Rheumatology News

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be considered as the preferable option in the United States rather than Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in women aged under 50 years, according to one group of experts.

The group made their recommendation in an editorial in JAMA published online April 30, 2021, accompanying a paper describing details of 12 case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, also known as the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

The editorialists are Ruth A. Karron, MD, professor of international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nigel S. Key, MD, professor of hematology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, associate dean for public health practice at Johns Hopkins

They noted that, after an initial pause following reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) linked to the J&J vaccine, and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the United States has permitted the use of the J&J vaccine in all adults with information on the risk of TTS added to educational materials.

The editorialists pointed out that no cases of TTS have been confirmed following administration of more than 180 million doses of the mRNA vaccines in the United States.

They said that, while the J&J vaccine will still be needed for individuals with allergies to components of the mRNA vaccines and for those who live in remote locations where the cold chain for transport and storage of mRNA vaccines cannot be maintained, “U.S. public health agencies and clinicians should consider recommending mRNA vaccines as safer options for those who may be at substantially higher risk for TTS after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, currently women younger than 50 years.”

In the main JAMA paper, a group led by Isaac See, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team, reported full details of 12 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 12 U.S. case reports, 3 of which were fatal, show many similarities to cases described in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The authors noted that, by April 12, approximately 7 million doses of the J&J vaccine had been given in the United States. The 12 cases of CVST and thrombocytopenia following receipt of the vaccine were reported to VAERS between March 2 and April 21. All 12 cases were in White women, 11 of whom were aged under 50 years.

As of April 25, a further two cases have been confirmed and reported to VAERS; one in a man younger than 40 years, the other in a woman aged between 40 and 59 years.

In the 12 cases reported in detail, symptoms started between 6 and 15 days post vaccination.

At least one risk factor for CVST was identified in seven patients (obesity in six, hypothyroidism in one, and use of combined oral contraceptives in one). None of the patients was pregnant or within 12 weeks post partum, had prior thrombosis, a personal or family history of thrombophilia, or documented prior exposure to heparin.

In addition to CVST, seven patients had intracerebral hemorrhage and eight had non-CVST thromboses.

One patient reported a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection approximately 4 months prior to vaccination. Of the other 11 patients, 4 had negative serologic tests and 7 were not tested.

All 12 patients were hospitalized and 10 were admitted to an ICU. At the time of the last follow-up, three patients had died (all of whom had intraparenchymal hemorrhage), three remained in the ICU, two were still hospitalized but not in an ICU, and four had been discharged home.

The authors pointed out that the U.S. cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia following the J&J vaccine have many similarities to those reported in Europe after the AstraZeneca vaccine, occurring primarily in women younger than 40 years and in patients without diagnosed thrombophilia. Both European and U.S. patients had a median platelet nadir count of 19 x 103/mcL and several also had non-CVST large-vessel thrombosis.

In the European cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia, 50% of patients died, compared with 25% of U.S. patients.

Like the European cases, the U.S. cases had positive heparin-PF4 HIT antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests in the absence of prior exposure to heparin, as would be seen in autoimmune HIT.

However, in the initial European CVST reports, 88% of patients tested with functional platelet HIT antibody tests had positive results, compared with only 11% of the U.S. cases. But the authors noted that lack of standardization in functional platelet HIT antibody assays may lead to differences in results by different laboratories.

“It may be important to notify testing laboratories that postvaccination TTS is being evaluated, so that testing methods can be adjusted if needed,” they said.

They concluded that these case reports suggest that the pathogenesis of TTS may be similar to autoimmune HIT, triggered by the formation of antibodies directed against PF4, a constituent of platelet alpha granules released during platelet activation. In contrast to classic HIT in which exogenous heparin triggers antibody formation, in autoimmune HIT, an endogenous polyanion triggers PF4 antibody formation.

They noted that the precise mechanism of TTS in relation to COVID-19 vaccination has not yet been established. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has stated that a platform-specific mechanism related to adenovirus vector vaccines cannot be excluded. Both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines use an adenoviral vector, but they are different; J&J uses a human vector, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee vector.

