2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Reproductive Health in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154675/1/art41191.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154675/2/art41191_am.pd

Family planning and pregnancy issues for women with systemic inflammatory diseases:patient and physician perspectives

OBJECTIVES: To identify family planning and pregnancy (FPP) issues for female patients of childbearing age living with a chronic inflammatory disease and to assess whether current clinical practice routinely provides adequate support to alleviate these concerns. SETTING: Multinational survey and an analysis of online patient activity. PARTICIPANTS: Premenopausal women (aged 20–45 years; N=969) were surveyed in the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Rheumatologists were surveyed in Germany (N=50), France (N=50), Italy (N=50) and the USA (N=100), and gastroenterologists were also surveyed in the USA (N=100). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Two online surveys were undertaken to identify FPP issues for physicians and patients. The surveys examined the frequency of dialogue on these topics between physicians and patients, alongside assessment of patient satisfaction regarding these conversations. Online analysis identified key themes for patient discussion outside their doctors’ office/clinic/surgery. RESULTS: 32–56% of physicians spontaneously reported having talked about FPP with their female patients of childbearing age. When prompted, the majority of rheumatologists (74–92%) and gastroenterologists (74%) reported having discussed conception/pregnancy with female patients; however, less than half reported consulting their patient's treating general practitioner/gynaecologist about these topics. The majority of patients reported their FPP-related concerns are not adequately addressed/settled during their medical appointments. Furthermore, only 30–40% of patients considered advice/information to be consistent across multiple healthcare professionals. Key online FPP-related patient discussions included disease state, adverse effects, treatment, switch behaviour and wash-out requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Female patients who live with chronic inflammatory disease have important FPP concerns. The majority of patients, however, do not feel that their FPP concerns are adequately addressed in current clinical practice and report that they receive inconsistent advice from the various healthcare professionals who manage different aspects of their care. There is a clear need for provision of up-to-date and consistent information/support to female patients

Mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Mycophenolate mofetil is an immunosuppressant commonly used to treat systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis. It is a known teratogen associated with significant toxicities, including an increased risk of infections and malignancies. Mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal is desirable once disease quiescence is reached, but the timing of when to do so and whether it provides a benefit has not been well-studied. We aimed to determine the effects of mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal on the risk of clinically significant disease reactivation in patients with quiescent SLE on long-term mycophenolate mofetil therapy. This multicenter, open-label, randomised trial was conducted in 19 centres in the USA. Eligible patients were aged between 18 and 70 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997 SLE criteria, and had a clinical SLEDAI score of less than 4 at screening. Mycophenolate mofetil therapy was required to be stable or decreasing for 2 years or more if initiated for renal indications, or for 1 year or more for non-renal indications. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to a withdrawal group, who tapered off mycophenolate mofetil over 12 weeks, or a maintenance group who maintained their baseline dose (1-3g per day) for 60 weeks. Adaptive random allocation ensured groups were balanced for study site, renal versus non-renal disease, and baseline mycophenolate mofetil dose (≥2 g per day vs <2 g per day). Clinically significant disease reactivation by week 60 following random allocation, requiring increased doses or new immunosuppressive therapy was the primary endpoint, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly allocated participants who began study-provided mycophenolate mofetil). Non-inferiority was evaluated using an estimation-based approach. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01946880) and is completed. Between Nov 6, 2013, and April 27, 2018, 123 participants were screened, of whom 102 were randomly allocated to the maintenance group (n=50) or the withdrawal group (n=52). Of the 100 participants included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (49 maintenance, 51 withdrawal), 84 (84%) were women, 16 (16%) were men, 40 (40%) were White, 41 (41%) were Black, and 76 (76%) had a history of lupus nephritis. The average age was 42 (SD 12·7). By week 60, nine (18%) of 51 participants in the withdrawal group had clinically significant disease reactivation, compared to five (10%) of 49 participants in the maintenance group. The risk of clinically significant disease reactivation was 11% (95% CI 5-24) in the maintenance group and 18% (10-32) in the withdrawal group. The estimated increase in the risk of clinically significant disease reactivation with mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal was 7% (one-sided upper 85% confidence limit 15%). Similar rates of adverse events were observed in the maintenance group (45 [90%] of 50 participants) and the withdrawal group (46 [88%] of 52 participants). Infections were more frequent in the mycophenolate mofetil maintenance group (32 [64%]) compared with the withdrawal group (24 [46%]). Mycophenolate mofetil withdrawal is not significantly inferior to mycophenolate mofetil maintenance. Estimates for the rates of disease reactivation and increases in risk with withdrawal can assist clinicians in making informed decisions on withdrawing mycophenolate mofetil in patients with stable SLE. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases

The prevention, screening and treatment of congenital heart block from neonatal lupus: a survey of provider practices

Objective:To survey an international sample of providers to determine their current practices for the prevention, screening, and treatment of congenital heart block (CHB) due to maternal Ro/SSA antibodies. Methods:A survey was designed by the organizing committee of the 9th International Conference of Reproduction, Pregnancy and Rheumatic Diseases. It was sent to attendants of the conference and authors of recent publications or abstracts at ACR 2012, 2013 or 2014 on rheumatic diseases and pregnancy. Results:In anti-Ro/SSA positive women, 80% of 49 respondents recommended screening by serial fetal echocardiogram (ECHO), with most starting at week 16 (59%) and stopping at week 28 (25%), although the time to stop varied widely. For women without a prior infant with neonatal lupus, respondents recommend every other week (44%) or weekly (28%) fetal ECHOs. For women with a prior infant with neonatal lupus, 80% recommend weekly fetal ECHOs. To prevent CHB, HCQ was recommended by 67% of respondents and most would start pre-pregnancy (62%). Respondents were asked about medications to treat varying degrees of CHB in a 20-week pregnant, anti-Ro and La positive SLE patient. For first degree, respondents recommended starting dexamethasone (53%) or HCQ (43%). For second degree, respondents recommended starting dexamethasone (88%). For third degree, respondents recommended starting dexamethasone (55%) or IVIg (33%), although 27% would not start treatment. Conclusion:Despite the absence of official guidelines, many physicians with a focus on pregnancy and rheumatic disease have developed similar patterns in the screening, prevention and treatment of CHB

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases

ObjectiveTo provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsThis guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsThis guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.ConclusionApplication of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings