Heidi Splete

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.

Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.

Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.

In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.

The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m².

At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).

The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).

“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.

All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.

Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
 

Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge

“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.

Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.

“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
 

Predicting risk for severe disease

“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.

“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.

However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.

The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.

Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.

Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.

In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.

The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m².

At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).

The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).

“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.

All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.

Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
 

Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge

“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.

Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.

“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
 

Predicting risk for severe disease

“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.

“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.

However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.

The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients at increased risk for respiratory failure showed significant improvement after treatment with anakinra, compared with placebo, based on data from a phase 3, randomized trial of nearly 600 patients who also received standard of care treatment.

Anakinra, a recombinant interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist that blocks activity for both IL-1 alpha and beta, showed a 70% decrease in the risk of progression to severe respiratory failure in a prior open-label, phase 2, proof-of-concept study, wrote Evdoxia Kyriazopoulou, MD, PhD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

Previous research has shown that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) serum levels can signal increased risk of progression to severe disease and respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, they noted.

Supported by these early findings, “the SAVE-MORE study (suPAR-guided anakinra treatment for validation of the risk and early management of severe respiratory failure by COVID-19) is a pivotal, confirmatory, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of early initiation of anakinra treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19,” the researchers said.

In the SAVE-MORE study published Sept. 3 in Nature Medicine, the researchers identified 594 adults with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at 37 centers in Greece and Italy and at risk of progressing to respiratory failure based on plasma suPAR levels of at least 6 ng/mL.

The primary objective was to assess the impact of early anakinra treatment on the clinical status of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe disease according to the 11-point, ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) at 28 days after starting treatment. All patients received standard of care, which consisted of regular monitoring of physical signs, oximetry, and anticoagulation. Patients with severe disease by the WHO definition were also received 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. A total of 405 were randomized to anakinra and 189 to placebo. Approximately 92% of the study participants had severe pneumonia according to the WHO classification for COVID-19. The average age of the patients was 62 years, 58% were male, and the average body mass index was 29.5 kg/m².

At 28 days, 204 (50.4%) of the anakinra-treated patients had fully recovered, with no detectable viral RNA, compared with 50 (26.5%) of the placebo-treated patients (P < .0001). In addition, significantly fewer patients in the anakinra group had died by 28 days (13 patients, 3.2%), compared with patients in the placebo group (13 patients, 6.9%).

The median decrease in WHO-CPS scores from baseline to 28 days was 4 points in the anakinra group and 3 points in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001).

“Overall, the unadjusted proportional odds of having a worse score on the 11-point WHO-CPS at day 28 with anakinra was 0.36 versus placebo,” and this number remained the same in adjusted analysis, the researchers wrote.

All five secondary endpoints on the WHO-CPS showed significant benefits of anakinra, compared with placebo. These included an absolute decrease of WHO-CPS at day 28 and day 14 from baseline; an absolute decrease of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 from baseline; and a significantly shorter mean time to both hospital and ICU discharge (1 day and 4 days, respectively) with anakinra versus placebo.

Follow-up laboratory data showed a significant increase in absolute lymphocyte count at 7 days, a significant decrease in circulating IL-6 levels at 4 and 7 days, and significantly decreased plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 7 days.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16% with anakinra and in 21.7% with placebo; the most common of these events were infections (8.4% with anakinra and 15.9% with placebo). The next most common serious treatment-emergent adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary embolism. The most common nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events were an increase of liver function tests and hyperglycemia (similar in anakinra and placebo groups) and nonserious anemia (lower in the anakinra group).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of patients with critical COVID-19 disease and the challenge of application of suPAR in all hospital settings, the researchers noted. However, “the results validate the findings of the previous SAVE open-label phase 2 trial,” they said. The results suggest “that suPAR should be measured upon admission of all patients with COVID-19 who do not need oxygen or who need nasal or mask oxygen, and that, if suPAR levels are 6 ng/mL or higher, anakinra treatment might be a suitable therapy,” they concluded.
 

Cytokine storm syndrome remains a treatment challenge

“Many who die from COVID-19 suffer hyperinflammation with features of cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) and associated acute respiratory distress syndrome,” wrote Randy Q. Cron, MD, and W. Winn Chatham, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Roberto Caricchio, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, in an accompanying editorial. They noted that the SAVE-MORE trial results contrast with another recent randomized trial of canakinumab, which failed to show notable benefits, compared with placebo, in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

“There are some key differences between these trials, one being that anakinra blocks signaling of both IL-1 alpha and IL-1 beta, whereas canakinumab binds only IL-1 beta,” the editorialists explained. “SARS-CoV-2–infected endothelium may be a particularly important source of IL-1 alpha that is not targeted by canakinumab,” they noted.

Additional studies have examined IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 patients, but data have been inconsistent, the editorialists said.

“One thing that is clearly emerging from this pandemic is that the CSS associated with COVID-19 is relatively unique, with only modestly elevated levels of IL-6, CRP, and ferritin, for example,” they noted. However, the SAVE-MORE study suggests that more targeted approaches, such as anakinra, “may allow earlier introduction of anticytokine treatment” and support the use of IL-1 blockade with anakinra for cases of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
 

Predicting risk for severe disease

“One of the major challenges in the management of patients with COVID-19 is identifying patients at risk of severe disease who would warrant early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy,” said Salim Hayek, MD, medical director of the University of Michigan’s Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics, in an interview. “We and others had found that soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels are the strongest predictor of severe disease amongst biomarkers of inflammation,” he said. “In this study, patients with high suPAR levels derived benefit from anakinra, compared to those with placebo. This study is a great example of how suPAR levels could be used to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from therapies targeting inflammation,” Dr. Hayek emphasized.

“The findings are in line with the hypothesis that patients with the highest degrees of inflammation would benefit the best from targeting the hyperinflammatory cascade using anakinra or other interleukin antagonists,” Dr. Hayek said. “Given suPAR levels are the best predictors of high-risk disease, it is not surprising to see that patients with high levels benefit from targeting inflammation,” he noted.

The take-home message for clinicians at this time is that anakinra effectively improves outcomes in COVID-19 patients with high suPAR levels, Dr. Hayek said. “SuPAR can be measured easily at the point of care. Thus, a targeted strategy using suPAR to identify patients who would benefit from anakinra appears to be viable,” he explained.

However, “Whether anakinra is effective in patients with lower suPAR levels (<6 ng/mL) is unclear and was not answered by this study,” he said. “We eagerly await results of other trials to make that determination. Whether suPAR levels can also help guide the use of other therapies for COVID-19 should be explored and would enhance the personalization of treatment for COVID-19 according to the underlying inflammatory state,” he added.

The SAVE-MORE study was funded by the Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis and Sobi, which manufactures anakinra. Some of the study authors reported financial relationships with Sobi and other pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Cron disclosed serving as a consultant to Sobi, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sironax. Dr. Cron and Dr. Chatham disclosed having received grant support from Sobi for investigator-initiated clinical trials, and Dr. Caricchio disclosed serving as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Aurinia, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hayek had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic altered patterns of substance use by early adolescents to less alcohol use and greater use and misuse of nicotine and prescription drugs, based on data from more than 7,000 youth aged 10-14 years.

Substance use in early adolescence is a function of many environmental factors including substance availability, parent and peer use, and family function, as well as macroeconomic factors, William E. Pelham III, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, it is critical to evaluate how substance use during early adolescence has been impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a source of large and sustained disruptions to adolescents’ daily lives in terms of education, contact with family/friends, and health behaviors.”

In a prospective, community-based cohort study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the researchers conducted a three-wave assessment of substance use between May 2020 and August 2020, and reviewed prepandemic assessments from 2018 to 2019. The participants included 7,842 adolescents with an average age of 12 years who were initially enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study at age 9-10 years. At the start of the study, 48% of the participants were female, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, and 2% were Asian. Participants completed three online surveys between May 2020 and August 2020.

Each survey included the number of days in the past 30 days in which the adolescents drank alcohol; smoked cigarettes; used electronic nicotine delivery systems; smoked a cigar, hookah, or pipe; used smokeless tobacco products; used a cannabis product; abused prescription drugs; used inhalants; or used any other drugs. The response scale was 0 days to 10-plus days.

The overall prevalence of substance use among young adolescents was similar between prepandemic and pandemic periods; however fewer respondents reported using alcohol, but more reported using nicotine or misusing prescription medications.

Across all three survey periods, 7.4% of youth reported any substance use, 3.4% reported ever using alcohol, and 3.2% reported ever using nicotine. Of those who reported substance use, 79% reported 1-2 days of use in the past month, and 87% reported using a single substance.

In comparing prepandemic and pandemic substance use, the prevalence of alcohol use in the past 30 days decreased significantly, from 2.1% to 0.8%. However, use of nicotine increased significantly from 0% to 1.3%, and misuse of prescription drugs increased significantly from 0% to 0.6%. “Changes in the rates of use of any substance, cannabis, or inhalants were not statistically significant,” the researchers wrote.

Sex and ethnicity were not associated with substance use during the pandemic, but rates of substance use were higher among youth whose parents were unmarried or had lower levels of education, and among those with preexisting externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Youth who reported higher levels of uncertainty related to COVID-19 were significantly more likely to report substance use; additionally, stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were positively association with any substance use during the pandemic survey periods. Youth whose parents experienced hardship or whose parents used alcohol or drugs also were more likely to report substance use.