They also pointed out that CVST and thrombocytopenia following SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported in at least two cases, but HIT testing was not done in these cases. There have not so far been any reports to VAERS of CVST with thrombocytopenia following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The authors said these findings have important clinical and public health implications, noting that the CDC has updated its interim clinical considerations for use of authorized COVID-19 vaccines to indicate that women aged 18-49 years should be aware of the increased risk of TTS after receipt of the J&J vaccine, and to use a nonheparin anticoagulant in suspected cases.

They noted that a subacute presentation of headache is present in 90% of patients with typical CVST. While headache is a common symptom after the J&J vaccination, most headaches begin and resolve within 2 days. Whereas in the U.S. cases of CVST after vaccination, headache symptoms began at least 6 days after vaccination and persisted for at least a week for most.

“Urgent consultation with a neurologist is prudent when a patient is suspected or confirmed to have CVST. In addition, since the median time from symptom onset to hospitalization was 7 days in the U.S. CVST case series, patient and clinician education might shorten the time to clinical evaluation and therefore treatment,” they stated.

The authors also note that VAERS is a passive surveillance system, so cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia may be underreported.

In their accompanying editorial, Dr. Karron and colleagues pointed out that, in addition to the 12 patients with CVST with thrombocytopenia described in this case series, at least three patients without CVST but meeting diagnostic criteria for TTS have been reported to VAERS (as of April 21), all in women aged 18-59 years (median age, 37 years).

The editorialists reported that the rate of CVST with thrombocytopenia after the J&J vaccine is approximately 5 per million women aged 18-50 years. This is compared with a background rate of approximately 0.05-0.13 per million per month.

They said that the availability of an interim standardized case definition of this adverse effect will facilitate prospective case ascertainment through review of large linked databases and active case finding.

This will also permit greater understanding of whether individuals who are otherwise at increased risk for hypercoagulation in general and for CVST in particular (for example, women taking hormonal contraceptive medications or who are pregnant) are also at increased risk for TTS.

Obtaining this information will support dynamic country-specific assessments of the risks of each vaccine, compared with the risk of COVID-19 disease for their populations and subpopulations, they added.

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

Chronic pain is a common condition among people with hemophilia and is associated with joint deterioration because of repeated joint bleeds. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of chronic pain because of hemophilia and to analyze its interference in the lives of patients, according to Ana Cristina Paredes, a PhD student at the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, and colleagues.

Crystal/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

The manuscripts included in the study, which was published online in the Journal of Pain, were mostly observational, cross-sectional studies and one prospective investigation, published between 2009 and 2019.

The issue of pain is particularly important among people with hemophilia, as many adult patients suffer from distinct degrees of arthropathy and associated chronic pain, due to the lifelong occurrence of hemarthrosis, the authors noted. In an important distinction, according to the authors, people with hemophilia may therefore experience both acute pain during bleeds and chronic pain caused by joint deterioration. Acute pain ceases with the resolution of the bleeding episode, but the chronic pain is significantly more challenging, since it persists in time and may trigger changes in the nervous system, leading to peripheral or central sensitization.

Data in the assessed studies were collected from a variety of sources: hemophilia centers, online surveys, by mail, or through a national database, with return rates ranging from 29.2% to 98%. Overall, these studies comprised 4,772 adults, with individual sample sizes ranging from 21 to 2,253 patients, the authors added.
 

Conflicting results

Overall, there was a widely varying prevalence of hemophilia-related chronic pain reported across studies. Additionally, methodologies and sample characteristics varied widely. The meta-analyses revealed high heterogeneity between studies, and, therefore, pooled prevalence estimates values must be interpreted with caution, the authors stated.

All of the 11 selected studies included for meta-analysis and review reported on the prevalence of chronic pain caused by hemophilia. Chronic pain was assessed using direct questions developed by the authors in eight studies and using the European Haemophilia Therapy Standardization Board definition in three studies. The prevalence for global samples ranged widely from 17% to 84%.

Although there was high heterogeneity, the random-effects meta-analysis including all studies demonstrated a pooled prevalence of 46% of patients reporting chronic pain. Subgroup analyses of studies including all disease severities (mild, moderate, and severe; seven studies) revealed a pooled prevalence of 48%, but also with high heterogeneity. Looking at severe patients only (six studies), the chronic pain prevalence ranged from 33% to 86.4%, with a pooled prevalence of 53% and high heterogeneity, the authors added.

