Rheumatology News

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

The FDA also warned today that the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine may have a potential drug interaction with the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir that limits its effectiveness against COVID-19.

Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on May 1.

“Based on a recently completed nonclinical laboratory study, the FDA is revising the fact sheet for healthcare providers that accompanies the drug to state that coadministration of remdesivir and chloroquine phosphate or hydroxychloroquine sulfate is not recommended as it may result in reduced antiviral activity of remdesivir. The agency is not aware of instances of this reduced activity occurring in the clinical setting but is continuing to evaluate all data related to remdesivir,” the FDA said in a news release.
 

Controversy over hydroxychloroquine

Even with such federal permission, since late March the use of these two agents has been mired in controversy.

President Donald J. Trump promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat Americans with COVID-19, while scientific studies raised questions about their safety and effectiveness. Recent research, for example, pointed to elevated cardiovascular risks, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The FDA acknowledged this recent evidence. “Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The full suspension of the EUA follows a warning the agency issued on April 24. The FDA’s Safety Communication cautioned against use of the two agents outside of a hospital setting, citing an increase in outpatient prescriptions and “reports of serious heart rhythm problems.”

“While additional clinical trials continue to evaluate the potential benefit of these drugs in treating or preventing COVID-19, we determined the emergency use authorization was no longer appropriate,” based on a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of CDER, noted in the FDA statement.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

COVID-19 now. The urban phase of the U.S. pandemic is leveling somewhat, while the rural phase is accelerating – in part because of food processing and handling industries. The pediatric burden has been surprisingly small, with the multisystem inflammatory disease (MIS-c) in children noted in several hundred cases now being seen across the country.

CDC

Next wave? Given ongoing COVID-19 disease, controversy rages about when and how to re-open the country. Regardless how more reopening occurs over the next months, we should expect a next or ongoing COVID-19 wave, particularly given loss of social distancing during social justice protests. A sawtooth disease prevalence pattern is predicted by many experts: a drop in prevalence leading to reopening, leading to scattered prevalence increases and regional if not local restriction tightening, followed by another drop in prevalence. Then “rinse and repeat” until 70% of the population is immune either by disease experience or vaccine-induced immunity, likely sometime in 2021.

Influenza too. A COVID-19 up-cycle is likely during influenza season, although influenza season’s onset could be altered because of whatever social distancing rules are in place in November and December. That said, we need to consider the worst. We have seen what happens if we fail to prepare and then react only after a prevalent respiratory infection has surged into the overall population. Best estimates are that at most 20% of the U.S. population is currently immune to SARS-CoV-2. Given that at least some of that 20% of individuals currently immune to SARS-CoV-2 will lose their neutralizing antibody over the next 4-6 months, we can still expect 70%-80% of the U.S. population to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in the fall of 2020.

Pediatric preparedness. As pediatric providers, we have struggled with lower patient loads and dramatic income losses/declines. Many clinics/offices’ attendance remain less than 50% of pre–COVID-19 levels, with necessary furloughs of personnel and spotty office hours. But influenza is coming, and SARS-CoV-2 will not be gone yet. How do we prepare for concurrent influenza and COVID-19?

The annual purchase/administration of influenza vaccine in summer/fall is expensive, time consuming, and logistically difficult even in the best times. Given the loss of income, likely reluctance of patients to come to clinics/offices if COVID-19 is still circulating, and likely need for some form of social distancing during late summer and early fall, how will providers, health departments, and hospitals implement influenza vaccine administration this year?

Minimize double whammy infections. Maximizing influenza vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic is super important. It is easy to understand why we should maximize influenza protection in SARS-CoV-2 vulnerables (elderly or persons with existing comorbidities). But is it as critical for otherwise healthy children? My answer is yes.

Children are not currently known as SARS-CoV-2 vectors, but children are excellent influenza vectors, shedding higher titers for longer than other age groups. As with SARS-CoV-2, influenza exposure is cumulative, i.e., the more intense and more frequently a person is exposed, the more likely that infection/disease will result. So, the fewer who get and can transmit influenza during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fewer people are likely to get a double whammy of SARS-CoV-2 concurrent or in tandem with influenza. Double whammy infections likely would further increase the medical care burden and return us to March-April crisis mode.

One alarming new question is whether recent influenza could make children vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 and trigger hospitalizations. A surge in pediatric plus adult COVID-19 disease plus a surge in all-ages influenza disease would likely break the medical care system, at least in some areas.

CDC

Staggering COVID-19 burden. As of June 8, we have had approximately 2 million SARS-CoV-2 cases with 500,000 hospitalizations and 120,000 deaths. Over the past 10 years, total annual U.S. influenza hospitalizations ranged from 180,000 (2011-2012) to 825,000 (2017-2018). The interquartile range for hospitalization length of stay for influenza is 4-6 days¹ vs. 15-23 days² for SARS-CoV-2. One COVID-19 hospitalization uses hospital resources roughly equal to four influenza hospitalizations. To date COVID-19 hospitalizations have used resources equal to an estimated 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations – over twice the worst influenza season in this century – and we are still on the rise. We are likely not even halfway to truly controlling the U.S. pandemic, so expect another 500,000 hospitalizations – equal to another 1.9 million influenza hospitalizations. Further, pneumonia deaths have skyrocketed this year when COVID-19 was superimposed on the last third of influenza season. One hope is that widespread use of antivirals (for example, new antivirals, convalescent plasma, or other interventions) can reduce length of stay by 30% for COVID-19 hospitalizations, yet even with that the numbers remain grim.

Less influenza disease can free up medical resources. Planning ahead could prevent a bad influenza season (for example, up to 850,000 hospitalizations just for influenza). Can we preemptively use vaccine to reduce influenza hospitalizations below 2011-2012 levels – less than 150,000 hospitalizations? Perhaps, if we start by reducing pediatric influenza.

1. Aim to exceed 75% influenza vaccine uptake in your patients.

a. It is ambitious, but if there was ever a year that needed influenza herd immunity, it is 2020-2021.

2. Review practice/group/institution plans for vaccine purchase and ensure adequate personnel to administer vaccine.

3. Plan safe and efficient processes to vaccinate large numbers in August through November.

a. Consider that routine and influenza vaccines can be given concurrently with the annual uptick in school and sports physical examinations.

b. What social distancing and masking rules will be needed?

i. Will patients need to bring their own masks, or will you supply them?

c. What extra supplies and efforts are needed, e.g. hand sanitizer, new signage, 6-foot interval markings on floors or sidewalks, families calling from parking lot to announce their arrivals, etc.?

d. Remember younger patients need two doses before Dec 1, 2020.

e. Be creative, for example, are parking-lot tents for influenza vaccination feasible?

f. Can we partner with other providers to implement influenza vaccine–specific mass clinics?

Ramping up to give seasonal influenza vaccine in 2020 is daunting. But if we do not prepare, it will be even more difficult. Let’s make this the mildest influenza season in memory by vaccinating more than any time in memory – and by doing so, we can hope to blunt medical care burdens despite ongoing COVID-19 disease.
 

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.). Children’s Mercy receives funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer for vaccine research studies on which Dr. Harrison is an investigator. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1.. HCUP Statistical Brief #253. 2019 Oct.

2. medrxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.07.20057299.
 

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

New recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism on interpreting the results of antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing advised taking the test methodology into account because of differences in performance.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

ANA results vary not only by the test being used but also by the underlying disease they are being used to assess, warned Pier Luigi Meroni, MD, director of the Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory at the IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano in Milan.

“Antinuclear antibody testing is a known diagnostic tool. But the recent advances in methodologies strongly suggests that we have to update our knowledge for a better interpretation of the results,” Dr. Meroni said in his presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

There is “no doubt that ANA testing is useful,” he continued, adding that ANA is used as a primary screening tool in many rheumatic diseases, notably systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic sclerosis. It’s also recently been suggested as an important entry criterion for the classification of SLE.

In fact, the 2019 SLE classification criteria – developed by EULAR in collaboration with the American College of Rheumatology – state that “testing by immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells or a solid-phase ANA screening immunoassay with at least equivalent performance is highly recommended,” Dr. Meroni said.

The ideas underpinning that recommendation was that “ANA expression is invariable in SLE, and that ANA-negative lupus is quite rare,” he explained. Also, as SLE expression persists over time, ANA testing could be used for classification at any point in the disease course. These assumptions have been borne out in several studies, with very small percentages of patients (6% or less) having ANA-negative lupus, and more than 80% having a positive HEp-2 test over time, even with immunosuppressive treatment.

