Rheumatology News

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

New findings suggest the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine can reduce the risk of an immunized person unknowingly passing along the virus to others.

Johnson & Johnson

The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.

“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”

The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.

The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.

The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.

In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.

If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.

Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New findings suggest the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine can reduce the risk of an immunized person unknowingly passing along the virus to others.

Johnson & Johnson

The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.

“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”

The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.

The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.

The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.

In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.

If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.

Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New findings suggest the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine can reduce the risk of an immunized person unknowingly passing along the virus to others.

Johnson & Johnson

The single-dose vaccine reduces the risk of asymptomatic transmission by 74% at 71 days, compared with placebo, according to documents released today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The decrease in asymptomatic transmission is very welcome news too in curbing the spread of the virus,” Phyllis Tien, MD, told this news organization.

“While the earlier press release reported that the vaccine was effective against preventing severe COVID-19 disease, as well as hospitalizations and death, this new data shows that the vaccine can also decrease transmission, which is very important on a public health level,” said Dr. Tien, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It is extremely important in terms of getting to herd immunity,” Paul Goepfert, MD, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said in an interview. “It means that this vaccine is likely preventing subsequent transmission after a single dose, which could have huge implications once we get the majority of folks vaccinated.”

The FDA cautioned that the numbers of participants included in the study are relatively small and need to be verified. However, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine might not be the only product offering this advantage. Early data suggest that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also decreases transmission, providing further evidence that the protection offered by immunization goes beyond the individual.

The new analyses were provided by the FDA in advance of its review of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The agency plans to fully address the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, including evaluating its safety and efficacy.

The agency’s decision on whether or not to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could come as early as Friday evening or Saturday.

In addition to the newly released data, officials are likely to discuss phase 3 data, released Jan. 29, that reveal an 85% efficacy for the vaccine against severe COVID-19 illness globally, including data from South America, South Africa, and the United States. When the analysis was restricted to data from U.S. participants, the trial showed a 73% efficacy against moderate to severe COVID-19.

If and when the FDA grants an EUA, it remains unclear how much of the new vaccine will be immediately available. Initially, Johnson & Johnson predicted 18 million doses would be ready by the end of February, but others stated the figure will be closer to 2-4 million. The manufacturer’s contract with the U.S. government stipulates production of 100-million doses by the end of June.

Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the SF VA HealthCare System. Dr. Goepfert has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 50% of health care workers infected with SARS-CoV-2 report that their sense of smell has not returned to normal an average of 5 months post infection, new research shows.

Nenad Cavoski/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The findings illustrate that olfactory problems are common not only during the acute COVID-19 phase but also “in the long run” and that these problems should be “taken into consideration” when following up these patients, study investigator Johannes Frasnelli, MD, professor, department of anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, said in an interview.

Loss of the sense of smell can affect quality of life because it affects eating and drinking, and may even be dangerous, said Dr. Frasnelli. “If your sense of smell is impaired, you may unknowingly eat spoiled food, or you may not smell smoke or gas in your home,” he said. In addition, Dr. Frasnelli noted that an impaired sense of smell is associated with higher rates of depression. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in April.

‘Striking’ finding

Research shows that about 60% of patients with COVID-19 lose their sense of smell to some degree during the acute phase of the disease. “But we wanted to go further and look at the longer-term effects of loss of smell and taste,” said Dr. Frasnelli.

The analysis included 813 health care workers in the province of Quebec. For all the patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed through testing with a nasopharyngeal viral swab.

Participants completed a 64-item online questionnaire that asked about three senses: olfactory; gustatory, which includes tastes such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, savory and umami; and trigeminal, which includes sensations such as spiciness of hot peppers and “coolness” of mint.

They were asked to rate these on a scale of 0 (no perception) to 10 (very strong perception) before the infection, during the infection, and currently. They were also asked about other symptoms, including fatigue.

Most respondents had been infected in the first wave of the virus in March and April of 2020 and responded to the questionnaire an average of 5 months later.

The vast majority of respondents (84.1%) were women, which Dr. Frasnelli said was not surprising because women predominate in the health care field.

The analysis showed that average smell ratings were 8.98 before infection, 2.85 during the acute phase, and 7.41 when respondents answered the questionnaire. The sense of taste was less affected and recovered faster than did the sense of smell. Results for taste were 9.20 before infection, 3.59 during the acute phase, and 8.05 after COVID-19.

Among 580 respondents who indicated a compromised sense of smell during the acute phase, the average smell rating when answering the questionnaire was 6.89, compared to 9.03 before the infection. More than half (51.2%) reported not regaining full olfactory function.

The fact that the sense of smell had not returned to normal for half the participants so long after being infected is “novel and quite striking,” said Dr. Frasnelli.

However, he noted, this doesn’t necessarily mean all those with a compromised sense of smell “have huge problems.” In some cases, he said, the problem “is more subtle.”
 

Not a CNS problem?

Respondents also completed a chemosensory dysfunction home test (CD-HT). They were asked to prepare common household food items, such as peanut butter, sugar, salt, and vinegar, in a particular way – for example, to add sugar or salt to water – and provide feedback on how they smell and taste.

For this CD-HT analysis, 18.4% of respondents reported having persistent loss of smell. This, Dr. Frasnelli said, adds to evidence from self-reported responses and suggests that in some cases, the problem is more than senses not returning to normal.