The wide disparity of the chronic pain prevalence seen across the studies is likely because of the fact that some investigations inquired about pain without distinguishing between acute (hemarthrosis-related) or chronic (arthropathy-related) pain, and without clarifying if the only focus is pain caused by hemophilia, or including all causes of pain complaints, according to the researchers.

“Concerning hemophilia-related chronic pain interference, it is striking that the existing literature does not distinguish between the impact of acute or chronic pain. Such a distinction is needed and should be made in future studies to ensure accurate accounts of hemophilia-related pain and to fully understand its interference according to the type of pain (acute vs. chronic). This information is relevant to promote targeted and effective treatment approaches,” the researchers concluded.

The research was supported by a Novo Nordisk HERO Research Grant 2015, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, and the Foundation for Science and Technology in Portugal. The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Chronic pain is a common condition among people with hemophilia and is associated with joint deterioration because of repeated joint bleeds. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of chronic pain because of hemophilia and to analyze its interference in the lives of patients, according to Ana Cristina Paredes, a PhD student at the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, and colleagues.

Crystal/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

The manuscripts included in the study, which was published online in the Journal of Pain, were mostly observational, cross-sectional studies and one prospective investigation, published between 2009 and 2019.

The issue of pain is particularly important among people with hemophilia, as many adult patients suffer from distinct degrees of arthropathy and associated chronic pain, due to the lifelong occurrence of hemarthrosis, the authors noted. In an important distinction, according to the authors, people with hemophilia may therefore experience both acute pain during bleeds and chronic pain caused by joint deterioration. Acute pain ceases with the resolution of the bleeding episode, but the chronic pain is significantly more challenging, since it persists in time and may trigger changes in the nervous system, leading to peripheral or central sensitization.

Data in the assessed studies were collected from a variety of sources: hemophilia centers, online surveys, by mail, or through a national database, with return rates ranging from 29.2% to 98%. Overall, these studies comprised 4,772 adults, with individual sample sizes ranging from 21 to 2,253 patients, the authors added.
 

Conflicting results

Overall, there was a widely varying prevalence of hemophilia-related chronic pain reported across studies. Additionally, methodologies and sample characteristics varied widely. The meta-analyses revealed high heterogeneity between studies, and, therefore, pooled prevalence estimates values must be interpreted with caution, the authors stated.

All of the 11 selected studies included for meta-analysis and review reported on the prevalence of chronic pain caused by hemophilia. Chronic pain was assessed using direct questions developed by the authors in eight studies and using the European Haemophilia Therapy Standardization Board definition in three studies. The prevalence for global samples ranged widely from 17% to 84%.

Although there was high heterogeneity, the random-effects meta-analysis including all studies demonstrated a pooled prevalence of 46% of patients reporting chronic pain. Subgroup analyses of studies including all disease severities (mild, moderate, and severe; seven studies) revealed a pooled prevalence of 48%, but also with high heterogeneity. Looking at severe patients only (six studies), the chronic pain prevalence ranged from 33% to 86.4%, with a pooled prevalence of 53% and high heterogeneity, the authors added.

The wide disparity of the chronic pain prevalence seen across the studies is likely because of the fact that some investigations inquired about pain without distinguishing between acute (hemarthrosis-related) or chronic (arthropathy-related) pain, and without clarifying if the only focus is pain caused by hemophilia, or including all causes of pain complaints, according to the researchers.

“Concerning hemophilia-related chronic pain interference, it is striking that the existing literature does not distinguish between the impact of acute or chronic pain. Such a distinction is needed and should be made in future studies to ensure accurate accounts of hemophilia-related pain and to fully understand its interference according to the type of pain (acute vs. chronic). This information is relevant to promote targeted and effective treatment approaches,” the researchers concluded.

The research was supported by a Novo Nordisk HERO Research Grant 2015, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, and the Foundation for Science and Technology in Portugal. The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Chronic pain is a common condition among people with hemophilia and is associated with joint deterioration because of repeated joint bleeds. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of chronic pain because of hemophilia and to analyze its interference in the lives of patients, according to Ana Cristina Paredes, a PhD student at the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, and colleagues.

Crystal/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

The manuscripts included in the study, which was published online in the Journal of Pain, were mostly observational, cross-sectional studies and one prospective investigation, published between 2009 and 2019.