Which test methodology to use?

There are several methods that can be used to detect ANA, including the preferred HEp-2 indirect fluorescence assay (IFA), several solid-phase assays (SpA), and line- or dot-blot immunoassays. The issue is which assay should be used in which disease?

The performance of a particular assay can depend on the disease in which they are used. For instance, while the HEp-2 IFA and SpA are equivalent in SLE and in other connective tissue diseases, “this is not the case for other autoimmune diseases in which basically we don’t know exactly all the autoantigens,” Dr. Meroni explained. “Most of the autoantigens are undefined. They cannot be found in solid-phase kits, and we have to use the IFA for detecting all these autoantibodies.”

Importantly, neither the IFA nor the SpA is superior to the other. “We just say that one technique can detect relevant antibodies that are not detectable by the other one, and maybe the combination of the two techniques can be the right strategy to get the highest sensitivity,” Dr. Meroni said.

“Clinicians should be aware of the type of assay used for ANA detection,” he said, “because there are strong differences in the performance, for example between IFA and SpA, and such differences can have important clinical and relevant consequences.”

The test selected will depend on if the aim is to exclude or confirm a disease, and the optimal strategy will depend on pretest probability. For instance, IFA is more sensitive than SpA for SLE and scleroderma, whereas IFA is less sensitive than SpA for Sjögren’s. For SLE, it is suggested to use both the IFA and SpA. A combination of both tests is also considered optimal for scleroderma. SpA testing offers the best sensitivity for Sjögren’s.

“The story is a little bit more complicated for inflammatory myopathies in which we don’t have assays able to detect all the autoantibodies,” Dr. Meroni said. In that situation, several different techniques have to be used to check if the SpA results fit with the IFA pattern.

In 2019, the ACR released its own position statement on ANA testing, highlighting that it supported the use of the HEp-2 IFA assay as the preferred option for ANA testing and that labs should specify the methods being used to test for ANA when reporting their results. The ACR position statement also noted that “ordering health care professionals should select specific ANA subserologies based on a patient’s signs and symptoms and when there is a high pretest suspicion for a specific condition.”

Dr. Meroni disclosed serving as a consultant to Inova Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pfizer, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and UCB.

New recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism on interpreting the results of antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing advised taking the test methodology into account because of differences in performance.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

ANA results vary not only by the test being used but also by the underlying disease they are being used to assess, warned Pier Luigi Meroni, MD, director of the Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory at the IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano in Milan.

“Antinuclear antibody testing is a known diagnostic tool. But the recent advances in methodologies strongly suggests that we have to update our knowledge for a better interpretation of the results,” Dr. Meroni said in his presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

There is “no doubt that ANA testing is useful,” he continued, adding that ANA is used as a primary screening tool in many rheumatic diseases, notably systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic sclerosis. It’s also recently been suggested as an important entry criterion for the classification of SLE.

In fact, the 2019 SLE classification criteria – developed by EULAR in collaboration with the American College of Rheumatology – state that “testing by immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells or a solid-phase ANA screening immunoassay with at least equivalent performance is highly recommended,” Dr. Meroni said.

The ideas underpinning that recommendation was that “ANA expression is invariable in SLE, and that ANA-negative lupus is quite rare,” he explained. Also, as SLE expression persists over time, ANA testing could be used for classification at any point in the disease course. These assumptions have been borne out in several studies, with very small percentages of patients (6% or less) having ANA-negative lupus, and more than 80% having a positive HEp-2 test over time, even with immunosuppressive treatment.

Which test methodology to use?

There are several methods that can be used to detect ANA, including the preferred HEp-2 indirect fluorescence assay (IFA), several solid-phase assays (SpA), and line- or dot-blot immunoassays. The issue is which assay should be used in which disease?

The performance of a particular assay can depend on the disease in which they are used. For instance, while the HEp-2 IFA and SpA are equivalent in SLE and in other connective tissue diseases, “this is not the case for other autoimmune diseases in which basically we don’t know exactly all the autoantigens,” Dr. Meroni explained. “Most of the autoantigens are undefined. They cannot be found in solid-phase kits, and we have to use the IFA for detecting all these autoantibodies.”