“From the questionnaires, roughly 50% said their sense of smell is still not back to normal, and when we look at the CD home test, we see that almost 20% of subjects indeed have pretty strong impairment of their sense of smell,” he said.

The results showed no sex differences, although Dr. Frasnelli noted that most of the sample were women. “It’s tricky to look at the data with regard to sex because it’s a bit skewed,” he said.

Male respondents were older than female participants, but there was no difference in impairment between age groups. Dr. Frasnelli said this was “quite interesting,” inasmuch as older people usually lose some sense of smell.

The researchers have not yet examined whether the results differ by type of health care worker.

They also have not examined in detail whether infection severity affects the risk for extended olfactory impairment. Although some research suggests that the problem with smell is more common in less severe cases, Dr. Frasnelli noted this could be because loss of smell is not a huge problem for patients battling grave health problems.

As for other symptoms, many respondents reported lingering fatigue; some reported debilitating fatigue, said Dr. Frasnelli. However, he cautioned that this is difficult to interpret, because the participants were health care workers, many of whom returned to work during the pandemic and perhaps had not fully rested.

He also noted that he and his colleagues have not “made the link” between impaired smell and the degree of fatigue.

The COVID-19 virus appears to attack supporting sustentacular cells in the olfactory epithelium, not nerve cells.

“Right now, it seems that the smell problem is not a central nervous system problem but a peripheral problem,” said Dr. Frasnelli. “But we don’t know for sure; it may be that the virus somehow gets into the brain and some symptoms are caused by the effects of the infection on the brain.”

The researchers will extend their research with another questionnaire to assess senses 10-12 months after COVID-19.

Limitations of the study include the subjective nature of the smell and taste ratings and the single time point at which data were collected.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the research in an interview, Thomas Hummel, MD, professor, smell and taste clinic, department of otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden (Germany), said the new results regarding loss of smell after COVID-19 are “very congruent” with what he and his colleagues have observed.

Research shows that up to one in five of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience olfactory loss. “While the numbers may vary a bit from study to study or lab to lab, I think 5% to 20% of post–COVID-19 patients exhibit long-term olfactory loss,” Dr. Hummel said.

His group has observed that “many more are not back to normal,” which conforms with what Dr. Frasnelli’s study reveals, said Dr. Hummel.

Also commenting on the research, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, professor of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said the study was relatively large and the results “interesting.”

Although it “provides more evidence there’s a subset of patients with symptoms even well past the acute phase” of COVID-19, the results are “mostly confirmatory” and include “nothing super surprising,” Dr. Tyler said in an interview.

However, the investigators did attempt to make the study “a little more quantitative” and “to confirm the self-reporting with their validated CD home test,” he said.

Dr. Tyler wondered how representative the sample was and whether the study drew more participants with impaired senses. “If I had a loss of smell or taste, maybe I would be more likely to respond to such a survey,” he said.

He also noted the difficulty of separating loss of smell from loss of taste.

“If you lose your sense of smell, things don’t taste right, so it can be confounding as to how to separate out those two,” he noted.
The study was supported by the Foundation of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Province of Quebec. Dr. Frasnelli has received royalties from Styriabooks in Austria for a book on olfaction published in 2019 and has received honoraria for speaking engagements. Dr. Hummel and Dr. Tyler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 50% of health care workers infected with SARS-CoV-2 report that their sense of smell has not returned to normal an average of 5 months post infection, new research shows.

Nenad Cavoski/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The findings illustrate that olfactory problems are common not only during the acute COVID-19 phase but also “in the long run” and that these problems should be “taken into consideration” when following up these patients, study investigator Johannes Frasnelli, MD, professor, department of anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, said in an interview.

Loss of the sense of smell can affect quality of life because it affects eating and drinking, and may even be dangerous, said Dr. Frasnelli. “If your sense of smell is impaired, you may unknowingly eat spoiled food, or you may not smell smoke or gas in your home,” he said. In addition, Dr. Frasnelli noted that an impaired sense of smell is associated with higher rates of depression. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in April.

‘Striking’ finding

Research shows that about 60% of patients with COVID-19 lose their sense of smell to some degree during the acute phase of the disease. “But we wanted to go further and look at the longer-term effects of loss of smell and taste,” said Dr. Frasnelli.

The analysis included 813 health care workers in the province of Quebec. For all the patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed through testing with a nasopharyngeal viral swab.

Participants completed a 64-item online questionnaire that asked about three senses: olfactory; gustatory, which includes tastes such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, savory and umami; and trigeminal, which includes sensations such as spiciness of hot peppers and “coolness” of mint.

They were asked to rate these on a scale of 0 (no perception) to 10 (very strong perception) before the infection, during the infection, and currently. They were also asked about other symptoms, including fatigue.

Most respondents had been infected in the first wave of the virus in March and April of 2020 and responded to the questionnaire an average of 5 months later.

The vast majority of respondents (84.1%) were women, which Dr. Frasnelli said was not surprising because women predominate in the health care field.

The analysis showed that average smell ratings were 8.98 before infection, 2.85 during the acute phase, and 7.41 when respondents answered the questionnaire. The sense of taste was less affected and recovered faster than did the sense of smell. Results for taste were 9.20 before infection, 3.59 during the acute phase, and 8.05 after COVID-19.

