Antibody development and disease severity of COVID-19 in non-immunised patients with rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: data from a prospective cohort study

Contains fulltext : 251778.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Research on the disease severity of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) has been inconclusive, and long-term prospective data on the development of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in these patients are lacking. METHODS: Adult patients with rheumatic IMIDs from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam were invited to participate. All patients were asked to recruit their own sex-matched and age-matched control subject. Clinical data were collected via online questionnaires (at baseline, and after 1-4 and 5-9 months of follow-up). Serum samples were collected twice and analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Subsequently, IgG titres were quantified in samples with a positive test result. FINDINGS: In total, 3080 consecutive patients and 1102 controls with comparable age and sex distribution were included for analyses. Patients were more frequently hospitalised compared with controls when infected with SARS-CoV-2; 7% vs 0.7% (adjusted OR: 7.33, 95% CI: 0.96 to 55.77). Only treatment with B-cell targeting therapy was independently associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (adjusted OR: 14.62, 95% CI: 2.31 to 92.39). IgG antibody titres were higher in hospitalised compared with non-hospitalised patients, and slowly declined with time in similar patterns for patients in all treatment subgroups and controls. INTERPRETATION: We observed that patients with rheumatic IMIDs, especially those treated with B-cell targeting therapy, were more likely to be hospitalised when infected with SARS-CoV-2. Treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological DMARDs other than B-cell targeting agents is unlikely to have negative effects on the development of long-lasting humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2

Changes in selected haematological parameters associated with JAK1/JAK2 inhibition observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with baricitinib

Objective To characterise changes in selected haematological parameters following once-daily oral baricitinib dosing.Methods Data were pooled from eight randomised clinical trials (four phase 3, three phase 2, one phase 1b) and one long-term extension. Changes in haematological parameters were evaluated up to 128 weeks (N=2387); overall safety of baricitinib was assessed up to 6 years (N=3492).Results Mean absolute neutrophil counts decreased (-1.36x10(9)/L) within 1 month, followed by stabilisation within the normal reference range through week 128. The incidence of serious infections was not elevated in patients with neutropenia during the 24-week placebo-controlled period. Mean lymphocyte counts increased (+0.30x10(9)/L) within 1 month, then decreased to baseline (weeks 12-24). Mean platelet counts increased at week 2 (+51x10(9)/L), then decreased towards baseline. Overall, mean haemoglobin concentrations decreased (-0.12 mmol/L), then returned to baseline; however, reduced baseline haemoglobin concentrations observed in the highest baseline high-sensitivity C reactive protein quartile increased over time. Permanent drug discontinuation occurred due to laboratory abnormalities related to neutrophil count in 8 (0.2%), lymphocyte counts in 6 (0.2%), platelet counts in 8 (0.2%), and haemoglobin levels in 16 (0.5%) of all baricitinib-treated patients (N=3492 with 7993 total person-years of exposure).Conclusions Moderate decreases in neutrophils were seen during baricitinib treatment; however, serious infection was uncommon in patients with neutropenia. Transient increases were observed in lymphocytes and platelets, which returned to baseline over time. Changes in haemoglobin concentration were generally small. Haematological abnormalities seldom led to drug discontinuation.Pathophysiology and treatment of rheumatic disease

Updated consensus statement on the use of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background Since initial approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rituximab has been evaluated in clinical trials involving various populations with RA. Information has also been gathered from registries. This report therefore updates the 2007 consensus document on the use of rituximab in the treatment of RA. Methods Preparation of this new document involved many international experts experienced in the treatment of RA. Following a meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify all relevant data. Data were then interrogated by a drafting committee, with subsequent review and discussion by a wider expert committee leading to the formulation of an updated consensus statement. These committees also included patients with RA. Results The new statement covers wide-ranging issues including the use of rituximab in earlier RA and impact on structural progression, and aspects particularly pertinent to rituximab such as co-medication, optimal dosage regimens, repeat treatment cycles and how to manage non-response. Biological therapy following rituximab usage is also addressed, and safety concerns including appropriate screening for hepatitis, immunoglobulin levels and infection risk. This consensus statement will support clinicians and inform patients when using B-cell depletion in the management of RA, providing up-to-date information and highlighting areas for further research. Conclusion New therapeutic strategies and treatment options for RA, a chronic destructive and disabling disease, have expanded over recent years. These have been summarised in general strategic suggestions and specific management recommendations, emphasising the importance of expedient disease-modifying antirheumatic drug implementation and tight disease control. This consensus statement is in line with these fundamental principles of management

Practice what you preach? An exploratory multilevel study on rheumatoid arthritis guideline adherence by rheumatologists

Contains fulltext : 171223.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVES: To assess variation in and determinants of rheumatologist guideline adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in daily practice. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, guideline adherence in the first year of treatment was assessed for 7 predefined parameters on diagnostics, treatment and follow-up in all adult patients with RA with a first outpatient clinic visit at the study centre, from September 2009 to March 2011. Variation in guideline adherence was assessed on parameter and rheumatologist level. Determinants for guideline adherence were assessed in patients (demographic characteristics, rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (aCCP) positivity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, erosive disease, comorbidity and the number of available disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment options) and rheumatologists (demographic and practice characteristics, guideline knowledge and agreement, outcome expectancy, cognitive bias, thinking style, numeracy and personality). RESULTS: A total of 994 visits in 137 patients with RA were reviewed. Variation in guideline adherence among parameters was present (adherence between 21% and 72%), with referral to the physician assistant as lowest scoring and referral to a specialised nurse as highest scoring parameter. Variation in guideline adherence among rheumatologists was also present (adherence between 22% and 100%). Patient sex, the number of DMARD options, presence of erosions, comorbidity, RF/aCCP positivity, type of patient and the rheumatologists' scientific education status were associated with adherence to 1 or more guideline parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence varied considerably among the guideline parameters and rheumatologists, showing that there is room for improvement. Guideline adherence in our sample was related to several patient and rheumatologist determinants

Choosing wisely in daily practice: a mixed methods study on determinants of antinuclear antibody testing by rheumatologists

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: To explore the relationship between antinuclear antibody (ANA) overuse and rheumatologist-related factors before and after an intervention aimed at reducing ANA overuse. METHOD: In this mixed methods study we performed surveys among rheumatologists (n = 20) before and after the ANA intervention (education and feedback). We identified clinician-related determinants of ANA overuse (demographic characteristics, cognitive bias, numeracy, personality, thinking styles, and knowledge) by multivariate analysis. Two focus group meetings with rheumatologists were held 6 months after the intervention to explore self-reported determinants. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by all rheumatologists and eight participated in the focus groups. Rheumatologists with more work experience and a less extravert personality ordered more ANA tests before the intervention [beta = 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.003 to 0.02, p = 0.01 and beta = -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01, p = 0.04, respectively; R2 = 47%]. After the intervention, female rheumatologists changed less than their male colleagues with regard to the number of ANA tests ordered (beta = 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.26, p = 0.02; R2 = 25%). During the focus groups, seven themes were identified that influenced improvement in ANA overuse: determinants related to the intervention and the study, individual health professionals, patients, professional interactions, incentives and resources, capacity for organizational change, and social, political, and legal factors. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several determinants that together explained a sizable part of the variance observed in the ANA outcomes at baseline and in the change in ANA outcomes afterwards. Furthermore, the focus groups yielded additional factors suggesting a complex interplay of determinants influencing rheumatologists' ANA ordering behaviour

Rheumatologists' guideline adherence in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled study on electronic decision support, education and feedback

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of education, feedback and a computerised decision support system (CDSS) versus education and feedback alone on rheumatologists' rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guideline adherence. METHODS: A single-centre, randomised controlled pilot study was performed among clinicians (rheumatologists, residents and physician assistants; n=20) working at the study centre, with a 1:1 randomisation of included clinicians. A standardized sum score (SSS) on guideline adherence was used as the primary outcome (patient level). The SSS was calculated from 13 dichotomous indicators on quality of RA monitoring, treatment and follow-up. The randomised controlled design was combined with a before-after design in the control group to assess the effect education and feedback alone. RESULTS: Twenty clinicians (mean age 44.3+/-10.9 years; 55% female) and 990 patients (mean age 62 +/- 13 years; 69% female; 72% rheumatoid factor and/or anti-CCP positive) were included. Addition of CDSS to education and feedback did not result in significant better quality of RA care than education and feedback alone (SSS difference 0.02; 95%-CI -0.04 to 0.08; p=0.60). However, before/after comparison showed that education and feedback alone resulted in a significant increase in the SSS from 0.58 to 0.64 (difference 0.06; 95%-CI 0.02 to 0.11; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that CDSS did not have added value with regard to guideline adherence, whereas education and feedback can lead to a small but significant improvement of guideline adherence