The issue of pain is particularly important among people with hemophilia, as many adult patients suffer from distinct degrees of arthropathy and associated chronic pain, due to the lifelong occurrence of hemarthrosis, the authors noted. In an important distinction, according to the authors, people with hemophilia may therefore experience both acute pain during bleeds and chronic pain caused by joint deterioration. Acute pain ceases with the resolution of the bleeding episode, but the chronic pain is significantly more challenging, since it persists in time and may trigger changes in the nervous system, leading to peripheral or central sensitization.

Data in the assessed studies were collected from a variety of sources: hemophilia centers, online surveys, by mail, or through a national database, with return rates ranging from 29.2% to 98%. Overall, these studies comprised 4,772 adults, with individual sample sizes ranging from 21 to 2,253 patients, the authors added.
 

Conflicting results

Overall, there was a widely varying prevalence of hemophilia-related chronic pain reported across studies. Additionally, methodologies and sample characteristics varied widely. The meta-analyses revealed high heterogeneity between studies, and, therefore, pooled prevalence estimates values must be interpreted with caution, the authors stated.

All of the 11 selected studies included for meta-analysis and review reported on the prevalence of chronic pain caused by hemophilia. Chronic pain was assessed using direct questions developed by the authors in eight studies and using the European Haemophilia Therapy Standardization Board definition in three studies. The prevalence for global samples ranged widely from 17% to 84%.

Although there was high heterogeneity, the random-effects meta-analysis including all studies demonstrated a pooled prevalence of 46% of patients reporting chronic pain. Subgroup analyses of studies including all disease severities (mild, moderate, and severe; seven studies) revealed a pooled prevalence of 48%, but also with high heterogeneity. Looking at severe patients only (six studies), the chronic pain prevalence ranged from 33% to 86.4%, with a pooled prevalence of 53% and high heterogeneity, the authors added.

The wide disparity of the chronic pain prevalence seen across the studies is likely because of the fact that some investigations inquired about pain without distinguishing between acute (hemarthrosis-related) or chronic (arthropathy-related) pain, and without clarifying if the only focus is pain caused by hemophilia, or including all causes of pain complaints, according to the researchers.

“Concerning hemophilia-related chronic pain interference, it is striking that the existing literature does not distinguish between the impact of acute or chronic pain. Such a distinction is needed and should be made in future studies to ensure accurate accounts of hemophilia-related pain and to fully understand its interference according to the type of pain (acute vs. chronic). This information is relevant to promote targeted and effective treatment approaches,” the researchers concluded.

The research was supported by a Novo Nordisk HERO Research Grant 2015, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, and the Foundation for Science and Technology in Portugal. The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Repetitive weight loss and gain in overweight or obese patients with knee osteoarthritis is associated with significantly greater cartilage and bone marrow edema degeneration than stable weight or steady weight loss, research suggests.

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

A presentation at the OARSI 2021 World Congress outlined the results of a study using Osteoarthritis Initiative data from 2,271 individuals with knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or above, which examined the effects of “weight cycling” on OA outcomes.

Gabby Joseph, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, told the conference – which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International – that previous studies had shown weight loss improves OA symptoms and slow progression, and weight gain increases OA risk. However no studies had yet examined the effects of weight cycling.

The study compared 4 years of MRI data for those who showed less than 3% loss or gain in weight over that time – the control group – versus those who lost more than 5% over that time and those who gained more than 5%. Among these were 249 individuals in the top 10% of annual weight change over that period, who were designated as weight cyclers. They tended to be younger, female, and with slightly higher average BMI than noncyclers.

Weight cyclers had significantly greater progression of cartilage degeneration and bone marrow edema degeneration – as measured by whole-organ magnetic resonance score – than did noncyclers, regardless of their overall weight gain or loss by the end of the study period.

However, the study did not see any significant differences in meniscus progression between cyclers and noncyclers, and cartilage thickness decreased in all groups over the 4 years with no significant effects associated with weight gain, loss, or cycling. Dr. Joseph commented that future studies could use voxel-based relaxometry to more closely study localized cartilage abnormalities.

Researchers also examined the effect of weight cycling on changes to walking speed, and found weight cyclers had significantly lower walking speeds by the end of the 4 years, regardless of overall weight change.

“What we’ve seen is that fluctuations are not beneficial for your joints,” Dr. Joseph told the conference. “When we advise patients that they want to lose weight, we want to do this in a very steady fashion; we don’t want yo-yo dieting.” She gave the example of one patient who started the study with a BMI of 36, went up to 40 then went down to 32.