“Stability in the overall rate of substance use in this cohort is reassuring given that the pandemic has brought increases in teens’ unoccupied time, stress, and loneliness, reduced access to support services, and disruptions to routines and family/parenting practices, all of which might be expected to have increased youth substance use,” the researchers noted. The findings do not explain the decreased alcohol use, but the researchers cited possible reasons for reduced alcohol use including lack of contact with friends and social activities, and greater supervision by parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the comparison of prepandemic and pandemic substance use in younger adolescents, which may not reflect changes in substance use in older adolescents. The study also could not establish causality, and did not account for the intensity of substance use, such as number of drinks, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal design and large, diverse study population, and the use of prepandemic assessments that allowed evaluation of changes over time.

Overall, the results highlight the importance of preexisting and acute risk protective factors in mitigating substance use in young adolescents, and suggest the potential of economic support for families and emotional support for youth as ways to reduce risk, the researchers concluded.
 

Predicting use and identifying risk factors

“It was important to conduct research at this time so we know how trends have changed during the pandemic,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. The research helps clinicians “so we can better predict which substances our patients may be using, especially those with preexisting psychological conditions and those at socioeconomic disadvantage.

“I was surprised by the increased prescription drug use, but it make sense, as adolescents are at home more and may be illicitly using their parents medications,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “I think as they go back to school, trends will shift back to where they were as they will be spending more time with friends.” The take-home message to clinicians is the increased use of nicotine and prescription drugs during the pandemic, and future research should focus on substance use trends in 14- to 20-year-olds.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the current study also received support from the National Science Foundation and Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

The restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic altered patterns of substance use by early adolescents to less alcohol use and greater use and misuse of nicotine and prescription drugs, based on data from more than 7,000 youth aged 10-14 years.

Substance use in early adolescence is a function of many environmental factors including substance availability, parent and peer use, and family function, as well as macroeconomic factors, William E. Pelham III, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, it is critical to evaluate how substance use during early adolescence has been impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a source of large and sustained disruptions to adolescents’ daily lives in terms of education, contact with family/friends, and health behaviors.”

In a prospective, community-based cohort study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the researchers conducted a three-wave assessment of substance use between May 2020 and August 2020, and reviewed prepandemic assessments from 2018 to 2019. The participants included 7,842 adolescents with an average age of 12 years who were initially enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study at age 9-10 years. At the start of the study, 48% of the participants were female, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, and 2% were Asian. Participants completed three online surveys between May 2020 and August 2020.

Each survey included the number of days in the past 30 days in which the adolescents drank alcohol; smoked cigarettes; used electronic nicotine delivery systems; smoked a cigar, hookah, or pipe; used smokeless tobacco products; used a cannabis product; abused prescription drugs; used inhalants; or used any other drugs. The response scale was 0 days to 10-plus days.

The overall prevalence of substance use among young adolescents was similar between prepandemic and pandemic periods; however fewer respondents reported using alcohol, but more reported using nicotine or misusing prescription medications.

Across all three survey periods, 7.4% of youth reported any substance use, 3.4% reported ever using alcohol, and 3.2% reported ever using nicotine. Of those who reported substance use, 79% reported 1-2 days of use in the past month, and 87% reported using a single substance.

In comparing prepandemic and pandemic substance use, the prevalence of alcohol use in the past 30 days decreased significantly, from 2.1% to 0.8%. However, use of nicotine increased significantly from 0% to 1.3%, and misuse of prescription drugs increased significantly from 0% to 0.6%. “Changes in the rates of use of any substance, cannabis, or inhalants were not statistically significant,” the researchers wrote.

Sex and ethnicity were not associated with substance use during the pandemic, but rates of substance use were higher among youth whose parents were unmarried or had lower levels of education, and among those with preexisting externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Youth who reported higher levels of uncertainty related to COVID-19 were significantly more likely to report substance use; additionally, stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were positively association with any substance use during the pandemic survey periods. Youth whose parents experienced hardship or whose parents used alcohol or drugs also were more likely to report substance use.

“Stability in the overall rate of substance use in this cohort is reassuring given that the pandemic has brought increases in teens’ unoccupied time, stress, and loneliness, reduced access to support services, and disruptions to routines and family/parenting practices, all of which might be expected to have increased youth substance use,” the researchers noted. The findings do not explain the decreased alcohol use, but the researchers cited possible reasons for reduced alcohol use including lack of contact with friends and social activities, and greater supervision by parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the comparison of prepandemic and pandemic substance use in younger adolescents, which may not reflect changes in substance use in older adolescents. The study also could not establish causality, and did not account for the intensity of substance use, such as number of drinks, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal design and large, diverse study population, and the use of prepandemic assessments that allowed evaluation of changes over time.

Overall, the results highlight the importance of preexisting and acute risk protective factors in mitigating substance use in young adolescents, and suggest the potential of economic support for families and emotional support for youth as ways to reduce risk, the researchers concluded.
 

Predicting use and identifying risk factors

“It was important to conduct research at this time so we know how trends have changed during the pandemic,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. The research helps clinicians “so we can better predict which substances our patients may be using, especially those with preexisting psychological conditions and those at socioeconomic disadvantage.

“I was surprised by the increased prescription drug use, but it make sense, as adolescents are at home more and may be illicitly using their parents medications,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “I think as they go back to school, trends will shift back to where they were as they will be spending more time with friends.” The take-home message to clinicians is the increased use of nicotine and prescription drugs during the pandemic, and future research should focus on substance use trends in 14- to 20-year-olds.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the current study also received support from the National Science Foundation and Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

The restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic altered patterns of substance use by early adolescents to less alcohol use and greater use and misuse of nicotine and prescription drugs, based on data from more than 7,000 youth aged 10-14 years.

Substance use in early adolescence is a function of many environmental factors including substance availability, parent and peer use, and family function, as well as macroeconomic factors, William E. Pelham III, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, it is critical to evaluate how substance use during early adolescence has been impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a source of large and sustained disruptions to adolescents’ daily lives in terms of education, contact with family/friends, and health behaviors.”

In a prospective, community-based cohort study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the researchers conducted a three-wave assessment of substance use between May 2020 and August 2020, and reviewed prepandemic assessments from 2018 to 2019. The participants included 7,842 adolescents with an average age of 12 years who were initially enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study at age 9-10 years. At the start of the study, 48% of the participants were female, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, and 2% were Asian. Participants completed three online surveys between May 2020 and August 2020.

Each survey included the number of days in the past 30 days in which the adolescents drank alcohol; smoked cigarettes; used electronic nicotine delivery systems; smoked a cigar, hookah, or pipe; used smokeless tobacco products; used a cannabis product; abused prescription drugs; used inhalants; or used any other drugs. The response scale was 0 days to 10-plus days.

The overall prevalence of substance use among young adolescents was similar between prepandemic and pandemic periods; however fewer respondents reported using alcohol, but more reported using nicotine or misusing prescription medications.

Across all three survey periods, 7.4% of youth reported any substance use, 3.4% reported ever using alcohol, and 3.2% reported ever using nicotine. Of those who reported substance use, 79% reported 1-2 days of use in the past month, and 87% reported using a single substance.

In comparing prepandemic and pandemic substance use, the prevalence of alcohol use in the past 30 days decreased significantly, from 2.1% to 0.8%. However, use of nicotine increased significantly from 0% to 1.3%, and misuse of prescription drugs increased significantly from 0% to 0.6%. “Changes in the rates of use of any substance, cannabis, or inhalants were not statistically significant,” the researchers wrote.

Sex and ethnicity were not associated with substance use during the pandemic, but rates of substance use were higher among youth whose parents were unmarried or had lower levels of education, and among those with preexisting externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Youth who reported higher levels of uncertainty related to COVID-19 were significantly more likely to report substance use; additionally, stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were positively association with any substance use during the pandemic survey periods. Youth whose parents experienced hardship or whose parents used alcohol or drugs also were more likely to report substance use.

“Stability in the overall rate of substance use in this cohort is reassuring given that the pandemic has brought increases in teens’ unoccupied time, stress, and loneliness, reduced access to support services, and disruptions to routines and family/parenting practices, all of which might be expected to have increased youth substance use,” the researchers noted. The findings do not explain the decreased alcohol use, but the researchers cited possible reasons for reduced alcohol use including lack of contact with friends and social activities, and greater supervision by parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the comparison of prepandemic and pandemic substance use in younger adolescents, which may not reflect changes in substance use in older adolescents. The study also could not establish causality, and did not account for the intensity of substance use, such as number of drinks, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal design and large, diverse study population, and the use of prepandemic assessments that allowed evaluation of changes over time.

Overall, the results highlight the importance of preexisting and acute risk protective factors in mitigating substance use in young adolescents, and suggest the potential of economic support for families and emotional support for youth as ways to reduce risk, the researchers concluded.
 

Predicting use and identifying risk factors

“It was important to conduct research at this time so we know how trends have changed during the pandemic,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. The research helps clinicians “so we can better predict which substances our patients may be using, especially those with preexisting psychological conditions and those at socioeconomic disadvantage.

“I was surprised by the increased prescription drug use, but it make sense, as adolescents are at home more and may be illicitly using their parents medications,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “I think as they go back to school, trends will shift back to where they were as they will be spending more time with friends.” The take-home message to clinicians is the increased use of nicotine and prescription drugs during the pandemic, and future research should focus on substance use trends in 14- to 20-year-olds.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the current study also received support from the National Science Foundation and Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy should receive a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at least 28 days after the second dose of either of these two mRNA vaccines, according to updated recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The update follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that certain immunocompromised patients receive a third dose of an mRNA vaccine to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19.

