the coincidence of both disease entities,” noted lead author Karolina Benesova, MD, of the department of hematology, oncology, and rheumatology at University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany).

The TRheuMa registry – Therapy-Induced Rheumatic Symptoms in Patients with Malignancy – is one of three registries in a multicenter observational project exploring various contexts between malignant and rheumatic diseases. Over its first 22 months, the registry recruited 69 patients having rheumatic symptoms as a result of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy or other cancer therapies.
 

Registry findings

The largest shares of patients had non–small cell lung cancer (38%) or melanoma (33%), Dr. Benesova reported. The immune checkpoint inhibitors most commonly received were pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The immune-related adverse events usually presented with symptoms of de novo spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis (42%), late-onset RA (17%), or polymyalgia rheumatica (14%). But 16% of the patients were experiencing a flare of a preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease.

Laboratory findings differed somewhat from those of classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, according to Dr. Benesova. Specific findings were rare; in particular, most patients did not have detectable autoantibodies. However, 76% had an elevated C-reactive protein level and 39% had an elevated soluble CD25 level. In addition, nearly all patients (96%) undergoing joint ultrasound had pathologic findings.

“Based on our experiences from interdisciplinary care together with our local oncologists, we have developed a therapeutic algorithm for rheumatic immune-related adverse events,” she reported, noting that the algorithm is consistent with recently published recommendations in this area.

The large majority of patients were adequately treated with prednisone at a dose greater than 10 mg (40%) or at a dose of 10 mg or less with or without an NSAID (40%), while some received NSAID monotherapy (14%).

“We have a growing proportion of patients on conventional or biological [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Benesova noted. “These are mostly patients with preexisting rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease or highly suspected de novo classical rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease under checkpoint inhibitor therapy.”

Patients with melanoma having a rheumatic immune-related adverse event had a better response to their therapy than historical counterparts who did not have such events: 39% of the former had a complete response, relative to merely 4% of the latter.

Only a small proportion of patients overall (9%) had to discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy because of their adverse event, and some of them may be eligible for rechallenge if their cancer progresses, Dr. Benesova noted.

“There is still a lot to be done,” she stated, such as better elucidating the nature of these adverse events [whether transient side effects or a triggering of chronic rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases], the need for a defensive treatment strategy, and the advisability of closer monitoring of high-risk patients given immune checkpoint inhibitors. “We are aiming at solving these questions in the next few years,” she concluded.

Findings in context

“Registries are important to gain prospective data on patient outcomes,” Sabina Sandigursky, MD, an instructor in the division of rheumatology at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, commented in an interview. “One must be careful, while interpreting these data, especially since they are not randomized, controlled trials.”

Patterns may differ at other centers, too, she pointed out. “The German registry reported a predominance of spondyloarthritis-like disease; however, our patients have a predominance of small-joint involvement. It is unclear what accounts for this difference.”

Individual institutions in North America are similarly collecting data on this patient population, with efforts underway to compile those data to provide a larger picture, according to Dr. Sandigursky.

“Many of the syndromes that we consider to be rheumatic immune-related adverse events have been well described by groups from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and European Union,” she concluded. “From this registry, we can observe how patients are being treated in real time since this information is largely consensus based.”

The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Benesova disclosed grant/research support from AbbVie, Novartis, Rheumaliga Baden-Wurttemberg, and the University of Heidelberg, and consultancies, speaker fees, and/or travel reimbursements from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Some of her coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with industry. Dr. Sandigursky disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benesova K et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79[suppl 1]:168-9, Abstract OP0270.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to an announcement from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

FDA approval was based on results of the 2-year PREVENT trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 555 adults with active nr-axSpA who received a loading dose of 150 mg secukinumab subcutaneously weekly for 4 weeks, then maintenance dosing with 150 mg secukinumab monthly; 150 mg secukinumab monthly with no loading dose; or placebo. Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNF inhibitor. A total of 501 patients had not previously taken a biologic medication.

A significantly greater proportion of biologic-naive patients taking secukinumab in both active treatment arm met the trial’s primary endpoint of at least a 40% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria versus placebo after 52 weeks. Both loading and nonloading arms saw significant improvements in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scores, compared with those in the placebo group.

The safety profile of secukinumab in PREVENT was shown to be consistent with previous clinical trials, with no new safety signals detected.

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin-17A, also received European Medicines Agency approval for the treatment of nr-axSpA in April 2020. It is already approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to an announcement from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

FDA approval was based on results of the 2-year PREVENT trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 555 adults with active nr-axSpA who received a loading dose of 150 mg secukinumab subcutaneously weekly for 4 weeks, then maintenance dosing with 150 mg secukinumab monthly; 150 mg secukinumab monthly with no loading dose; or placebo. Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNF inhibitor. A total of 501 patients had not previously taken a biologic medication.

A significantly greater proportion of biologic-naive patients taking secukinumab in both active treatment arm met the trial’s primary endpoint of at least a 40% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria versus placebo after 52 weeks. Both loading and nonloading arms saw significant improvements in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scores, compared with those in the placebo group.

The safety profile of secukinumab in PREVENT was shown to be consistent with previous clinical trials, with no new safety signals detected.

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin-17A, also received European Medicines Agency approval for the treatment of nr-axSpA in April 2020. It is already approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to an announcement from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

FDA approval was based on results of the 2-year PREVENT trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 555 adults with active nr-axSpA who received a loading dose of 150 mg secukinumab subcutaneously weekly for 4 weeks, then maintenance dosing with 150 mg secukinumab monthly; 150 mg secukinumab monthly with no loading dose; or placebo. Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNF inhibitor. A total of 501 patients had not previously taken a biologic medication.

A significantly greater proportion of biologic-naive patients taking secukinumab in both active treatment arm met the trial’s primary endpoint of at least a 40% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria versus placebo after 52 weeks. Both loading and nonloading arms saw significant improvements in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scores, compared with those in the placebo group.

The safety profile of secukinumab in PREVENT was shown to be consistent with previous clinical trials, with no new safety signals detected.

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin-17A, also received European Medicines Agency approval for the treatment of nr-axSpA in April 2020. It is already approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.