Commenting on the study, Lisa Carlesso, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said it addresses an important issue because weight cycling is common as people struggle to maintain weight loss.

While it is difficult to speculate on the physiological mechanisms that might explain the effect, Dr. Carlesso noted that there were significantly more women than men among the weight cyclers.

“We know, for example, that obese women with knee OA have significantly higher levels of the adipokine leptin, compared to men, and leptin is involved in cartilage degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said. “Similarly, we don’t have any information about joint alignment or measures of joint load, two things that could factor into the structural changes found.”

She suggested both these possibilities could be explored in future studies of weight cycling and its effects.

“It has opened up new lines of inquiry to be examined to mechanistically explain the relationship between cycling and worse cartilage and bone marrow degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Repetitive weight loss and gain in overweight or obese patients with knee osteoarthritis is associated with significantly greater cartilage and bone marrow edema degeneration than stable weight or steady weight loss, research suggests.

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

A presentation at the OARSI 2021 World Congress outlined the results of a study using Osteoarthritis Initiative data from 2,271 individuals with knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or above, which examined the effects of “weight cycling” on OA outcomes.

Gabby Joseph, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, told the conference – which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International – that previous studies had shown weight loss improves OA symptoms and slow progression, and weight gain increases OA risk. However no studies had yet examined the effects of weight cycling.

The study compared 4 years of MRI data for those who showed less than 3% loss or gain in weight over that time – the control group – versus those who lost more than 5% over that time and those who gained more than 5%. Among these were 249 individuals in the top 10% of annual weight change over that period, who were designated as weight cyclers. They tended to be younger, female, and with slightly higher average BMI than noncyclers.

Weight cyclers had significantly greater progression of cartilage degeneration and bone marrow edema degeneration – as measured by whole-organ magnetic resonance score – than did noncyclers, regardless of their overall weight gain or loss by the end of the study period.

However, the study did not see any significant differences in meniscus progression between cyclers and noncyclers, and cartilage thickness decreased in all groups over the 4 years with no significant effects associated with weight gain, loss, or cycling. Dr. Joseph commented that future studies could use voxel-based relaxometry to more closely study localized cartilage abnormalities.

Researchers also examined the effect of weight cycling on changes to walking speed, and found weight cyclers had significantly lower walking speeds by the end of the 4 years, regardless of overall weight change.

“What we’ve seen is that fluctuations are not beneficial for your joints,” Dr. Joseph told the conference. “When we advise patients that they want to lose weight, we want to do this in a very steady fashion; we don’t want yo-yo dieting.” She gave the example of one patient who started the study with a BMI of 36, went up to 40 then went down to 32.

Commenting on the study, Lisa Carlesso, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said it addresses an important issue because weight cycling is common as people struggle to maintain weight loss.

While it is difficult to speculate on the physiological mechanisms that might explain the effect, Dr. Carlesso noted that there were significantly more women than men among the weight cyclers.

“We know, for example, that obese women with knee OA have significantly higher levels of the adipokine leptin, compared to men, and leptin is involved in cartilage degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said. “Similarly, we don’t have any information about joint alignment or measures of joint load, two things that could factor into the structural changes found.”

She suggested both these possibilities could be explored in future studies of weight cycling and its effects.

“It has opened up new lines of inquiry to be examined to mechanistically explain the relationship between cycling and worse cartilage and bone marrow degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Repetitive weight loss and gain in overweight or obese patients with knee osteoarthritis is associated with significantly greater cartilage and bone marrow edema degeneration than stable weight or steady weight loss, research suggests.

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

A presentation at the OARSI 2021 World Congress outlined the results of a study using Osteoarthritis Initiative data from 2,271 individuals with knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or above, which examined the effects of “weight cycling” on OA outcomes.

Gabby Joseph, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, told the conference – which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International – that previous studies had shown weight loss improves OA symptoms and slow progression, and weight gain increases OA risk. However no studies had yet examined the effects of weight cycling.

The study compared 4 years of MRI data for those who showed less than 3% loss or gain in weight over that time – the control group – versus those who lost more than 5% over that time and those who gained more than 5%. Among these were 249 individuals in the top 10% of annual weight change over that period, who were designated as weight cyclers. They tended to be younger, female, and with slightly higher average BMI than noncyclers.