Among 580 respondents who indicated a compromised sense of smell during the acute phase, the average smell rating when answering the questionnaire was 6.89, compared to 9.03 before the infection. More than half (51.2%) reported not regaining full olfactory function.

The fact that the sense of smell had not returned to normal for half the participants so long after being infected is “novel and quite striking,” said Dr. Frasnelli.

However, he noted, this doesn’t necessarily mean all those with a compromised sense of smell “have huge problems.” In some cases, he said, the problem “is more subtle.”
 

Not a CNS problem?

Respondents also completed a chemosensory dysfunction home test (CD-HT). They were asked to prepare common household food items, such as peanut butter, sugar, salt, and vinegar, in a particular way – for example, to add sugar or salt to water – and provide feedback on how they smell and taste.

For this CD-HT analysis, 18.4% of respondents reported having persistent loss of smell. This, Dr. Frasnelli said, adds to evidence from self-reported responses and suggests that in some cases, the problem is more than senses not returning to normal.

“From the questionnaires, roughly 50% said their sense of smell is still not back to normal, and when we look at the CD home test, we see that almost 20% of subjects indeed have pretty strong impairment of their sense of smell,” he said.

The results showed no sex differences, although Dr. Frasnelli noted that most of the sample were women. “It’s tricky to look at the data with regard to sex because it’s a bit skewed,” he said.

Male respondents were older than female participants, but there was no difference in impairment between age groups. Dr. Frasnelli said this was “quite interesting,” inasmuch as older people usually lose some sense of smell.

The researchers have not yet examined whether the results differ by type of health care worker.

They also have not examined in detail whether infection severity affects the risk for extended olfactory impairment. Although some research suggests that the problem with smell is more common in less severe cases, Dr. Frasnelli noted this could be because loss of smell is not a huge problem for patients battling grave health problems.

As for other symptoms, many respondents reported lingering fatigue; some reported debilitating fatigue, said Dr. Frasnelli. However, he cautioned that this is difficult to interpret, because the participants were health care workers, many of whom returned to work during the pandemic and perhaps had not fully rested.

He also noted that he and his colleagues have not “made the link” between impaired smell and the degree of fatigue.

The COVID-19 virus appears to attack supporting sustentacular cells in the olfactory epithelium, not nerve cells.

“Right now, it seems that the smell problem is not a central nervous system problem but a peripheral problem,” said Dr. Frasnelli. “But we don’t know for sure; it may be that the virus somehow gets into the brain and some symptoms are caused by the effects of the infection on the brain.”

The researchers will extend their research with another questionnaire to assess senses 10-12 months after COVID-19.

Limitations of the study include the subjective nature of the smell and taste ratings and the single time point at which data were collected.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the research in an interview, Thomas Hummel, MD, professor, smell and taste clinic, department of otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden (Germany), said the new results regarding loss of smell after COVID-19 are “very congruent” with what he and his colleagues have observed.

Research shows that up to one in five of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience olfactory loss. “While the numbers may vary a bit from study to study or lab to lab, I think 5% to 20% of post–COVID-19 patients exhibit long-term olfactory loss,” Dr. Hummel said.

His group has observed that “many more are not back to normal,” which conforms with what Dr. Frasnelli’s study reveals, said Dr. Hummel.

Also commenting on the research, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, professor of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said the study was relatively large and the results “interesting.”

Although it “provides more evidence there’s a subset of patients with symptoms even well past the acute phase” of COVID-19, the results are “mostly confirmatory” and include “nothing super surprising,” Dr. Tyler said in an interview.

However, the investigators did attempt to make the study “a little more quantitative” and “to confirm the self-reporting with their validated CD home test,” he said.

Dr. Tyler wondered how representative the sample was and whether the study drew more participants with impaired senses. “If I had a loss of smell or taste, maybe I would be more likely to respond to such a survey,” he said.

He also noted the difficulty of separating loss of smell from loss of taste.

“If you lose your sense of smell, things don’t taste right, so it can be confounding as to how to separate out those two,” he noted.
The study was supported by the Foundation of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Province of Quebec. Dr. Frasnelli has received royalties from Styriabooks in Austria for a book on olfaction published in 2019 and has received honoraria for speaking engagements. Dr. Hummel and Dr. Tyler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 50% of health care workers infected with SARS-CoV-2 report that their sense of smell has not returned to normal an average of 5 months post infection, new research shows.

Nenad Cavoski/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The findings illustrate that olfactory problems are common not only during the acute COVID-19 phase but also “in the long run” and that these problems should be “taken into consideration” when following up these patients, study investigator Johannes Frasnelli, MD, professor, department of anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, said in an interview.

Loss of the sense of smell can affect quality of life because it affects eating and drinking, and may even be dangerous, said Dr. Frasnelli. “If your sense of smell is impaired, you may unknowingly eat spoiled food, or you may not smell smoke or gas in your home,” he said. In addition, Dr. Frasnelli noted that an impaired sense of smell is associated with higher rates of depression. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in April.

‘Striking’ finding

Research shows that about 60% of patients with COVID-19 lose their sense of smell to some degree during the acute phase of the disease. “But we wanted to go further and look at the longer-term effects of loss of smell and taste,” said Dr. Frasnelli.

The analysis included 813 health care workers in the province of Quebec. For all the patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed through testing with a nasopharyngeal viral swab.

Participants completed a 64-item online questionnaire that asked about three senses: olfactory; gustatory, which includes tastes such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, savory and umami; and trigeminal, which includes sensations such as spiciness of hot peppers and “coolness” of mint.

They were asked to rate these on a scale of 0 (no perception) to 10 (very strong perception) before the infection, during the infection, and currently. They were also asked about other symptoms, including fatigue.

Most respondents had been infected in the first wave of the virus in March and April of 2020 and responded to the questionnaire an average of 5 months later.

The vast majority of respondents (84.1%) were women, which Dr. Frasnelli said was not surprising because women predominate in the health care field.

The analysis showed that average smell ratings were 8.98 before infection, 2.85 during the acute phase, and 7.41 when respondents answered the questionnaire. The sense of taste was less affected and recovered faster than did the sense of smell. Results for taste were 9.20 before infection, 3.59 during the acute phase, and 8.05 after COVID-19.

Among 580 respondents who indicated a compromised sense of smell during the acute phase, the average smell rating when answering the questionnaire was 6.89, compared to 9.03 before the infection. More than half (51.2%) reported not regaining full olfactory function.

The fact that the sense of smell had not returned to normal for half the participants so long after being infected is “novel and quite striking,” said Dr. Frasnelli.

However, he noted, this doesn’t necessarily mean all those with a compromised sense of smell “have huge problems.” In some cases, he said, the problem “is more subtle.”
 

Not a CNS problem?

Respondents also completed a chemosensory dysfunction home test (CD-HT). They were asked to prepare common household food items, such as peanut butter, sugar, salt, and vinegar, in a particular way – for example, to add sugar or salt to water – and provide feedback on how they smell and taste.

For this CD-HT analysis, 18.4% of respondents reported having persistent loss of smell. This, Dr. Frasnelli said, adds to evidence from self-reported responses and suggests that in some cases, the problem is more than senses not returning to normal.

“From the questionnaires, roughly 50% said their sense of smell is still not back to normal, and when we look at the CD home test, we see that almost 20% of subjects indeed have pretty strong impairment of their sense of smell,” he said.

The results showed no sex differences, although Dr. Frasnelli noted that most of the sample were women. “It’s tricky to look at the data with regard to sex because it’s a bit skewed,” he said.

Male respondents were older than female participants, but there was no difference in impairment between age groups. Dr. Frasnelli said this was “quite interesting,” inasmuch as older people usually lose some sense of smell.

The researchers have not yet examined whether the results differ by type of health care worker.

They also have not examined in detail whether infection severity affects the risk for extended olfactory impairment. Although some research suggests that the problem with smell is more common in less severe cases, Dr. Frasnelli noted this could be because loss of smell is not a huge problem for patients battling grave health problems.

As for other symptoms, many respondents reported lingering fatigue; some reported debilitating fatigue, said Dr. Frasnelli. However, he cautioned that this is difficult to interpret, because the participants were health care workers, many of whom returned to work during the pandemic and perhaps had not fully rested.

He also noted that he and his colleagues have not “made the link” between impaired smell and the degree of fatigue.

The COVID-19 virus appears to attack supporting sustentacular cells in the olfactory epithelium, not nerve cells.

“Right now, it seems that the smell problem is not a central nervous system problem but a peripheral problem,” said Dr. Frasnelli. “But we don’t know for sure; it may be that the virus somehow gets into the brain and some symptoms are caused by the effects of the infection on the brain.”

The researchers will extend their research with another questionnaire to assess senses 10-12 months after COVID-19.

Limitations of the study include the subjective nature of the smell and taste ratings and the single time point at which data were collected.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the research in an interview, Thomas Hummel, MD, professor, smell and taste clinic, department of otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden (Germany), said the new results regarding loss of smell after COVID-19 are “very congruent” with what he and his colleagues have observed.

Research shows that up to one in five of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience olfactory loss. “While the numbers may vary a bit from study to study or lab to lab, I think 5% to 20% of post–COVID-19 patients exhibit long-term olfactory loss,” Dr. Hummel said.

His group has observed that “many more are not back to normal,” which conforms with what Dr. Frasnelli’s study reveals, said Dr. Hummel.

Also commenting on the research, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, professor of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said the study was relatively large and the results “interesting.”

Although it “provides more evidence there’s a subset of patients with symptoms even well past the acute phase” of COVID-19, the results are “mostly confirmatory” and include “nothing super surprising,” Dr. Tyler said in an interview.

However, the investigators did attempt to make the study “a little more quantitative” and “to confirm the self-reporting with their validated CD home test,” he said.

Dr. Tyler wondered how representative the sample was and whether the study drew more participants with impaired senses. “If I had a loss of smell or taste, maybe I would be more likely to respond to such a survey,” he said.

He also noted the difficulty of separating loss of smell from loss of taste.

“If you lose your sense of smell, things don’t taste right, so it can be confounding as to how to separate out those two,” he noted.
The study was supported by the Foundation of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Province of Quebec. Dr. Frasnelli has received royalties from Styriabooks in Austria for a book on olfaction published in 2019 and has received honoraria for speaking engagements. Dr. Hummel and Dr. Tyler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 22 updated its October 2020 guidance for manufacturers developing COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments in the wake of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
 

Tailoring may be necessary

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.