Individuals receiving the Pfizer vaccine must be aged 12 years and older, while those receiving the Moderna vaccine must be 18 years and older, the ACR emphasized.

“These statements were based upon a dearth of high-quality data and are not intended to replace clinical judgment,” the authors wrote. “Modifications made to treatment plans, particularly in complex rheumatic disease patients, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific and, therefore, must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process.”

The task force recommended using the same mRNA vaccine booster as the patient received for their initial two-dose series when possible, but notes that either mRNA vaccine is acceptable, and recommends the mRNA vaccine for patients who have yet to receive any vaccine because of the availability of the booster. The task force emphasized that they achieved no consensus on recommending a booster mRNA vaccine to patients who received a single dose of Johnson & Johnson vaccine because the safety data are uncertain.

The updated guidance also identifies the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization in August for the use of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibody treatment for emergency postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kg and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, which includes patients receiving immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies other than hydroxychloroquine. Patients who have been exposed to an individual with COVID-19 should discuss this treatment with their health care provider as an added precaution; however, the guidance emphasized that the prophylactic treatment is not a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination.

The recommendations advise clinicians to counsel their patients to refrain from taking certain immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications for 1-2 weeks after booster vaccination if disease activity allows, with the exception of glucocorticoids and anticytokines such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and others including interleukin-17, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-1R, IL-6R antagonists, for which the task force did not achieve a consensus recommendation.

The guidance notes that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 medications “should discuss the optimal timing [of the booster] with their rheumatology provider” and that some practitioners measure CD19 B cells as a tool with which to time the booster and subsequent rituximab dosing. For those who elect to dose without such information, or for whom such measurement is not available or feasible, provide the booster 2-4 weeks before next anticipated rituximab dose (e.g., at month 5.0 or 5.5 for patients on an every-6-month rituximab dosing schedule).”

There was strong consensus from the task force that health care providers “should not routinely order any lab testing (e.g., antibody tests for IgM and/or IgG to spike or nucleocapsid proteins) to assess immunity to COVID-19 post vaccination, nor to assess the need for vaccination in a yet-unvaccinated person.”

“The updated information from the ACR addresses not only booster vaccination but also other important and practical issues facing rheumatology providers and their patients related to the pandemic,” said task force chair Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an ACR statement announcing the updates.

“Although the guidance is issued in light of the best evidence available, the science regarding COVID-19 vaccination as it affects the practice of rheumatology is undergoing rapid evolution,” he noted. “We need direct evidence such as that from randomized trials to inform the best practices of what we can do to protect our patients from SARS-CoV-2.”

The update retains the current recommendations that rheumatology patients follow all public health guidelines regarding physical distancing and other preventive measures following vaccination, but the task force did not recommend exceeding current public health guidance. “The appropriateness for continued preventive measures (e.g., masking, physical distancing) should be discussed with patients as their rheumatology providers deem appropriate,” they wrote.

The full updated version of the ACR’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance for Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases will be published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The summary was developed by the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included 9 rheumatologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health experts with current or past employment history with the CDC.

The ACR encourages clinicians with questions or concerns to email COVID@rheumatology.org for support.

Patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy should receive a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at least 28 days after the second dose of either of these two mRNA vaccines, according to updated recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The update follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that certain immunocompromised patients receive a third dose of an mRNA vaccine to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19.

Individuals receiving the Pfizer vaccine must be aged 12 years and older, while those receiving the Moderna vaccine must be 18 years and older, the ACR emphasized.

“These statements were based upon a dearth of high-quality data and are not intended to replace clinical judgment,” the authors wrote. “Modifications made to treatment plans, particularly in complex rheumatic disease patients, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific and, therefore, must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process.”

The task force recommended using the same mRNA vaccine booster as the patient received for their initial two-dose series when possible, but notes that either mRNA vaccine is acceptable, and recommends the mRNA vaccine for patients who have yet to receive any vaccine because of the availability of the booster. The task force emphasized that they achieved no consensus on recommending a booster mRNA vaccine to patients who received a single dose of Johnson & Johnson vaccine because the safety data are uncertain.

The updated guidance also identifies the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization in August for the use of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibody treatment for emergency postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kg and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, which includes patients receiving immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies other than hydroxychloroquine. Patients who have been exposed to an individual with COVID-19 should discuss this treatment with their health care provider as an added precaution; however, the guidance emphasized that the prophylactic treatment is not a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination.

The recommendations advise clinicians to counsel their patients to refrain from taking certain immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications for 1-2 weeks after booster vaccination if disease activity allows, with the exception of glucocorticoids and anticytokines such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and others including interleukin-17, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-1R, IL-6R antagonists, for which the task force did not achieve a consensus recommendation.

The guidance notes that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 medications “should discuss the optimal timing [of the booster] with their rheumatology provider” and that some practitioners measure CD19 B cells as a tool with which to time the booster and subsequent rituximab dosing. For those who elect to dose without such information, or for whom such measurement is not available or feasible, provide the booster 2-4 weeks before next anticipated rituximab dose (e.g., at month 5.0 or 5.5 for patients on an every-6-month rituximab dosing schedule).”

There was strong consensus from the task force that health care providers “should not routinely order any lab testing (e.g., antibody tests for IgM and/or IgG to spike or nucleocapsid proteins) to assess immunity to COVID-19 post vaccination, nor to assess the need for vaccination in a yet-unvaccinated person.”

“The updated information from the ACR addresses not only booster vaccination but also other important and practical issues facing rheumatology providers and their patients related to the pandemic,” said task force chair Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an ACR statement announcing the updates.

“Although the guidance is issued in light of the best evidence available, the science regarding COVID-19 vaccination as it affects the practice of rheumatology is undergoing rapid evolution,” he noted. “We need direct evidence such as that from randomized trials to inform the best practices of what we can do to protect our patients from SARS-CoV-2.”

The update retains the current recommendations that rheumatology patients follow all public health guidelines regarding physical distancing and other preventive measures following vaccination, but the task force did not recommend exceeding current public health guidance. “The appropriateness for continued preventive measures (e.g., masking, physical distancing) should be discussed with patients as their rheumatology providers deem appropriate,” they wrote.

The full updated version of the ACR’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance for Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases will be published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The summary was developed by the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included 9 rheumatologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health experts with current or past employment history with the CDC.

The ACR encourages clinicians with questions or concerns to email COVID@rheumatology.org for support.

Patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy should receive a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine at least 28 days after the second dose of either of these two mRNA vaccines, according to updated recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The update follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that certain immunocompromised patients receive a third dose of an mRNA vaccine to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19.

Individuals receiving the Pfizer vaccine must be aged 12 years and older, while those receiving the Moderna vaccine must be 18 years and older, the ACR emphasized.

“These statements were based upon a dearth of high-quality data and are not intended to replace clinical judgment,” the authors wrote. “Modifications made to treatment plans, particularly in complex rheumatic disease patients, are highly disease, patient, geography, and time specific and, therefore, must be individualized as part of a shared decision-making process.”

The task force recommended using the same mRNA vaccine booster as the patient received for their initial two-dose series when possible, but notes that either mRNA vaccine is acceptable, and recommends the mRNA vaccine for patients who have yet to receive any vaccine because of the availability of the booster. The task force emphasized that they achieved no consensus on recommending a booster mRNA vaccine to patients who received a single dose of Johnson & Johnson vaccine because the safety data are uncertain.

The updated guidance also identifies the Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization in August for the use of REGEN-COV monoclonal antibody treatment for emergency postexposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older who weigh at least 40 kg and are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, which includes patients receiving immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies other than hydroxychloroquine. Patients who have been exposed to an individual with COVID-19 should discuss this treatment with their health care provider as an added precaution; however, the guidance emphasized that the prophylactic treatment is not a substitute for COVID-19 vaccination.

The recommendations advise clinicians to counsel their patients to refrain from taking certain immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive medications for 1-2 weeks after booster vaccination if disease activity allows, with the exception of glucocorticoids and anticytokines such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and others including interleukin-17, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-1R, IL-6R antagonists, for which the task force did not achieve a consensus recommendation.

The guidance notes that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 medications “should discuss the optimal timing [of the booster] with their rheumatology provider” and that some practitioners measure CD19 B cells as a tool with which to time the booster and subsequent rituximab dosing. For those who elect to dose without such information, or for whom such measurement is not available or feasible, provide the booster 2-4 weeks before next anticipated rituximab dose (e.g., at month 5.0 or 5.5 for patients on an every-6-month rituximab dosing schedule).”

There was strong consensus from the task force that health care providers “should not routinely order any lab testing (e.g., antibody tests for IgM and/or IgG to spike or nucleocapsid proteins) to assess immunity to COVID-19 post vaccination, nor to assess the need for vaccination in a yet-unvaccinated person.”

“The updated information from the ACR addresses not only booster vaccination but also other important and practical issues facing rheumatology providers and their patients related to the pandemic,” said task force chair Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in an ACR statement announcing the updates.

“Although the guidance is issued in light of the best evidence available, the science regarding COVID-19 vaccination as it affects the practice of rheumatology is undergoing rapid evolution,” he noted. “We need direct evidence such as that from randomized trials to inform the best practices of what we can do to protect our patients from SARS-CoV-2.”

The update retains the current recommendations that rheumatology patients follow all public health guidelines regarding physical distancing and other preventive measures following vaccination, but the task force did not recommend exceeding current public health guidance. “The appropriateness for continued preventive measures (e.g., masking, physical distancing) should be discussed with patients as their rheumatology providers deem appropriate,” they wrote.