Importantly, neither the IFA nor the SpA is superior to the other. “We just say that one technique can detect relevant antibodies that are not detectable by the other one, and maybe the combination of the two techniques can be the right strategy to get the highest sensitivity,” Dr. Meroni said.

“Clinicians should be aware of the type of assay used for ANA detection,” he said, “because there are strong differences in the performance, for example between IFA and SpA, and such differences can have important clinical and relevant consequences.”

The test selected will depend on if the aim is to exclude or confirm a disease, and the optimal strategy will depend on pretest probability. For instance, IFA is more sensitive than SpA for SLE and scleroderma, whereas IFA is less sensitive than SpA for Sjögren’s. For SLE, it is suggested to use both the IFA and SpA. A combination of both tests is also considered optimal for scleroderma. SpA testing offers the best sensitivity for Sjögren’s.

“The story is a little bit more complicated for inflammatory myopathies in which we don’t have assays able to detect all the autoantibodies,” Dr. Meroni said. In that situation, several different techniques have to be used to check if the SpA results fit with the IFA pattern.

In 2019, the ACR released its own position statement on ANA testing, highlighting that it supported the use of the HEp-2 IFA assay as the preferred option for ANA testing and that labs should specify the methods being used to test for ANA when reporting their results. The ACR position statement also noted that “ordering health care professionals should select specific ANA subserologies based on a patient’s signs and symptoms and when there is a high pretest suspicion for a specific condition.”

Dr. Meroni disclosed serving as a consultant to Inova Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pfizer, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and UCB.

New recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism on interpreting the results of antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing advised taking the test methodology into account because of differences in performance.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

ANA results vary not only by the test being used but also by the underlying disease they are being used to assess, warned Pier Luigi Meroni, MD, director of the Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory at the IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano in Milan.

“Antinuclear antibody testing is a known diagnostic tool. But the recent advances in methodologies strongly suggests that we have to update our knowledge for a better interpretation of the results,” Dr. Meroni said in his presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

There is “no doubt that ANA testing is useful,” he continued, adding that ANA is used as a primary screening tool in many rheumatic diseases, notably systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic sclerosis. It’s also recently been suggested as an important entry criterion for the classification of SLE.

In fact, the 2019 SLE classification criteria – developed by EULAR in collaboration with the American College of Rheumatology – state that “testing by immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells or a solid-phase ANA screening immunoassay with at least equivalent performance is highly recommended,” Dr. Meroni said.

The ideas underpinning that recommendation was that “ANA expression is invariable in SLE, and that ANA-negative lupus is quite rare,” he explained. Also, as SLE expression persists over time, ANA testing could be used for classification at any point in the disease course. These assumptions have been borne out in several studies, with very small percentages of patients (6% or less) having ANA-negative lupus, and more than 80% having a positive HEp-2 test over time, even with immunosuppressive treatment.

Which test methodology to use?

There are several methods that can be used to detect ANA, including the preferred HEp-2 indirect fluorescence assay (IFA), several solid-phase assays (SpA), and line- or dot-blot immunoassays. The issue is which assay should be used in which disease?

The performance of a particular assay can depend on the disease in which they are used. For instance, while the HEp-2 IFA and SpA are equivalent in SLE and in other connective tissue diseases, “this is not the case for other autoimmune diseases in which basically we don’t know exactly all the autoantigens,” Dr. Meroni explained. “Most of the autoantigens are undefined. They cannot be found in solid-phase kits, and we have to use the IFA for detecting all these autoantibodies.”

Importantly, neither the IFA nor the SpA is superior to the other. “We just say that one technique can detect relevant antibodies that are not detectable by the other one, and maybe the combination of the two techniques can be the right strategy to get the highest sensitivity,” Dr. Meroni said.

“Clinicians should be aware of the type of assay used for ANA detection,” he said, “because there are strong differences in the performance, for example between IFA and SpA, and such differences can have important clinical and relevant consequences.”

The test selected will depend on if the aim is to exclude or confirm a disease, and the optimal strategy will depend on pretest probability. For instance, IFA is more sensitive than SpA for SLE and scleroderma, whereas IFA is less sensitive than SpA for Sjögren’s. For SLE, it is suggested to use both the IFA and SpA. A combination of both tests is also considered optimal for scleroderma. SpA testing offers the best sensitivity for Sjögren’s.