In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.

Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.

Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
 

Variants and testing

The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.

The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.

However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
 

Updated guidance for therapeutics

The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”

While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.

The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”

Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 22 updated its October 2020 guidance for manufacturers developing COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments in the wake of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
 

Tailoring may be necessary

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.

In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.

Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.

Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
 

Variants and testing

The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.

The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.

However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
 

Updated guidance for therapeutics

The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”

While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.

The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”

Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Feb. 22 updated its October 2020 guidance for manufacturers developing COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments in the wake of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
 

Tailoring may be necessary

Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.

In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.

Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.

Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
 

Variants and testing

The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.

The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.

However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
 

Updated guidance for therapeutics

The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.

“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”

While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.

The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”

Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.

The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.

“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.

“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.

“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.

Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.

To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.

Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.

Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.

“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.

Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.

Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.

During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).

“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.

Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”

The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.

More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.

The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.

“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.

“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.

“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.

Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.

To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.

Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.

Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.

“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.

Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.

Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.

During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).

“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.

Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”

The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.

More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.

Courtesy National Psoriasis Foundation

Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.

The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.

“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.

“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.

“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.

“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.

Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.

To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.

Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.

Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.

“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.

Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.

Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.

During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).

“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.

Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”

The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.

Positive findings from frozen sections of a first temporal artery biopsy can effectively identify giant cell arteritis, ruling out in those cases the need to perform a second biopsy on the contralateral side and arguing against the use of simultaneous bilateral biopsies, according to results from a retrospective study of nearly 800 patients who underwent the procedure at the Mayo Clinic during 2010-2018.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Although temporal artery biopsy (TAB) remains the standard diagnostic test for giant cell arteritis (GCA), second TAB procedures are often performed in patients with a high level of suspicion for GCA, which may result in unnecessary treatments and complications, Devon A. Cohen, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote. (Dr. Cohen is now a clinical fellow in ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.)

At the Mayo Clinic, TAB specimens are first examined with frozen sections at the time of the biopsy; this process, followed within days by formalin-fixed tissue permanent sections, is unique to Mayo. “A frozen section–guided sequential TAB is commonly performed, with the results of the first biopsy obtained within minutes, which determines the need for evaluation of the contralateral side,” the researchers said. However, the use of frozen sections to evaluate patients with GCA has not been well studied.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, the researchers identified TAB patients aged 40 years and older who underwent TAB procedures between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 1, 2018, at the Mayo Clinic. The average age of the patients was 72 years, and 41% were men.
 

Strong positive predictions from frozen sections

The researchers analyzed 1,162 TABs from 795 patients using frozen and permanent histologic sections.

Overall, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive permanent section findings, and 103 (86.6%) of these patients also had positive frozen section findings, including 4 false positives and 20 false negatives. The frozen section specificity and sensitivity was 99.4% and 83.2%, respectively, for detecting inflammation suggestive of GCA, and the positive and negative predictive values were 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios for frozen section were 140.6 and 0.17, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, the odds of a positive permanent section TAB significantly increased with age (odds ratio, 1.04), vision loss (OR, 2.72), diplopia (OR, 3.33), headache (OR, 2.32), weight loss (OR, 2.37), and anorexia (OR, 5.65).

A total of 60 patients underwent bilateral TABs, and 307 patients underwent bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs; the discordance rates based on permanent sections were 5.0% and 5.5%, respectively.

Those discordance rates are “an important result applying to everyone working with patients suspected for GCA,” Patricia Chévez-Barrios, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “This is on the low end of what was previously published (3%-40%) and supports the relative low need for bilateral synchronous TAB for the diagnosis of GCA.”

A key issue in GCA diagnosis is the need to confirm inflammation, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “The surgeon must obtain a significant portion of the artery, and the pathologist should review several sections and levels of the tissue to confidently say whether there is inflammation or no.”
 

Frozen sections can spare patients from second procedures

The findings suggest a role for frozen section to help to determine whether a unilateral or bilateral simultaneous TAB should be performed, the study authors noted.

“If the frozen section is positive on the first TAB, a contralateral TAB is deferred, given the very low false-positive rate (0.6%). However, if the frozen section does not align with the permanent section result, in particular if the frozen section is positive but permanent section is negative, the patient returns for a TAB on the contralateral side if the GCA suspicion remains high,” they said.

The use of frozen sections requires ideal conditions in order to be effective, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. The Mayo Clinic approach “is only possible because of their appropriate hospital setting, the training of the histotechnologists, and the experience of the pathologists interpreting the stains and sections. For most pathology laboratories outside of the Mayo Clinic, frozen sections on arteries are the exception and are used only in specific scenarios.”

In addition, the American College of Rheumatology recommends that patients with a high suspicion of GCA should begin corticosteroids as soon as laboratory studies are obtained; “As a result, if a TAB is performed after treatment begins, the typical active pattern of inflammation in the artery changes,” Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “This further challenges the diagnosis in a frozen section setting because of the need for immunohistochemistry.” Although frozen sections are feasible in specialized settings such as the Mayo Clinic, most patients receive adequate diagnosis and treatment based on permanent sections.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from patients at a single center and the unique setup of the Mayo Clinic to perform rapid processing of frozen sections, the researchers noted.