The full updated version of the ACR’s COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance for Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases will be published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The summary was developed by the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force, which included 9 rheumatologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health experts with current or past employment history with the CDC.

The ACR encourages clinicians with questions or concerns to email COVID@rheumatology.org for support.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19,” she added.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“This approach – considering the possibility of COVID-19 in the context of new GI symptoms – is consistent with the AGA’s published guidelines and best practices,” said David Leiman, MD, MSHP, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Chair of the AGA’s Quality Committee. “Clinicians should also be aware of the possibility for variation in implementation of this approach, with some patients potentially at risk for disparate testing practices.” As outlined by the AGA’s Quality Committee, tracking adherence to this clinical approach through ongoing quality improvement may limit the development of such gaps in care.

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg and Dr. Leiman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19.

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19.

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Death from COVID-19 was not more likely among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who had COVID-19 who developed new GI symptoms after becoming infected, according to international registry data from nearly 3,000 adults.

Although GI symptoms may arise in the general population of COVID-19 patients, data on the association between GI symptoms and COVID-19 in patients with IBD are limited, as are data on the association of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes in this population, Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, the researchers identified 2,917 adults with IBD who developed COVID-19 using the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) database, a global registry created to understand COVID-19 outcomes in IBD patients.

The researchers recorded all new GI symptoms experienced by the patients while they were infected with COVID-19. Overall, 764 (26.2%) experienced new GI symptoms and 2,153 did not. The most common symptom was diarrhea, reported by 80% of the patients, followed by abdominal pain in 34%. Nausea and vomiting were reported by 24% and 12%, respectively, of all patients.

The average age of the patients was 43 years for those with no new GI symptoms and 40 for those without new GI symptoms; overall, approximately half were women and approximately three-quarters were White. Overall, 50% of those with new GI symptoms were in remission, as was the case for 58.4% of those without.

IBD patients who developed new GI symptoms were significantly more likely to be women, of Asian race, older, or have at least one comorbidity.

The researchers found no difference in new GI symptoms in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. “Patients on any medication – but in particular [tumor necrosis factor] antagonist monotherapy – were less likely to report new GI symptoms.” they wrote.

Although IBD patients with new GI symptoms were significantly more likely than were those without new GI symptoms to be hospitalized for COVID-19 in bivariate analyses (31.4% vs. 19.2%; P < .001), they were not more likely to need a ventilator or intensive care (5.8% vs. 4.6%; P < .18). In a multivariate analysis, IBD patients with new GI symptoms had no greater risk of death from COVID-19 than did those without new GI symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.36).

The new-onset GI symptoms common to IBD patients with COVID-19 are not likely caused by underlying disease activity, given the number of patients in remission who reported new GI symptoms, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, potential reporting bias, and reliance on physician global assessment for disease assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, by the ability to assess GI symptoms before and after COVID-19, and by the evaluation of GI symptoms and COVID-19 outcomes.

“In summary, new GI symptoms are common in IBD patients with COVID-19 and are not associated with an increased risk of death due to COVID-19,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings suggest that an increase in GI symptoms in IBD patients should prompt consideration of a COVID-19 diagnosis.”
 

Data to guide clinical care

“There are several potential causes for common GI symptoms, such as diarrhea and abdominal pain, among patients with IBD,” Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “These can be the initial presentation of an IBD flare, a noninflammatory cause such as irritable bowel syndrome, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, or an infection such as Clostridioides difficile or SARS-CoV-2. Each of these diagnoses require different treatments. An IBD flare may require escalation of immunosuppressive medications such as biologics or corticosteroids, which can cause harm in the context of an untreated infection. Therefore, any guidance that will increase health care providers’ awareness of the possible causes of similar GI symptoms is important in caring for our patients with IBD. This is especially true in context of a newer entity such as COVID-19 with which we are overall less familiar.”

Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg said the lack of association between GI symptoms and death in IBD is reassuring. “It is interesting to note that GI symptoms, and particularly new diarrhea, were very common among patients with IBD and COVID-19.

“Health care providers who treat patients with IBD should have a high-index of suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 infections when patients with IBD present with GI symptoms,” said Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg. “The data from the current study may help us to consider standard testing to rule out COVID-19 as an alternative diagnosis when considering whether to treat patients with IBD who develop new GI symptoms for an IBD flare. This would be similar to how we currently test for C. difficile and other enteric infections before treating IBD flares.

“Every study has its limitations, which need to be considered in interpreting findings,” Dr. Cohen-Meckelburg noted . “SECURE-IBD has provided great insight into COVID-19 infections among patients with IBD. However, the registry relies on individuals reporting cases, so there is the potential for underreporting, particularly with less symptomatic or subclinical cases.”

The study was supported in part by the Helmsley Charitable Trust with additional funding provided by Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, and Arenapharm. Lead author Dr. Ungaro disclosed serving as an advisory board member or consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and research support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Other coauthors disclosed similar relationships with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Cohen-Mekelburg had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Most instances of stent misdeployment in cases of endoscopic ultrasound–guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) can be managed endoscopically, based on data from 16 tertiary care centers in the United States and Europe.

EUS-GE provides a viable alternative to traditional surgical gastroenterostomy and stent placement for patients with gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), but the potential for stent misdeployment has limited adoption of the procedure because it remains the most common cause of technical failures and adverse events, Bachir Ghandour, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

However, data on outcomes and management of stent misdeployment during EUS-GE are limited, and the researchers hypothesized that most stent misdeployments could be managed endoscopically.

In a retrospective study published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed data from 467 EUS-GE procedures performed for gastric outlet obstruction between March 2015 and December 2020 at eight centers in the United States and eight in Europe. The primary outcome was the rate and severity of stent misdeployment.

Stent misdeployment occurred in 46 patients (9.9%). Of these, 73.2% occurred during the operators’ first 13 cases.

The researchers created a classification system of stent misdeployment according to type, depending on which flange was misdeployed.

Type I was the most common, and occurred in 29 patients; this type was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the peritoneum and proximal flange in the stomach without evidence of a resulting enterotomy”; type II (14 patients) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the peritoneum and proximal flange in the stomach despite an enterotomy (i.e., visual confirmation of stent having penetrated targeted small bowel, under EUS or fluoroscopy, but migrated out on deployment)”; type III (1 patient) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the small bowel and proximal flange in the peritoneum”; and type IV (2 patients) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the colon and proximal flange in the stomach resulting in a gastrocolic anastomosis,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also classified the stent misdeployment in terms of severity as mild (28 patients), moderate (11 patients), severe (6 cases) or fatal (1 case) based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon.

Overall, type I was significantly more likely to be mild in severity, compared with type II (75.9% vs. 42.9%; P = .04), although the rate of surgical repair was similar between these two types (10.3% vs. 7.1%). Rates of ICU admission were approximately 7% in patients with type I and type II stent misdeployments, and the median postprocedural stay was 4 days for these two groups.

Same-session salvage management of GOO was achieved by EUS/endoscopic-GE in 24 patients, duodenal stent placement in 6 patients, duodenal dilation in 1 patient, and gastroenterostomy with natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in 3 patients. Of the remaining 12 patients, GOO was managed with subsequent EUS-GE in 6 patients and surgical GI in 6 patients.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and inclusion of a time period that encompassed changes and improvements in the EUS-GE, the researchers noted. The small sample size of type III and IV stent misdeployments prohibited comparison with other types.

However, the cohort size was relatively large, compared with previous studies, and included a range of centers and countries with different strategies for managing stent misdeployments. Given the steep learning curve for EUS-GE, the study findings may help endoscopists better understand the implications and potential consequences of stent misdeployment by classifying the misdeployments into types. “We believe that such a classification or categorization of the different types is important because patient outcomes vary depending on the specific [stent misdeployment] subtype and site of injury. Such a classification will also be very helpful for future research by standardizing the terminology,” the researchers said.

“Although [stent misdeployment] is not infrequent during EUS-GE, with a rate of approximately 10%, the majority of cases are mild in severity and can be managed or repaired endoscopically without ill consequences,” they concluded. “Surgical intervention is required in less than 11% of the cases.”
 

Data support safe stent use in GI disease

“The lines continue to be blurred between surgical and endoscopic management of gastrointestinal disease, especially with a rise in therapeutic EUS,” Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Stent misdeployment has been commonly reported during EUS-GE and may limit uptake of this more technically challenging procedure,” Dr. Ketwaroo said. “A comprehensive assessment of stent misdeployment, with suggestions for management and a classification system that predicts outcomes, can help practitioners to more confidently perform this procedure.”

Risks associated with misdeployed stents include “inability to perform the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction, as well as adverse events such as peritonitis,” said Dr. Ketwaroo. He noted that, in most cases, the defect was closed and same-session salvage was performed, primarily by repeat EUS-GE.

Dr. Ketwaroo highlighted one challenge to endoscopic management of stent misdeployment. “If the proximal flange is deployed/slips into peritoneum (type III by currently proposed classification system), it can be more difficult to retrieve the stent,” but “this complication was treated with surgery, and it was very rare – only one case of this in the study,” he explained. “This is a large retrospective multicenter study, which adds validity to the generalizability of the study.” However, prospective studies will be needed as EUS-GE is more widely adopted, he added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Ghandour had no financial conflicts to disclose. Other authors disclosed industry relationships, such as consulting for Boston Scientific, Apollo, Olympus America, Medtronic, and GI Supply. Dr. Ketwaroo had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Most instances of stent misdeployment in cases of endoscopic ultrasound–guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) can be managed endoscopically, based on data from 16 tertiary care centers in the United States and Europe.