“The story is a little bit more complicated for inflammatory myopathies in which we don’t have assays able to detect all the autoantibodies,” Dr. Meroni said. In that situation, several different techniques have to be used to check if the SpA results fit with the IFA pattern.

In 2019, the ACR released its own position statement on ANA testing, highlighting that it supported the use of the HEp-2 IFA assay as the preferred option for ANA testing and that labs should specify the methods being used to test for ANA when reporting their results. The ACR position statement also noted that “ordering health care professionals should select specific ANA subserologies based on a patient’s signs and symptoms and when there is a high pretest suspicion for a specific condition.”

Dr. Meroni disclosed serving as a consultant to Inova Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pfizer, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and UCB.

Results from two late-breaking phase 3 trials of bimekizumab, an investigational interleukin-17A and IL-17F inhibitor, showed that most patients with moderate to severe psoriasis achieved clearance at week 16 and maintained their clinical response at 1 year.

“The rapid and lasting skin clearance observed in the majority of patients in both clinical studies demonstrate bimekizumab’s strong potential to deliver across three key areas: speed, depth and durability,” Kristian Reich, MD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Bimekizumab selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F, two key cytokines that drive inflammation and tissue damage across multiple diseases. In BE VIVID, Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), and colleagues randomized 567 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), ustekinumab (45/90 mg weight-based dosing at baseline and week 4, then every 12 weeks), or placebo (Q4W through week 16 then bimekizumab 320 mg Q4W). Coprimary endpoints were a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of at least 90 and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) response of 0 or 1. Secondary/other outcomes included PASI 100 at week 16; PASI 90, IGA 0/1, and PASI 100 at week 52; and safety. (Ustekinumab is an IL-12 and IL-23 antagonist.)

The mean age of patients was 46 years and 72% were male. The researchers found that the proportion of patients who achieved PASI 90 and an IGA of 0/1 was higher in the bimekizumab arm at week 16 (85.0% and 84.1%, respectively), compared with those in the ustekinumab arm (49.7% and 53.4%) and those on placebo (4.8% and 4.8%; P < .001 for all associations). In addition, 58.6% of patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 100, compared with 20.9% of those in the ustekinumab arm and none of those on placebo.

At week 52, patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 90, IGA 0/1, and PASI 100 response rates of 81.6%, 77.9%, and 64.2%, respectively, compared with 55.8%, 60.7%, and 38.0% of those in the ustekinumab arm. Over 52 weeks, incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events was 6.1% with bimekizumab arm, compared with 7.4% in the ustekinumab arm. Four deaths occurred (two in the bimekizumab arm, and one each in the ustekinumab and placebo arms), all considered unrelated to treatment. The most common reported adverse events in the bimekizumab arm through week 52 were nasopharyngitis (21.8%), oral candidiasis (15.2%), and upper respiratory tract infections (9.1%).

“The rapid and lasting skin clearance observed in the majority of patients treated with bimekizumab provide support for inhibiting IL-17F, in addition to IL-17A, to inhibit the IL-17 pathway,” Dr. Reich said. “This can make a meaningful difference for people living with psoriasis.” He added that the results of the head-to-head study of bimekizumab with secukinumab (an IL-17A antagonist) are expected later this year. “It will be very interesting to see if the marked differences in treatment effect seen in the BE VIVID study remain when comparing to an IL-17.”

In BE READY, a pivotal phase 3, randomized, withdrawal study, investigators led by Kenneth Gordon, MD, randomized 435 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis 4:1 to receive 320 mg Q4W or placebo, and followed them for 16 weeks. In a second part of the study, patients who had achieved at least a PASI 90 response at week 16 were rerandomized to receive continuous bimekizumab at two different dosing regimens: 320 mg Q4W or 320 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), or to be withdrawn from treatment (placebo Q4W), and followed through week 56. Relapse was defined as a PASI score of less than 75 from week 20.