Weight cyclers had significantly greater progression of cartilage degeneration and bone marrow edema degeneration – as measured by whole-organ magnetic resonance score – than did noncyclers, regardless of their overall weight gain or loss by the end of the study period.

However, the study did not see any significant differences in meniscus progression between cyclers and noncyclers, and cartilage thickness decreased in all groups over the 4 years with no significant effects associated with weight gain, loss, or cycling. Dr. Joseph commented that future studies could use voxel-based relaxometry to more closely study localized cartilage abnormalities.

Researchers also examined the effect of weight cycling on changes to walking speed, and found weight cyclers had significantly lower walking speeds by the end of the 4 years, regardless of overall weight change.

“What we’ve seen is that fluctuations are not beneficial for your joints,” Dr. Joseph told the conference. “When we advise patients that they want to lose weight, we want to do this in a very steady fashion; we don’t want yo-yo dieting.” She gave the example of one patient who started the study with a BMI of 36, went up to 40 then went down to 32.

Commenting on the study, Lisa Carlesso, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said it addresses an important issue because weight cycling is common as people struggle to maintain weight loss.

While it is difficult to speculate on the physiological mechanisms that might explain the effect, Dr. Carlesso noted that there were significantly more women than men among the weight cyclers.

“We know, for example, that obese women with knee OA have significantly higher levels of the adipokine leptin, compared to men, and leptin is involved in cartilage degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said. “Similarly, we don’t have any information about joint alignment or measures of joint load, two things that could factor into the structural changes found.”

She suggested both these possibilities could be explored in future studies of weight cycling and its effects.

“It has opened up new lines of inquiry to be examined to mechanistically explain the relationship between cycling and worse cartilage and bone marrow degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

Around three-quarters of patients remained on treatment with baricitinib (Olumiant) for rheumatoid arthritis after their first 6-month assessment in an independent analysis of British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) data.

The rate of continuation was even higher, at almost 85%, in patients who had not previously been treated with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) before being given baricitinib. The 6-month continuation rate was also higher, at 80%, in patients who received baricitinib without additional DMARDs or steroid therapy.

Overall, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score was reduced from a baseline of 5.7 to 3.4, with similar reductions seen among the subgroups of patients who had received baricitinib as monotherapy, after prior b/tsDMARDs, or no prior b/tsDMARDs.

“We’ve looked at an RA study population using data from the BSR biologics registry, to try and have a look at how patients with baricitinib are being treated and how they’re doing in this real-world setting, within the U.K.,” explained consultant rheumatologist Christopher J. Edwards, MD, of University Hospital Southampton (England) at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“Overall, effectiveness and tolerability seem to be pretty good indeed,” he said. “Sample size, of course, was small and it will be nice to see a little bit more data collected over time that allow us to be more confident in any conclusions.”

‘Getting to grips’ with baricitinib

Baricitinib is a drug that clinicians in the United Kingdom are “just getting to grips with,” observed Jon Packham, BM, DM, a consultant rheumatologist at Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent (England) who was not involved in the analysis.

“We look forward to when we’ve got a few more patients through that 6-month hurdle and we were getting even more data coming through,” Dr. Packham said.

Baricitinib was given marketing authorization in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in 2017 and so is a relatively new addition into the BSRBR-RA, which has been running for the past 20 years. It includes data on patients with RA who are newly starting a bDMARD or tsDMARD, and patients are followed up every 6 months for the first 3 years of their treatment and then annually thereafter.

Dr. Edwards presented data on some of the baseline characteristics and status of patients at the first 6-month follow-up of the BSRBR-RA. He was clear that this analysis was done independently of the BSRBR-RA study team and performed under an agreement between Eli Lilly and the BSR to allow access to the data.

Between Jan. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, there were 409 patients who were just starting baricitinib treatment and who were entered into the BSRBR-RA. The mean age of patients was 61 years, and the majority (76%) was female. On average, patients starting baricitinib had been diagnosed with RA for 11 years, and 62% had previously been treated with a biologic.

As per the European label, most patients were being treated with baricitinib in combination with a conventional synthetic DMARD (61%), with 40% of patients receiving it in combination with methotrexate. Around 38% of patients received baricitinib as monotherapy, and just under 30% were receiving concomitant glucocorticoids.