EUS-GE provides a viable alternative to traditional surgical gastroenterostomy and stent placement for patients with gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), but the potential for stent misdeployment has limited adoption of the procedure because it remains the most common cause of technical failures and adverse events, Bachir Ghandour, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

However, data on outcomes and management of stent misdeployment during EUS-GE are limited, and the researchers hypothesized that most stent misdeployments could be managed endoscopically.

In a retrospective study published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed data from 467 EUS-GE procedures performed for gastric outlet obstruction between March 2015 and December 2020 at eight centers in the United States and eight in Europe. The primary outcome was the rate and severity of stent misdeployment.

Stent misdeployment occurred in 46 patients (9.9%). Of these, 73.2% occurred during the operators’ first 13 cases.

The researchers created a classification system of stent misdeployment according to type, depending on which flange was misdeployed.

Type I was the most common, and occurred in 29 patients; this type was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the peritoneum and proximal flange in the stomach without evidence of a resulting enterotomy”; type II (14 patients) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the peritoneum and proximal flange in the stomach despite an enterotomy (i.e., visual confirmation of stent having penetrated targeted small bowel, under EUS or fluoroscopy, but migrated out on deployment)”; type III (1 patient) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the small bowel and proximal flange in the peritoneum”; and type IV (2 patients) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the colon and proximal flange in the stomach resulting in a gastrocolic anastomosis,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also classified the stent misdeployment in terms of severity as mild (28 patients), moderate (11 patients), severe (6 cases) or fatal (1 case) based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon.

Overall, type I was significantly more likely to be mild in severity, compared with type II (75.9% vs. 42.9%; P = .04), although the rate of surgical repair was similar between these two types (10.3% vs. 7.1%). Rates of ICU admission were approximately 7% in patients with type I and type II stent misdeployments, and the median postprocedural stay was 4 days for these two groups.

Same-session salvage management of GOO was achieved by EUS/endoscopic-GE in 24 patients, duodenal stent placement in 6 patients, duodenal dilation in 1 patient, and gastroenterostomy with natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in 3 patients. Of the remaining 12 patients, GOO was managed with subsequent EUS-GE in 6 patients and surgical GI in 6 patients.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and inclusion of a time period that encompassed changes and improvements in the EUS-GE, the researchers noted. The small sample size of type III and IV stent misdeployments prohibited comparison with other types.

However, the cohort size was relatively large, compared with previous studies, and included a range of centers and countries with different strategies for managing stent misdeployments. Given the steep learning curve for EUS-GE, the study findings may help endoscopists better understand the implications and potential consequences of stent misdeployment by classifying the misdeployments into types. “We believe that such a classification or categorization of the different types is important because patient outcomes vary depending on the specific [stent misdeployment] subtype and site of injury. Such a classification will also be very helpful for future research by standardizing the terminology,” the researchers said.

“Although [stent misdeployment] is not infrequent during EUS-GE, with a rate of approximately 10%, the majority of cases are mild in severity and can be managed or repaired endoscopically without ill consequences,” they concluded. “Surgical intervention is required in less than 11% of the cases.”
 

Data support safe stent use in GI disease

“The lines continue to be blurred between surgical and endoscopic management of gastrointestinal disease, especially with a rise in therapeutic EUS,” Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Stent misdeployment has been commonly reported during EUS-GE and may limit uptake of this more technically challenging procedure,” Dr. Ketwaroo said. “A comprehensive assessment of stent misdeployment, with suggestions for management and a classification system that predicts outcomes, can help practitioners to more confidently perform this procedure.”

Risks associated with misdeployed stents include “inability to perform the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction, as well as adverse events such as peritonitis,” said Dr. Ketwaroo. He noted that, in most cases, the defect was closed and same-session salvage was performed, primarily by repeat EUS-GE.

Dr. Ketwaroo highlighted one challenge to endoscopic management of stent misdeployment. “If the proximal flange is deployed/slips into peritoneum (type III by currently proposed classification system), it can be more difficult to retrieve the stent,” but “this complication was treated with surgery, and it was very rare – only one case of this in the study,” he explained. “This is a large retrospective multicenter study, which adds validity to the generalizability of the study.” However, prospective studies will be needed as EUS-GE is more widely adopted, he added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Ghandour had no financial conflicts to disclose. Other authors disclosed industry relationships, such as consulting for Boston Scientific, Apollo, Olympus America, Medtronic, and GI Supply. Dr. Ketwaroo had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Most instances of stent misdeployment in cases of endoscopic ultrasound–guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) can be managed endoscopically, based on data from 16 tertiary care centers in the United States and Europe.

EUS-GE provides a viable alternative to traditional surgical gastroenterostomy and stent placement for patients with gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), but the potential for stent misdeployment has limited adoption of the procedure because it remains the most common cause of technical failures and adverse events, Bachir Ghandour, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

However, data on outcomes and management of stent misdeployment during EUS-GE are limited, and the researchers hypothesized that most stent misdeployments could be managed endoscopically.

In a retrospective study published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the researchers reviewed data from 467 EUS-GE procedures performed for gastric outlet obstruction between March 2015 and December 2020 at eight centers in the United States and eight in Europe. The primary outcome was the rate and severity of stent misdeployment.

Stent misdeployment occurred in 46 patients (9.9%). Of these, 73.2% occurred during the operators’ first 13 cases.

The researchers created a classification system of stent misdeployment according to type, depending on which flange was misdeployed.

Type I was the most common, and occurred in 29 patients; this type was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the peritoneum and proximal flange in the stomach without evidence of a resulting enterotomy”; type II (14 patients) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the peritoneum and proximal flange in the stomach despite an enterotomy (i.e., visual confirmation of stent having penetrated targeted small bowel, under EUS or fluoroscopy, but migrated out on deployment)”; type III (1 patient) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the small bowel and proximal flange in the peritoneum”; and type IV (2 patients) was defined as “the deployment of the distal flange in the colon and proximal flange in the stomach resulting in a gastrocolic anastomosis,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also classified the stent misdeployment in terms of severity as mild (28 patients), moderate (11 patients), severe (6 cases) or fatal (1 case) based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon.

Overall, type I was significantly more likely to be mild in severity, compared with type II (75.9% vs. 42.9%; P = .04), although the rate of surgical repair was similar between these two types (10.3% vs. 7.1%). Rates of ICU admission were approximately 7% in patients with type I and type II stent misdeployments, and the median postprocedural stay was 4 days for these two groups.

Same-session salvage management of GOO was achieved by EUS/endoscopic-GE in 24 patients, duodenal stent placement in 6 patients, duodenal dilation in 1 patient, and gastroenterostomy with natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in 3 patients. Of the remaining 12 patients, GOO was managed with subsequent EUS-GE in 6 patients and surgical GI in 6 patients.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and inclusion of a time period that encompassed changes and improvements in the EUS-GE, the researchers noted. The small sample size of type III and IV stent misdeployments prohibited comparison with other types.

However, the cohort size was relatively large, compared with previous studies, and included a range of centers and countries with different strategies for managing stent misdeployments. Given the steep learning curve for EUS-GE, the study findings may help endoscopists better understand the implications and potential consequences of stent misdeployment by classifying the misdeployments into types. “We believe that such a classification or categorization of the different types is important because patient outcomes vary depending on the specific [stent misdeployment] subtype and site of injury. Such a classification will also be very helpful for future research by standardizing the terminology,” the researchers said.

“Although [stent misdeployment] is not infrequent during EUS-GE, with a rate of approximately 10%, the majority of cases are mild in severity and can be managed or repaired endoscopically without ill consequences,” they concluded. “Surgical intervention is required in less than 11% of the cases.”
 

Data support safe stent use in GI disease

“The lines continue to be blurred between surgical and endoscopic management of gastrointestinal disease, especially with a rise in therapeutic EUS,” Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“Stent misdeployment has been commonly reported during EUS-GE and may limit uptake of this more technically challenging procedure,” Dr. Ketwaroo said. “A comprehensive assessment of stent misdeployment, with suggestions for management and a classification system that predicts outcomes, can help practitioners to more confidently perform this procedure.”

Risks associated with misdeployed stents include “inability to perform the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction, as well as adverse events such as peritonitis,” said Dr. Ketwaroo. He noted that, in most cases, the defect was closed and same-session salvage was performed, primarily by repeat EUS-GE.

Dr. Ketwaroo highlighted one challenge to endoscopic management of stent misdeployment. “If the proximal flange is deployed/slips into peritoneum (type III by currently proposed classification system), it can be more difficult to retrieve the stent,” but “this complication was treated with surgery, and it was very rare – only one case of this in the study,” he explained. “This is a large retrospective multicenter study, which adds validity to the generalizability of the study.” However, prospective studies will be needed as EUS-GE is more widely adopted, he added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Ghandour had no financial conflicts to disclose. Other authors disclosed industry relationships, such as consulting for Boston Scientific, Apollo, Olympus America, Medtronic, and GI Supply. Dr. Ketwaroo had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the GI & Hepatology News editorial advisory board.

Bimekizumab has been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, according to a statement from the manufacturer.

Bimekizumab (Bimzelx), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F, the statement from UCB said.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision on approval of bimekizumab for treating psoriasis on Oct. 15.

Approval in the EU was based on data from three phase 3 trials including a total of 1,480 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, which found that those treated with bimekizumab experienced significantly greater skin clearance, compared with placebo, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, with a favorable safety profile, according to the company.