The mean age of patients was 44 years and 72% were male. At week 16, the proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 90 and an IGA of 0/1 was greatest in the bimekizumab arm (90.8% and 92.6%, respectively), compared with those on placebo. In addition, 68.2% of patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 100 at week 16, compared with only 1.2% of those on placebo (P < .001 for all associations). In the second part of the study, the researchers found that 86.8% of patients who received continuous bimekizumab 320 mg Q4W maintained PASI 90 at week 56, compared with 91% who were switched to bimekizumab 320 mg Q8W, and 16.2% of patients who were withdrawn from the trial.

“The speed of response and the number of patients who achieved clearance are extremely high, especially in a phase 3 trial,” Dr. Gordon, professor and Thomas R. Russell Family Chair of Dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “However, the most surprising aspect may be the impressive maintenance of response in patients, even those who were treated with every-8-week dosing in the maintenance phase. While it is possible that there are some patients who may benefit from more frequent dosing in the long term, the possibility of every-8-week dosing would be a tremendous benefit for patients.”

As in the BE VIVID trial, the most frequently reported adverse events with bimekizumab between week 16 and week 56 in BE READY were nasopharyngitis (10.4% in the Q4W arm vs. 23% in the Q8W arm), oral candidiasis (11.3% Q4W vs. 9% Q8W), and upper respiratory tract infections (11.3% Q4W vs. 8% Q8W). The incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab was 4.7% in the Q4W arm and 3% in the Q8W arm versus 3.8% in the placebo arm at week 56.

“The results from BE READY demonstrate that bimekizumab has the potential to deliver rapid and lasting skin improvement for psoriasis patients,” Dr. Gordon said. “The findings also support the hypothesis that inhibiting IL-17F, in addition to IL-17A, may be more effective in suppressing inflammation in suppressing inflammation in psoriasis than IL-17A inhibition alone.”

Both studies were funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. Reich disclosed that he has served as adviser and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in clinical trials sponsored by companies that include UCB. Dr. Gordon disclosed that he has received honoraria and/or research support from companies that include UCB..

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Results from two late-breaking phase 3 trials of bimekizumab, an investigational interleukin-17A and IL-17F inhibitor, showed that most patients with moderate to severe psoriasis achieved clearance at week 16 and maintained their clinical response at 1 year.

“The rapid and lasting skin clearance observed in the majority of patients in both clinical studies demonstrate bimekizumab’s strong potential to deliver across three key areas: speed, depth and durability,” Kristian Reich, MD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Bimekizumab selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F, two key cytokines that drive inflammation and tissue damage across multiple diseases. In BE VIVID, Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), and colleagues randomized 567 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), ustekinumab (45/90 mg weight-based dosing at baseline and week 4, then every 12 weeks), or placebo (Q4W through week 16 then bimekizumab 320 mg Q4W). Coprimary endpoints were a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of at least 90 and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) response of 0 or 1. Secondary/other outcomes included PASI 100 at week 16; PASI 90, IGA 0/1, and PASI 100 at week 52; and safety. (Ustekinumab is an IL-12 and IL-23 antagonist.)

The mean age of patients was 46 years and 72% were male. The researchers found that the proportion of patients who achieved PASI 90 and an IGA of 0/1 was higher in the bimekizumab arm at week 16 (85.0% and 84.1%, respectively), compared with those in the ustekinumab arm (49.7% and 53.4%) and those on placebo (4.8% and 4.8%; P < .001 for all associations). In addition, 58.6% of patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 100, compared with 20.9% of those in the ustekinumab arm and none of those on placebo.

At week 52, patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 90, IGA 0/1, and PASI 100 response rates of 81.6%, 77.9%, and 64.2%, respectively, compared with 55.8%, 60.7%, and 38.0% of those in the ustekinumab arm. Over 52 weeks, incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events was 6.1% with bimekizumab arm, compared with 7.4% in the ustekinumab arm. Four deaths occurred (two in the bimekizumab arm, and one each in the ustekinumab and placebo arms), all considered unrelated to treatment. The most common reported adverse events in the bimekizumab arm through week 52 were nasopharyngitis (21.8%), oral candidiasis (15.2%), and upper respiratory tract infections (9.1%).

“The rapid and lasting skin clearance observed in the majority of patients treated with bimekizumab provide support for inhibiting IL-17F, in addition to IL-17A, to inhibit the IL-17 pathway,” Dr. Reich said. “This can make a meaningful difference for people living with psoriasis.” He added that the results of the head-to-head study of bimekizumab with secukinumab (an IL-17A antagonist) are expected later this year. “It will be very interesting to see if the marked differences in treatment effect seen in the BE VIVID study remain when comparing to an IL-17.”