The majority (84%) were prescribed a 4-mg daily dose of baricitinib, with the remainder on a daily dose of 2 mg.

There were 163 patients with data available at the first 6-month follow up, and of those, 103 had prior experience of being treated with a b/ts DMARD, 59 did not, and 65 had been given baricitinib as monotherapy.
 

Reasons for discontinuation

Overall, around a quarter of patients discontinued treatment with baricitinib, and “the reasons for this were lack of efficacy in approximately a quarter and adverse events in about two-thirds of the patients,” Dr. Edwards said.

Breaking down the types of adverse events was not part of this analysis, and that information is likely to come from the BSRBR-RA study team directly.

“We have some experience in our practice in Southampton,” Dr. Edwards observed. This experience was outlined in a separate abstract at the meeting and presented by Dr. May Nwe Lwin, a clinical research fellow within Dr. Edwards’ group.

Dr. Lwin presented data on 83 patients who had received baricitinib at University Hospital Southampton between October 2017 and July 2020, 55 (65.2%) of whom remain on treatment to date, with mean follow-up of 17 months. Of the 28 patients who stopped baricitinib, 21 stopped within 12 months.

“Patients who continued on baricitinib appeared more likely to be older and female,” Dr. Lwin said.

The mean age of patients who continued on treatment after 12 months was 61.5 years but was 49 years for those who stopped earlier. The percentage of women continuing treatment at 12 months versus those stopping earlier were a respective 82% and 67%. Both findings were significant (P < .001) but “could mean nothing, or could be very interesting data to explore more,” Dr. Lwin suggested.

“However, there was no significant difference in discontinuation rates for those using mono or combination therapy, and also no effect of disease duration or seropositivity,” Dr. Lwin said.

“Most people stopped baricitinib in the first 3 months of their treatment,” Dr. Lwin reported, noting that the most common reason was a lack of efficacy in 64% of patients, with 28.5% of patients discontinuing because of side effects.

“When you look at the adverse events, the reasons for discontinuation are quite variable,” Dr. Lwin said. These included infections (one urinary tract infection, two chest infections, and a urinary tract infection), and one case each of discitis, deranged liver function, lymphoma, and personality change.

Update on the long-term safety profile

Also at the BSR annual conference, an update on the long-term safety profile of baricitinib seen in clinical trials was presented, using data from the ‘All-BARI-RA’ dataset. This includes data from nine clinical trials and one long-term extension study.

“We recently published a long-term safety analysis of this molecule involving 3,700-plus patients with exposure up to 7 years,” said Kevin L. Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.

Dr. Winthrop provided an update on this, adding in another 13,148 patient-years of follow-up and giving data on the safety experience with baricitinib with up to 8.4 years of exposure for some patients.

“In short, not much has changed,” Dr. Winthrop said, noting that event rates have remained stable.

The overall major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and overall deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism event rate were both 0.5 per 100 patient-years. Referring to the latter, Dr. Winthrop called them “rock solid stable” and “it’s been that way really all the way through the development program.”

Overall, event rates per 100 patient-years for serious infections, herpes zoster, and tuberculosis were a respective 2.7, 3.0, and 0.2. Serious infection rates over time have remained similar, but “clearly age is a risk factor for infection,” Dr. Winthrop said. “I would just say it’s similar to what we see with all biologics and small molecules in this setting.”

Malignancy and death rates were also higher in older patients, but after age adjustment, these had been stable across the different analysis points.

“Malignancy overall, excluding NMSC [nonmelanoma skin cancer], the event rate is 0.9 per 100 patient-years, very similar to what we’ve seen in the prior data cuts,” he said. “The same is true for lymphoma,” he added, with an overall event rate of 0.1 per 100 patient-years.

This updated analysis, Dr. Winthrop concluded, “suggests a safety profile really very similar to what was published recently.”Dr. Edwards has received research and educational grants and advisory panel and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The analysis of BSRBR-RA data he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly and performed independently of the BSRBR-RA study team. Dr. Packham reported no conflicts of interest; he chaired the oral abstracts sessions in which Dr. Edwards presented his findings.

Dr. Lwin did not report having any disclosures.

Dr. Winthrop has acted as a consultant to Eli Lilly and several other pharmaceutical companies and had received research or grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. The work he presented was sponsored by Eli Lilly.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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