In all three studies (BE VIVID, BE READY, and BE SURE), more than 80% of patients treated with bimekizumab showed improved skin clearance after 16 weeks, significantly more than those treated with ustekinumab, placebo, or adalimumab, based on an improvement of at least 90% in the Psoriasis Area & Severity Index (PASI 90) and an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1). In all three studies, these clinical responses persisted after 1 year.

The recommended dose of bimekizumab is 320 mg, given in two subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks to week 16, then every 8 weeks. However, for “some patients” weighing 120 kg or more who have not achieved complete skin clearance at 16 weeks, 320 mg every 4 weeks after that time may improve response to treatment, according to the company statement.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the studies were upper respiratory tract infections (a majority of which were nasopharyngitis), reported by 14.5% of patients, followed by oral candidiasis, reported by 7.3%.

Results of BE READY and BE VIVID were published in The Lancet. Results of the BE SURE study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Bimekizumab is contraindicated for individuals with clinically important active infections such as tuberculosis, and for individuals with any hypersensitivity to the active substance. More details on bimekizumab are available on the website of the European Medicines Agency.

Bimekizumab has been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, according to a statement from the manufacturer.

Bimekizumab (Bimzelx), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F, the statement from UCB said.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision on approval of bimekizumab for treating psoriasis on Oct. 15.

Approval in the EU was based on data from three phase 3 trials including a total of 1,480 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, which found that those treated with bimekizumab experienced significantly greater skin clearance, compared with placebo, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, with a favorable safety profile, according to the company.

In all three studies (BE VIVID, BE READY, and BE SURE), more than 80% of patients treated with bimekizumab showed improved skin clearance after 16 weeks, significantly more than those treated with ustekinumab, placebo, or adalimumab, based on an improvement of at least 90% in the Psoriasis Area & Severity Index (PASI 90) and an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1). In all three studies, these clinical responses persisted after 1 year.

The recommended dose of bimekizumab is 320 mg, given in two subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks to week 16, then every 8 weeks. However, for “some patients” weighing 120 kg or more who have not achieved complete skin clearance at 16 weeks, 320 mg every 4 weeks after that time may improve response to treatment, according to the company statement.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the studies were upper respiratory tract infections (a majority of which were nasopharyngitis), reported by 14.5% of patients, followed by oral candidiasis, reported by 7.3%.

Results of BE READY and BE VIVID were published in The Lancet. Results of the BE SURE study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Bimekizumab is contraindicated for individuals with clinically important active infections such as tuberculosis, and for individuals with any hypersensitivity to the active substance. More details on bimekizumab are available on the website of the European Medicines Agency.

Bimekizumab has been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, according to a statement from the manufacturer.

Bimekizumab (Bimzelx), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F, the statement from UCB said.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision on approval of bimekizumab for treating psoriasis on Oct. 15.

Approval in the EU was based on data from three phase 3 trials including a total of 1,480 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, which found that those treated with bimekizumab experienced significantly greater skin clearance, compared with placebo, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, with a favorable safety profile, according to the company.

In all three studies (BE VIVID, BE READY, and BE SURE), more than 80% of patients treated with bimekizumab showed improved skin clearance after 16 weeks, significantly more than those treated with ustekinumab, placebo, or adalimumab, based on an improvement of at least 90% in the Psoriasis Area & Severity Index (PASI 90) and an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1). In all three studies, these clinical responses persisted after 1 year.

The recommended dose of bimekizumab is 320 mg, given in two subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks to week 16, then every 8 weeks. However, for “some patients” weighing 120 kg or more who have not achieved complete skin clearance at 16 weeks, 320 mg every 4 weeks after that time may improve response to treatment, according to the company statement.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the studies were upper respiratory tract infections (a majority of which were nasopharyngitis), reported by 14.5% of patients, followed by oral candidiasis, reported by 7.3%.

Results of BE READY and BE VIVID were published in The Lancet. Results of the BE SURE study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Bimekizumab is contraindicated for individuals with clinically important active infections such as tuberculosis, and for individuals with any hypersensitivity to the active substance. More details on bimekizumab are available on the website of the European Medicines Agency.

Parkinson’s disease patients who develop anxiety early in their disease are at risk for reduced physical activity, which promotes further anxiety and cognitive decline, data from nearly 500 individuals show.

Anxiety occurs in 20%-60% of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients but often goes undiagnosed, wrote Jacob D. Jones, PhD, of California State University, San Bernardino, and colleagues.

“Anxiety can attenuate motivation to engage in physical activity leading to more anxiety and other negative cognitive outcomes,” although physical activity has been shown to improve cognitive function in PD patients, they said. However, physical activity as a mediator between anxiety and cognitive function in PD has not been well studied, they noted.

In a study published in Mental Health and Physical Activity the researchers identified 487 adults with newly diagnosed PD within the past 2 years who were enrolled in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. Participants were followed for up to 5 years and completed neuropsychological tests, tests of motor severity, and self-reports on anxiety and physical activity. Anxiety was assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI-T) subscale. Physical activity was assessed using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Motor severity was assessed using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-Part III (UPDRS). The average age of the participants was 61 years, 65% were men, and 96% were White.

Using a direct-effect model, the researchers found that individuals whose anxiety increased during the study period also showed signs of cognitive decline. A significant between-person effect showed that individuals who were generally more anxious also scored lower on cognitive tests over the 5-year study period.

In a mediation model computed with structural equation modeling, physical activity mediated the link between anxiety and cognition, most notably household activity.

“There was a significant within-person association between anxiety and household activities, meaning that individuals who became more anxious over the 5-year study also became less active in the home,” reported Dr. Jones and colleagues.

However, no significant indirect effect was noted regarding the between-person findings of the impact of physical activity on anxiety and cognitive decline. Although more severe anxiety was associated with less activity, cognitive performance was not associated with either type of physical activity.

The presence of a within-person effect “suggests that reductions in physical activity, specifically within the first 5 years of disease onset, may be detrimental to mental health,” the researchers emphasized. Given that the study population was newly diagnosed with PD “it is likely the within-person terms are more sensitive to changes in anxiety, physical activity, and cognition that are more directly the result of the PD process, as opposed to lifestyle/preexisting traits,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports to measure physical activity, and the lack of granular information about the details of physical activity, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the inclusion of only newly diagnosed PD patients, which might limit generalizability.

“Future research is warranted to understand if other modes, intensities, or complexities of physical activity impact individuals with PD in a different manner in relation to cognition,” they said.

Dr. Jones and colleagues had no disclosures. The PPMI is supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and funding partners, including numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Parkinson’s disease patients who develop anxiety early in their disease are at risk for reduced physical activity, which promotes further anxiety and cognitive decline, data from nearly 500 individuals show.

Anxiety occurs in 20%-60% of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients but often goes undiagnosed, wrote Jacob D. Jones, PhD, of California State University, San Bernardino, and colleagues.

“Anxiety can attenuate motivation to engage in physical activity leading to more anxiety and other negative cognitive outcomes,” although physical activity has been shown to improve cognitive function in PD patients, they said. However, physical activity as a mediator between anxiety and cognitive function in PD has not been well studied, they noted.

In a study published in Mental Health and Physical Activity the researchers identified 487 adults with newly diagnosed PD within the past 2 years who were enrolled in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. Participants were followed for up to 5 years and completed neuropsychological tests, tests of motor severity, and self-reports on anxiety and physical activity. Anxiety was assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI-T) subscale. Physical activity was assessed using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Motor severity was assessed using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-Part III (UPDRS). The average age of the participants was 61 years, 65% were men, and 96% were White.

Using a direct-effect model, the researchers found that individuals whose anxiety increased during the study period also showed signs of cognitive decline. A significant between-person effect showed that individuals who were generally more anxious also scored lower on cognitive tests over the 5-year study period.

In a mediation model computed with structural equation modeling, physical activity mediated the link between anxiety and cognition, most notably household activity.

“There was a significant within-person association between anxiety and household activities, meaning that individuals who became more anxious over the 5-year study also became less active in the home,” reported Dr. Jones and colleagues.

However, no significant indirect effect was noted regarding the between-person findings of the impact of physical activity on anxiety and cognitive decline. Although more severe anxiety was associated with less activity, cognitive performance was not associated with either type of physical activity.

The presence of a within-person effect “suggests that reductions in physical activity, specifically within the first 5 years of disease onset, may be detrimental to mental health,” the researchers emphasized. Given that the study population was newly diagnosed with PD “it is likely the within-person terms are more sensitive to changes in anxiety, physical activity, and cognition that are more directly the result of the PD process, as opposed to lifestyle/preexisting traits,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports to measure physical activity, and the lack of granular information about the details of physical activity, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the inclusion of only newly diagnosed PD patients, which might limit generalizability.

“Future research is warranted to understand if other modes, intensities, or complexities of physical activity impact individuals with PD in a different manner in relation to cognition,” they said.

Dr. Jones and colleagues had no disclosures. The PPMI is supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and funding partners, including numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Parkinson’s disease patients who develop anxiety early in their disease are at risk for reduced physical activity, which promotes further anxiety and cognitive decline, data from nearly 500 individuals show.

Anxiety occurs in 20%-60% of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients but often goes undiagnosed, wrote Jacob D. Jones, PhD, of California State University, San Bernardino, and colleagues.

“Anxiety can attenuate motivation to engage in physical activity leading to more anxiety and other negative cognitive outcomes,” although physical activity has been shown to improve cognitive function in PD patients, they said. However, physical activity as a mediator between anxiety and cognitive function in PD has not been well studied, they noted.

In a study published in Mental Health and Physical Activity the researchers identified 487 adults with newly diagnosed PD within the past 2 years who were enrolled in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. Participants were followed for up to 5 years and completed neuropsychological tests, tests of motor severity, and self-reports on anxiety and physical activity. Anxiety was assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI-T) subscale. Physical activity was assessed using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Motor severity was assessed using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-Part III (UPDRS). The average age of the participants was 61 years, 65% were men, and 96% were White.

Using a direct-effect model, the researchers found that individuals whose anxiety increased during the study period also showed signs of cognitive decline. A significant between-person effect showed that individuals who were generally more anxious also scored lower on cognitive tests over the 5-year study period.

In a mediation model computed with structural equation modeling, physical activity mediated the link between anxiety and cognition, most notably household activity.

“There was a significant within-person association between anxiety and household activities, meaning that individuals who became more anxious over the 5-year study also became less active in the home,” reported Dr. Jones and colleagues.

However, no significant indirect effect was noted regarding the between-person findings of the impact of physical activity on anxiety and cognitive decline. Although more severe anxiety was associated with less activity, cognitive performance was not associated with either type of physical activity.

The presence of a within-person effect “suggests that reductions in physical activity, specifically within the first 5 years of disease onset, may be detrimental to mental health,” the researchers emphasized. Given that the study population was newly diagnosed with PD “it is likely the within-person terms are more sensitive to changes in anxiety, physical activity, and cognition that are more directly the result of the PD process, as opposed to lifestyle/preexisting traits,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of self-reports to measure physical activity, and the lack of granular information about the details of physical activity, the researchers noted. Another limitation was the inclusion of only newly diagnosed PD patients, which might limit generalizability.

“Future research is warranted to understand if other modes, intensities, or complexities of physical activity impact individuals with PD in a different manner in relation to cognition,” they said.

Dr. Jones and colleagues had no disclosures. The PPMI is supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and funding partners, including numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Adults aged 65 years and older who develop psychotic manifestations are significantly more likely than those without such manifestations to develop prodromal Parkinson’s disease, data from 925 individuals suggest.

“The presence of perceptual abnormalities and/or delusional ideation among community-dwelling elderly individuals is more widespread than considered in the past,” wrote Ioanna Pachi, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School and colleagues. However, those psychoses and their potential impact on prodromal Parkinson’s disease (PD) have not been well studied in community-dwelling populations, they noted in the study, published in Parkinsonism and Related Disorders.

In the study, Dr. Pachi and colleagues reviewed data from 914 participants in the Hellenic Longitudinal Investigation of Aging and Diet study (HELIAD), a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study of older adults in Greece. The average age of the participants was 76 years, and 41% were men. Participants had no delusional features at baseline; delusional features were assessed using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory scale and the Columbia University Scale for Psychopathology in Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers calculated the probability of prodromal PD (pPD) for each participant based on the 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society research criteria for prodromal PD.

Over a 3-year follow-up period, 20 participants developed psychotic manifestations and were 1.3 times more likely to have pPD, compared with those without psychoses (P = .006). Those with new-onset psychotic features were categorized together as the NPSY group, regardless of symptom severity or frequency; those with no symptoms at either baseline or during follow-up were categorized as unaffected (UPSY). Most of the NPSY participants showed isolated delusional features, although some expressed hallucinations. Most symptoms were mild.

New-onset psychosis was associated with a fivefold increased risk of both subthreshold parkinsonism and depression (adjusted odds ratios, 4.5 and 5.0, respectively) and with a threefold increased risk of constipation (aOR 2.6). Other factors, including nonsmoking, global cognitive deficit, and anxiety were not significantly associated with new-onset psychotic symptoms after adjusting for confounding factors.

Although the mechanism behind the association remains unclear, “the parallel evolution of psychotic features and prodromal PD could be related to the spreading pattern of neuronal damage that occurs in PD,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the administration of neuropsychiatric questionnaires by nonpsychiatrists, and lack of detailed psychiatric history, including complete information on medication use, the researchers noted. The small size of the NPSY group also prevented evaluation of the potential associations between pPD and different modalities of hallucinations, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the overall large and population-based sample size, and the comprehensive evaluation of psychotic features, they wrote. More follow-up evaluations in the HELIAD cohort are planned to further explore the underlying mechanism of the association between late-life psychosis and pPD.

“Provided that these results are confirmed in other community cohorts of elderly subjects, psychotic features may be added to the list of manifestations of pPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the Alzheimer’s Association, ARISTEIA, and the ESPA-EU program Excellence Grant. It was cofunded by the European Social Fund and Greek National resources, the Ministry for Health and Social Solidarity, Greece, and the Greek State Scholarships Foundation. Dr. Pachi had no disclosures.

Adults aged 65 years and older who develop psychotic manifestations are significantly more likely than those without such manifestations to develop prodromal Parkinson’s disease, data from 925 individuals suggest.

“The presence of perceptual abnormalities and/or delusional ideation among community-dwelling elderly individuals is more widespread than considered in the past,” wrote Ioanna Pachi, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School and colleagues. However, those psychoses and their potential impact on prodromal Parkinson’s disease (PD) have not been well studied in community-dwelling populations, they noted in the study, published in Parkinsonism and Related Disorders.

In the study, Dr. Pachi and colleagues reviewed data from 914 participants in the Hellenic Longitudinal Investigation of Aging and Diet study (HELIAD), a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study of older adults in Greece. The average age of the participants was 76 years, and 41% were men. Participants had no delusional features at baseline; delusional features were assessed using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory scale and the Columbia University Scale for Psychopathology in Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers calculated the probability of prodromal PD (pPD) for each participant based on the 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society research criteria for prodromal PD.

Over a 3-year follow-up period, 20 participants developed psychotic manifestations and were 1.3 times more likely to have pPD, compared with those without psychoses (P = .006). Those with new-onset psychotic features were categorized together as the NPSY group, regardless of symptom severity or frequency; those with no symptoms at either baseline or during follow-up were categorized as unaffected (UPSY). Most of the NPSY participants showed isolated delusional features, although some expressed hallucinations. Most symptoms were mild.

New-onset psychosis was associated with a fivefold increased risk of both subthreshold parkinsonism and depression (adjusted odds ratios, 4.5 and 5.0, respectively) and with a threefold increased risk of constipation (aOR 2.6). Other factors, including nonsmoking, global cognitive deficit, and anxiety were not significantly associated with new-onset psychotic symptoms after adjusting for confounding factors.

Although the mechanism behind the association remains unclear, “the parallel evolution of psychotic features and prodromal PD could be related to the spreading pattern of neuronal damage that occurs in PD,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the administration of neuropsychiatric questionnaires by nonpsychiatrists, and lack of detailed psychiatric history, including complete information on medication use, the researchers noted. The small size of the NPSY group also prevented evaluation of the potential associations between pPD and different modalities of hallucinations, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the overall large and population-based sample size, and the comprehensive evaluation of psychotic features, they wrote. More follow-up evaluations in the HELIAD cohort are planned to further explore the underlying mechanism of the association between late-life psychosis and pPD.

“Provided that these results are confirmed in other community cohorts of elderly subjects, psychotic features may be added to the list of manifestations of pPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the Alzheimer’s Association, ARISTEIA, and the ESPA-EU program Excellence Grant. It was cofunded by the European Social Fund and Greek National resources, the Ministry for Health and Social Solidarity, Greece, and the Greek State Scholarships Foundation. Dr. Pachi had no disclosures.

Adults aged 65 years and older who develop psychotic manifestations are significantly more likely than those without such manifestations to develop prodromal Parkinson’s disease, data from 925 individuals suggest.

“The presence of perceptual abnormalities and/or delusional ideation among community-dwelling elderly individuals is more widespread than considered in the past,” wrote Ioanna Pachi, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School and colleagues. However, those psychoses and their potential impact on prodromal Parkinson’s disease (PD) have not been well studied in community-dwelling populations, they noted in the study, published in Parkinsonism and Related Disorders.

In the study, Dr. Pachi and colleagues reviewed data from 914 participants in the Hellenic Longitudinal Investigation of Aging and Diet study (HELIAD), a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study of older adults in Greece. The average age of the participants was 76 years, and 41% were men. Participants had no delusional features at baseline; delusional features were assessed using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory scale and the Columbia University Scale for Psychopathology in Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers calculated the probability of prodromal PD (pPD) for each participant based on the 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society research criteria for prodromal PD.

Over a 3-year follow-up period, 20 participants developed psychotic manifestations and were 1.3 times more likely to have pPD, compared with those without psychoses (P = .006). Those with new-onset psychotic features were categorized together as the NPSY group, regardless of symptom severity or frequency; those with no symptoms at either baseline or during follow-up were categorized as unaffected (UPSY). Most of the NPSY participants showed isolated delusional features, although some expressed hallucinations. Most symptoms were mild.

New-onset psychosis was associated with a fivefold increased risk of both subthreshold parkinsonism and depression (adjusted odds ratios, 4.5 and 5.0, respectively) and with a threefold increased risk of constipation (aOR 2.6). Other factors, including nonsmoking, global cognitive deficit, and anxiety were not significantly associated with new-onset psychotic symptoms after adjusting for confounding factors.