“Additionally, we acknowledge that there is controversy regarding the clinical interpretation of healed arteritis. At our institution, healed arteritis is interpreted in the context of patient clinical characteristics and radiographic findings, which may differ from other institutions and may impact the results of this study,” they said.

Overall, the results support the potential of frozen sections in guiding TAB, although “more studies with a comparative analysis of laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and patient demographic characteristics between positive and negative frozen and permanent TAB results are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One author reported receiving grants from Eli Lilly and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals as well as personal fees from Genentech-Roche and Sanofi. Dr. Chévez-Barrios had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Positive findings from frozen sections of a first temporal artery biopsy can effectively identify giant cell arteritis, ruling out in those cases the need to perform a second biopsy on the contralateral side and arguing against the use of simultaneous bilateral biopsies, according to results from a retrospective study of nearly 800 patients who underwent the procedure at the Mayo Clinic during 2010-2018.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Although temporal artery biopsy (TAB) remains the standard diagnostic test for giant cell arteritis (GCA), second TAB procedures are often performed in patients with a high level of suspicion for GCA, which may result in unnecessary treatments and complications, Devon A. Cohen, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote. (Dr. Cohen is now a clinical fellow in ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.)

At the Mayo Clinic, TAB specimens are first examined with frozen sections at the time of the biopsy; this process, followed within days by formalin-fixed tissue permanent sections, is unique to Mayo. “A frozen section–guided sequential TAB is commonly performed, with the results of the first biopsy obtained within minutes, which determines the need for evaluation of the contralateral side,” the researchers said. However, the use of frozen sections to evaluate patients with GCA has not been well studied.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, the researchers identified TAB patients aged 40 years and older who underwent TAB procedures between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 1, 2018, at the Mayo Clinic. The average age of the patients was 72 years, and 41% were men.
 

Strong positive predictions from frozen sections

The researchers analyzed 1,162 TABs from 795 patients using frozen and permanent histologic sections.

Overall, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive permanent section findings, and 103 (86.6%) of these patients also had positive frozen section findings, including 4 false positives and 20 false negatives. The frozen section specificity and sensitivity was 99.4% and 83.2%, respectively, for detecting inflammation suggestive of GCA, and the positive and negative predictive values were 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios for frozen section were 140.6 and 0.17, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, the odds of a positive permanent section TAB significantly increased with age (odds ratio, 1.04), vision loss (OR, 2.72), diplopia (OR, 3.33), headache (OR, 2.32), weight loss (OR, 2.37), and anorexia (OR, 5.65).

A total of 60 patients underwent bilateral TABs, and 307 patients underwent bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs; the discordance rates based on permanent sections were 5.0% and 5.5%, respectively.

Those discordance rates are “an important result applying to everyone working with patients suspected for GCA,” Patricia Chévez-Barrios, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “This is on the low end of what was previously published (3%-40%) and supports the relative low need for bilateral synchronous TAB for the diagnosis of GCA.”

A key issue in GCA diagnosis is the need to confirm inflammation, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “The surgeon must obtain a significant portion of the artery, and the pathologist should review several sections and levels of the tissue to confidently say whether there is inflammation or no.”
 

Frozen sections can spare patients from second procedures

The findings suggest a role for frozen section to help to determine whether a unilateral or bilateral simultaneous TAB should be performed, the study authors noted.

“If the frozen section is positive on the first TAB, a contralateral TAB is deferred, given the very low false-positive rate (0.6%). However, if the frozen section does not align with the permanent section result, in particular if the frozen section is positive but permanent section is negative, the patient returns for a TAB on the contralateral side if the GCA suspicion remains high,” they said.

The use of frozen sections requires ideal conditions in order to be effective, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. The Mayo Clinic approach “is only possible because of their appropriate hospital setting, the training of the histotechnologists, and the experience of the pathologists interpreting the stains and sections. For most pathology laboratories outside of the Mayo Clinic, frozen sections on arteries are the exception and are used only in specific scenarios.”

In addition, the American College of Rheumatology recommends that patients with a high suspicion of GCA should begin corticosteroids as soon as laboratory studies are obtained; “As a result, if a TAB is performed after treatment begins, the typical active pattern of inflammation in the artery changes,” Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “This further challenges the diagnosis in a frozen section setting because of the need for immunohistochemistry.” Although frozen sections are feasible in specialized settings such as the Mayo Clinic, most patients receive adequate diagnosis and treatment based on permanent sections.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from patients at a single center and the unique setup of the Mayo Clinic to perform rapid processing of frozen sections, the researchers noted.

“Additionally, we acknowledge that there is controversy regarding the clinical interpretation of healed arteritis. At our institution, healed arteritis is interpreted in the context of patient clinical characteristics and radiographic findings, which may differ from other institutions and may impact the results of this study,” they said.

Overall, the results support the potential of frozen sections in guiding TAB, although “more studies with a comparative analysis of laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and patient demographic characteristics between positive and negative frozen and permanent TAB results are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One author reported receiving grants from Eli Lilly and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals as well as personal fees from Genentech-Roche and Sanofi. Dr. Chévez-Barrios had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Positive findings from frozen sections of a first temporal artery biopsy can effectively identify giant cell arteritis, ruling out in those cases the need to perform a second biopsy on the contralateral side and arguing against the use of simultaneous bilateral biopsies, according to results from a retrospective study of nearly 800 patients who underwent the procedure at the Mayo Clinic during 2010-2018.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

Although temporal artery biopsy (TAB) remains the standard diagnostic test for giant cell arteritis (GCA), second TAB procedures are often performed in patients with a high level of suspicion for GCA, which may result in unnecessary treatments and complications, Devon A. Cohen, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote. (Dr. Cohen is now a clinical fellow in ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.)

At the Mayo Clinic, TAB specimens are first examined with frozen sections at the time of the biopsy; this process, followed within days by formalin-fixed tissue permanent sections, is unique to Mayo. “A frozen section–guided sequential TAB is commonly performed, with the results of the first biopsy obtained within minutes, which determines the need for evaluation of the contralateral side,” the researchers said. However, the use of frozen sections to evaluate patients with GCA has not been well studied.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, the researchers identified TAB patients aged 40 years and older who underwent TAB procedures between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 1, 2018, at the Mayo Clinic. The average age of the patients was 72 years, and 41% were men.
 

Strong positive predictions from frozen sections

The researchers analyzed 1,162 TABs from 795 patients using frozen and permanent histologic sections.

Overall, 119 patients (15.0%) and 138 TABs had positive permanent section findings, and 103 (86.6%) of these patients also had positive frozen section findings, including 4 false positives and 20 false negatives. The frozen section specificity and sensitivity was 99.4% and 83.2%, respectively, for detecting inflammation suggestive of GCA, and the positive and negative predictive values were 96.1% and 96.6%, respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios for frozen section were 140.6 and 0.17, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, the odds of a positive permanent section TAB significantly increased with age (odds ratio, 1.04), vision loss (OR, 2.72), diplopia (OR, 3.33), headache (OR, 2.32), weight loss (OR, 2.37), and anorexia (OR, 5.65).

A total of 60 patients underwent bilateral TABs, and 307 patients underwent bilateral frozen section–guided sequential TABs; the discordance rates based on permanent sections were 5.0% and 5.5%, respectively.

Those discordance rates are “an important result applying to everyone working with patients suspected for GCA,” Patricia Chévez-Barrios, MD, of Houston Methodist Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “This is on the low end of what was previously published (3%-40%) and supports the relative low need for bilateral synchronous TAB for the diagnosis of GCA.”

A key issue in GCA diagnosis is the need to confirm inflammation, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “The surgeon must obtain a significant portion of the artery, and the pathologist should review several sections and levels of the tissue to confidently say whether there is inflammation or no.”
 

Frozen sections can spare patients from second procedures

The findings suggest a role for frozen section to help to determine whether a unilateral or bilateral simultaneous TAB should be performed, the study authors noted.

“If the frozen section is positive on the first TAB, a contralateral TAB is deferred, given the very low false-positive rate (0.6%). However, if the frozen section does not align with the permanent section result, in particular if the frozen section is positive but permanent section is negative, the patient returns for a TAB on the contralateral side if the GCA suspicion remains high,” they said.

The use of frozen sections requires ideal conditions in order to be effective, Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. The Mayo Clinic approach “is only possible because of their appropriate hospital setting, the training of the histotechnologists, and the experience of the pathologists interpreting the stains and sections. For most pathology laboratories outside of the Mayo Clinic, frozen sections on arteries are the exception and are used only in specific scenarios.”

In addition, the American College of Rheumatology recommends that patients with a high suspicion of GCA should begin corticosteroids as soon as laboratory studies are obtained; “As a result, if a TAB is performed after treatment begins, the typical active pattern of inflammation in the artery changes,” Dr. Chévez-Barrios said. “This further challenges the diagnosis in a frozen section setting because of the need for immunohistochemistry.” Although frozen sections are feasible in specialized settings such as the Mayo Clinic, most patients receive adequate diagnosis and treatment based on permanent sections.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from patients at a single center and the unique setup of the Mayo Clinic to perform rapid processing of frozen sections, the researchers noted.

“Additionally, we acknowledge that there is controversy regarding the clinical interpretation of healed arteritis. At our institution, healed arteritis is interpreted in the context of patient clinical characteristics and radiographic findings, which may differ from other institutions and may impact the results of this study,” they said.

Overall, the results support the potential of frozen sections in guiding TAB, although “more studies with a comparative analysis of laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and patient demographic characteristics between positive and negative frozen and permanent TAB results are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. One author reported receiving grants from Eli Lilly and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals as well as personal fees from Genentech-Roche and Sanofi. Dr. Chévez-Barrios had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.
 

Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout

Coauthors of the study, Tait D. Shanafelt, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and Colin P. West, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., are both experts on physician well-being and are passionate about finding new ways to reduce physician distress and improving health care delivery.

“Authentic efforts to address this problem must move beyond personal resilience,” Dr. Shanafelt said in an interview. “Organizations that fail to get serious about this issue are going to be left behind and struggle in the war for talent.

“Much like our efforts to improve quality, advancing clinician well-being requires organizations to make it a priority and establish the structure, process, and leadership to promote the desired outcomes,” said Dr. Shanafelt.

One potential strategy for improvement is appointing a chief wellness officer, a dedicated individual within the health care system that leads the organizational effort, explained Dr. Shanafelt. “Over 30 vanguard institutions across the United States have already taken this step.”

Dr. West, a coauthor of the study, explained that conducting an analysis of PTL is fairly straightforward for hospitals and individual institutions. “The NASA-TLX tool is widely available, free to use, and not overly complex, and it could be used to provide insight into physician effort and mental, physical, and temporal demand levels,” he said in an interview.

“Deeper evaluations could follow to identify specific potential solutions, particularly system-level approaches to alleviate PTL,” Dr. West explained. “In the short term, such analyses and solutions would have costs, but helping physicians work more optimally and with less chronic strain from excessive task load would save far more than these costs overall.”

Dr. West also noted that physician burnout is very expensive to a health care system, and strategies to promote physician well-being would be a prudent financial decision long term for health care organizations.

Dr. Harry, lead author of the study, agreed with Dr. West, noting that “quality improvement literature has demonstrated that improvements in inefficiencies that lead to increased demand in the workplace often has the benefit of reduced cost.

“Many studies have demonstrated the risk of turnover due to burnout and the significant cost of physician turn over,” she said in an interview. “This cost avoidance is well worth the investment in improved operations to minimize unnecessary task load.”

Dr. Harry also recommended the NASA-TLX tool as a free resource for health systems and organizations. She noted that future studies will further validate the reliability of the tool.

“At the core, we need to focus on system redesign at both the micro and the macro level,” Dr. Harry said. “Each health system will need to assess inefficiencies in their work flow, while regulatory bodies need to consider the downstream task load of mandates and reporting requirements, all of which contribute to more cognitive load.”

The study was supported by funding from the Stanford Medicine WellMD Center, the American Medical Association, and the Mayo Clinic department of medicine program on physician well-being. Coauthors Lotte N. Dyrbye, MD, and Dr. Shanafelt are coinventors of the Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-Being Index, Nurse Well-Being, and Well-Being Index. Mayo Clinic holds the copyright to these instruments and has licensed them for external use. Dr. Dyrbye and Dr. Shanafelt receive a portion of any royalties paid to Mayo Clinic. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Work load, not personal vulnerability, may be at the root of the current physician burnout crisis, a recent study has concluded.

The cutting-edge research utilized cognitive theory and work load analysis to get at the source of burnout among practitioners. The findings indicate that, although some institutions continue to emphasize personal responsibility of physicians to address the issue, it may be the amount and structure of the work itself that triggers burnout in doctors.

“We evaluated the cognitive load of a clinical workday in a national sample of U.S. physicians and its relationship with burnout and professional satisfaction,” wrote Elizabeth Harry, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora and coauthors. The results were reported in the Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The researchers investigated whether task load correlated with burnout scores in a large national study of U.S. physicians from October 2017 to March 2018.

As the delivery of health care becomes more complex, physicians are charged with ever-increasing amount of administrative and cognitive tasks. Recent evidence indicates that this growing complexity of work is tied to a greater risk of burnout in physicians, compared with workers in other fields. Cognitive load theory, pioneered by psychologist Jonathan Sweller, identified limitations in working memory that humans depend on to carry out cognitive tasks. Cognitive load refers to the amount of working memory used, which can be reduced in the presence of external emotional or physiological stressors. While a potential link between cognitive load and burnout may seem self-evident, the correlation between the cognitive load of physicians and burnout has not been evaluated in a large-scale study until recently.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

Physician task load (PTL) was measured using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a validated questionnaire frequently used to evaluate the cognitive load of work environments, including health care environments. Four domains (perception of effort and mental, physical, and temporal demands) were used to calculate the total PTL score.

Burnout was evaluated using the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, a validated tool considered the gold standard for measurement.

The survey sample consisted of physicians of all specialties and was assembled using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, an almost complete record of all U.S. physicians independent of AMA membership. All responses were anonymous and participation was voluntary.
 

Results

Among 30,456 physicians who received the survey, 5,197 (17.1%) responded. In total, 5,276 physicians were included in the analysis.

The median age of respondents was 53 years, and 61.8% self-identified as male. Twenty-four specialties were identified: 23.8% were from a primary care discipline and internal medicine represented the largest respondent group (12.1%).

Almost half of respondents (49.7%) worked in private practice, and 44.8% had been in practice for 21 years or longer.

Overall, 44.0% had at least one symptom of burnout, 38.8% of participants scored in the high range for emotional exhaustion, and 27.4% scored in the high range for depersonalization. The mean score in task load dimension varied by specialty.

The mean PTL score was 260.9 (standard deviation, 71.4). The specialties with the highest PTL score were emergency medicine (369.8), urology (353.7), general surgery subspecialties (343.9), internal medicine subspecialties (342.2), and radiology (341.6).

Aside from specialty, PTL scores also varied by practice setting, gender, age, number of hours worked per week, number of nights on call per week, and years in practice.

The researchers observed a dose response relationship between PTL and risk of burnout. For every 40-point (10%) reduction in PTL, there was 33% lower odds of experiencing burnout (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.70; P < .0001). Multivariable analyses also indicated that PTL was a significant predictor of burnout, independent of practice setting, specialty, age, gender, and hours worked.