In BE READY, a pivotal phase 3, randomized, withdrawal study, investigators led by Kenneth Gordon, MD, randomized 435 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis 4:1 to receive 320 mg Q4W or placebo, and followed them for 16 weeks. In a second part of the study, patients who had achieved at least a PASI 90 response at week 16 were rerandomized to receive continuous bimekizumab at two different dosing regimens: 320 mg Q4W or 320 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), or to be withdrawn from treatment (placebo Q4W), and followed through week 56. Relapse was defined as a PASI score of less than 75 from week 20.

The mean age of patients was 44 years and 72% were male. At week 16, the proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 90 and an IGA of 0/1 was greatest in the bimekizumab arm (90.8% and 92.6%, respectively), compared with those on placebo. In addition, 68.2% of patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 100 at week 16, compared with only 1.2% of those on placebo (P < .001 for all associations). In the second part of the study, the researchers found that 86.8% of patients who received continuous bimekizumab 320 mg Q4W maintained PASI 90 at week 56, compared with 91% who were switched to bimekizumab 320 mg Q8W, and 16.2% of patients who were withdrawn from the trial.

“The speed of response and the number of patients who achieved clearance are extremely high, especially in a phase 3 trial,” Dr. Gordon, professor and Thomas R. Russell Family Chair of Dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “However, the most surprising aspect may be the impressive maintenance of response in patients, even those who were treated with every-8-week dosing in the maintenance phase. While it is possible that there are some patients who may benefit from more frequent dosing in the long term, the possibility of every-8-week dosing would be a tremendous benefit for patients.”

As in the BE VIVID trial, the most frequently reported adverse events with bimekizumab between week 16 and week 56 in BE READY were nasopharyngitis (10.4% in the Q4W arm vs. 23% in the Q8W arm), oral candidiasis (11.3% Q4W vs. 9% Q8W), and upper respiratory tract infections (11.3% Q4W vs. 8% Q8W). The incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab was 4.7% in the Q4W arm and 3% in the Q8W arm versus 3.8% in the placebo arm at week 56.

“The results from BE READY demonstrate that bimekizumab has the potential to deliver rapid and lasting skin improvement for psoriasis patients,” Dr. Gordon said. “The findings also support the hypothesis that inhibiting IL-17F, in addition to IL-17A, may be more effective in suppressing inflammation in suppressing inflammation in psoriasis than IL-17A inhibition alone.”

Both studies were funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. Reich disclosed that he has served as adviser and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in clinical trials sponsored by companies that include UCB. Dr. Gordon disclosed that he has received honoraria and/or research support from companies that include UCB..

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Results from two late-breaking phase 3 trials of bimekizumab, an investigational interleukin-17A and IL-17F inhibitor, showed that most patients with moderate to severe psoriasis achieved clearance at week 16 and maintained their clinical response at 1 year.

“The rapid and lasting skin clearance observed in the majority of patients in both clinical studies demonstrate bimekizumab’s strong potential to deliver across three key areas: speed, depth and durability,” Kristian Reich, MD, said in an interview during the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Bimekizumab selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F, two key cytokines that drive inflammation and tissue damage across multiple diseases. In BE VIVID, Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), and colleagues randomized 567 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), ustekinumab (45/90 mg weight-based dosing at baseline and week 4, then every 12 weeks), or placebo (Q4W through week 16 then bimekizumab 320 mg Q4W). Coprimary endpoints were a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of at least 90 and an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) response of 0 or 1. Secondary/other outcomes included PASI 100 at week 16; PASI 90, IGA 0/1, and PASI 100 at week 52; and safety. (Ustekinumab is an IL-12 and IL-23 antagonist.)

The mean age of patients was 46 years and 72% were male. The researchers found that the proportion of patients who achieved PASI 90 and an IGA of 0/1 was higher in the bimekizumab arm at week 16 (85.0% and 84.1%, respectively), compared with those in the ustekinumab arm (49.7% and 53.4%) and those on placebo (4.8% and 4.8%; P < .001 for all associations). In addition, 58.6% of patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 100, compared with 20.9% of those in the ustekinumab arm and none of those on placebo.

At week 52, patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 90, IGA 0/1, and PASI 100 response rates of 81.6%, 77.9%, and 64.2%, respectively, compared with 55.8%, 60.7%, and 38.0% of those in the ustekinumab arm. Over 52 weeks, incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events was 6.1% with bimekizumab arm, compared with 7.4% in the ustekinumab arm. Four deaths occurred (two in the bimekizumab arm, and one each in the ustekinumab and placebo arms), all considered unrelated to treatment. The most common reported adverse events in the bimekizumab arm through week 52 were nasopharyngitis (21.8%), oral candidiasis (15.2%), and upper respiratory tract infections (9.1%).

“The rapid and lasting skin clearance observed in the majority of patients treated with bimekizumab provide support for inhibiting IL-17F, in addition to IL-17A, to inhibit the IL-17 pathway,” Dr. Reich said. “This can make a meaningful difference for people living with psoriasis.” He added that the results of the head-to-head study of bimekizumab with secukinumab (an IL-17A antagonist) are expected later this year. “It will be very interesting to see if the marked differences in treatment effect seen in the BE VIVID study remain when comparing to an IL-17.”

In BE READY, a pivotal phase 3, randomized, withdrawal study, investigators led by Kenneth Gordon, MD, randomized 435 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis 4:1 to receive 320 mg Q4W or placebo, and followed them for 16 weeks. In a second part of the study, patients who had achieved at least a PASI 90 response at week 16 were rerandomized to receive continuous bimekizumab at two different dosing regimens: 320 mg Q4W or 320 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), or to be withdrawn from treatment (placebo Q4W), and followed through week 56. Relapse was defined as a PASI score of less than 75 from week 20.

The mean age of patients was 44 years and 72% were male. At week 16, the proportion of patients who achieved a PASI 90 and an IGA of 0/1 was greatest in the bimekizumab arm (90.8% and 92.6%, respectively), compared with those on placebo. In addition, 68.2% of patients in the bimekizumab arm achieved PASI 100 at week 16, compared with only 1.2% of those on placebo (P < .001 for all associations). In the second part of the study, the researchers found that 86.8% of patients who received continuous bimekizumab 320 mg Q4W maintained PASI 90 at week 56, compared with 91% who were switched to bimekizumab 320 mg Q8W, and 16.2% of patients who were withdrawn from the trial.

“The speed of response and the number of patients who achieved clearance are extremely high, especially in a phase 3 trial,” Dr. Gordon, professor and Thomas R. Russell Family Chair of Dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “However, the most surprising aspect may be the impressive maintenance of response in patients, even those who were treated with every-8-week dosing in the maintenance phase. While it is possible that there are some patients who may benefit from more frequent dosing in the long term, the possibility of every-8-week dosing would be a tremendous benefit for patients.”

As in the BE VIVID trial, the most frequently reported adverse events with bimekizumab between week 16 and week 56 in BE READY were nasopharyngitis (10.4% in the Q4W arm vs. 23% in the Q8W arm), oral candidiasis (11.3% Q4W vs. 9% Q8W), and upper respiratory tract infections (11.3% Q4W vs. 8% Q8W). The incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab was 4.7% in the Q4W arm and 3% in the Q8W arm versus 3.8% in the placebo arm at week 56.

“The results from BE READY demonstrate that bimekizumab has the potential to deliver rapid and lasting skin improvement for psoriasis patients,” Dr. Gordon said. “The findings also support the hypothesis that inhibiting IL-17F, in addition to IL-17A, may be more effective in suppressing inflammation in suppressing inflammation in psoriasis than IL-17A inhibition alone.”

Both studies were funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. Reich disclosed that he has served as adviser and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in clinical trials sponsored by companies that include UCB. Dr. Gordon disclosed that he has received honoraria and/or research support from companies that include UCB..

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
 

Atypical presentations occur in 30%

Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.

While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.

The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.

Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.

“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.

Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.

Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.

Prognosis and predictors

Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.

Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.

“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
 

Atypical presentations occur in 30%

Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.

While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.

The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.

Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.

“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.

Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.

Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.

Prognosis and predictors

Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.

Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.

“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
 

Atypical presentations occur in 30%

Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.

While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.

The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.

Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.

“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.

Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.

Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.

Prognosis and predictors

Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.

Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.

“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”