Although the mechanism behind the association remains unclear, “the parallel evolution of psychotic features and prodromal PD could be related to the spreading pattern of neuronal damage that occurs in PD,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the administration of neuropsychiatric questionnaires by nonpsychiatrists, and lack of detailed psychiatric history, including complete information on medication use, the researchers noted. The small size of the NPSY group also prevented evaluation of the potential associations between pPD and different modalities of hallucinations, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the overall large and population-based sample size, and the comprehensive evaluation of psychotic features, they wrote. More follow-up evaluations in the HELIAD cohort are planned to further explore the underlying mechanism of the association between late-life psychosis and pPD.

“Provided that these results are confirmed in other community cohorts of elderly subjects, psychotic features may be added to the list of manifestations of pPD,” they concluded.

The study was supported in part by grants from the Alzheimer’s Association, ARISTEIA, and the ESPA-EU program Excellence Grant. It was cofunded by the European Social Fund and Greek National resources, the Ministry for Health and Social Solidarity, Greece, and the Greek State Scholarships Foundation. Dr. Pachi had no disclosures.

The use fluoroquinolones or macrolides reduced immunogenicity risk in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, according to data from nearly 2,000 individuals.

luchschen/Thinkstock

Anti-TNF therapy with monoclonal antibodies is an established treatment for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but approximately 40% of patients fail to respond initially and even more fail to achieve complete remission, wrote Yuri Gorelik, MD, of Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues.

“Immunogenicity, which refers to the development of antidrug antibodies [ADA] is considered as the main factor driving secondary loss of response and is likely involved in primary nonresponse as well,” but data on how to predict the risk for ADA formation are limited, they said.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers identified data from 1,946 IBD patients using the epi-IIRN (epidemiology group of the Israeli IBD research nucleus), a nationwide registry of all IBD patients in Israel.

A total of 363 patients had positive ADA after a median follow-up period of 651 days after starting therapy. Overall, the risk of ADA development was significantly higher in patients on cephalosporins (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.44) or penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74) during anti-TNF therapy, and it was higher still for patients using both. By contrast, the risk was lower in patients on macrolides (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82) or fluoroquinolones (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35). All P values were less than .05 when compared with nontreated groups.

In the same study, the researchers reported data on mice treated with antibiotics and challenged with infliximab to evaluate the causative effect of antibiotics and the associated disruption to the gut microbiome on the formation of ADA. After 14 days, the researchers found significantly increased ADA production in mice treated with cephalosporins, compared with those treated with macrolides, but germ-free mice produced no ADA, which supports the role of microbial composition on ADA production.

The investigators cited previous research into the microbiome as a biomarker for prediction response to anti-TNF therapy; past results have also suggested that the effect of cephalosporins and penicillin-BLIs could be explained by the particular dysbiosis induced by those agents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, as well as the inability to adjust antibiotic exposure according to type and severity of infection, they noted. However, “this is the first large scale study that extensively evaluated the effect of different antibiotic classes on immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy,” and the results suggest that ADA development during anti-TNF therapy may to reduced by the use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides.

“Specific microbial manipulation may serve as a tool to modify immunogenicity which is preferably turned on for protective immunizations and off for biological therapy,” they noted. “Further studies involving detailed analysis of the antibiotic effects on the human microbiome and immune milieu are needed, as well as comparative experiments with other medications used to reduce immunogenicity.”
 

Unexpected findings may drive future drug choices

“Development of antidrug antibodies in patients on biologics for inflammatory bowel disease is an important mechanism for loss of response to a therapeutic agent,” Kim L. Isaacs, MD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “To date the causes of development of ADAs is relatively understudied. Our approach to prevent ADA includes increasing immunosuppression in patients most commonly with combination therapy with thiopurines. If factors that provoke or prevent antibody formation are elucidated, therapy can be tailored to prevent ADAs and maximize the duration of response of many of our biologic therapies.”

A prior study performed by the ABIRISK European consortium demonstrated associations with antibiotics. “In the current study, there was a differential effect of cephalosporins/penicillins (increased immunogenicity) and macrolides (decreased immunogenicity),” she said. “These studies suggest that the microbiome may be important in ADA formation to biologics – this is a concept that is novel and unexpected.

“The rationale for the choice of antibiotics in the population studied is not known, and it is possible that different infections may have led to different antibiotic choices, which in turn may have affected immunogenicity,” said Dr. Isaacs. However, clinicians might be able to tailor antibiotic choice in the future if the microbiome is playing a major role in risk for development of ADA.

“Further research is needed to further correlate microbiome changes with immunogenicity, to look at other classes of antibiotics and their role in immunogenicity, and to clarify the infections or reasons that these patients are receiving antibiotics,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
 

Understanding the microbiome

Recent observations have shown associations between clinical response to anti-TNF and gut microbiota composition, noted Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “More broadly, a growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiota modulates the metabolism of many therapeutic agents, as well as immune responses to infections.”

That said, Dr. Roper was surprised that “clinical use of different antibiotics, often short term, had such distinct effects on ADA levels.” Furthermore, “these findings suggest that distinct microbiota or microbial metabolic products impact antibody development to common immunomodulatory therapies in opposite ways,” which is itself a surprising finding.

Such antibodies to anti-TNF therapy are common in IBD, he said, but one implication of the study is how antibiotics could be carefully used “to reduce risk of ADAs and enhance efficacy of anti-TNF therapy.”

However, because any antibiotic therapy will modify the gut microbiome and lead to unwanted effects, “further research is needed on how these agents impact the gut microbiome, with the ultimate goal of identifying specific microbiota or microbial metabolic products that can reproduce the intriguing findings of this paper.”

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, CytoReason, Takeda, and Pfizer. Dr. Isaacs had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the GI&Hepatology News board of editors. Dr. Roper had no relevant disclosures.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

The use fluoroquinolones or macrolides reduced immunogenicity risk in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, according to data from nearly 2,000 individuals.

luchschen/Thinkstock

Anti-TNF therapy with monoclonal antibodies is an established treatment for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but approximately 40% of patients fail to respond initially and even more fail to achieve complete remission, wrote Yuri Gorelik, MD, of Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues.

“Immunogenicity, which refers to the development of antidrug antibodies [ADA] is considered as the main factor driving secondary loss of response and is likely involved in primary nonresponse as well,” but data on how to predict the risk for ADA formation are limited, they said.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers identified data from 1,946 IBD patients using the epi-IIRN (epidemiology group of the Israeli IBD research nucleus), a nationwide registry of all IBD patients in Israel.

A total of 363 patients had positive ADA after a median follow-up period of 651 days after starting therapy. Overall, the risk of ADA development was significantly higher in patients on cephalosporins (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.44) or penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74) during anti-TNF therapy, and it was higher still for patients using both. By contrast, the risk was lower in patients on macrolides (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82) or fluoroquinolones (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35). All P values were less than .05 when compared with nontreated groups.

In the same study, the researchers reported data on mice treated with antibiotics and challenged with infliximab to evaluate the causative effect of antibiotics and the associated disruption to the gut microbiome on the formation of ADA. After 14 days, the researchers found significantly increased ADA production in mice treated with cephalosporins, compared with those treated with macrolides, but germ-free mice produced no ADA, which supports the role of microbial composition on ADA production.

The investigators cited previous research into the microbiome as a biomarker for prediction response to anti-TNF therapy; past results have also suggested that the effect of cephalosporins and penicillin-BLIs could be explained by the particular dysbiosis induced by those agents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, as well as the inability to adjust antibiotic exposure according to type and severity of infection, they noted. However, “this is the first large scale study that extensively evaluated the effect of different antibiotic classes on immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy,” and the results suggest that ADA development during anti-TNF therapy may to reduced by the use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides.

“Specific microbial manipulation may serve as a tool to modify immunogenicity which is preferably turned on for protective immunizations and off for biological therapy,” they noted. “Further studies involving detailed analysis of the antibiotic effects on the human microbiome and immune milieu are needed, as well as comparative experiments with other medications used to reduce immunogenicity.”
 

Unexpected findings may drive future drug choices

“Development of antidrug antibodies in patients on biologics for inflammatory bowel disease is an important mechanism for loss of response to a therapeutic agent,” Kim L. Isaacs, MD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “To date the causes of development of ADAs is relatively understudied. Our approach to prevent ADA includes increasing immunosuppression in patients most commonly with combination therapy with thiopurines. If factors that provoke or prevent antibody formation are elucidated, therapy can be tailored to prevent ADAs and maximize the duration of response of many of our biologic therapies.”

A prior study performed by the ABIRISK European consortium demonstrated associations with antibiotics. “In the current study, there was a differential effect of cephalosporins/penicillins (increased immunogenicity) and macrolides (decreased immunogenicity),” she said. “These studies suggest that the microbiome may be important in ADA formation to biologics – this is a concept that is novel and unexpected.

“The rationale for the choice of antibiotics in the population studied is not known, and it is possible that different infections may have led to different antibiotic choices, which in turn may have affected immunogenicity,” said Dr. Isaacs. However, clinicians might be able to tailor antibiotic choice in the future if the microbiome is playing a major role in risk for development of ADA.

“Further research is needed to further correlate microbiome changes with immunogenicity, to look at other classes of antibiotics and their role in immunogenicity, and to clarify the infections or reasons that these patients are receiving antibiotics,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
 

Understanding the microbiome

Recent observations have shown associations between clinical response to anti-TNF and gut microbiota composition, noted Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “More broadly, a growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiota modulates the metabolism of many therapeutic agents, as well as immune responses to infections.”

That said, Dr. Roper was surprised that “clinical use of different antibiotics, often short term, had such distinct effects on ADA levels.” Furthermore, “these findings suggest that distinct microbiota or microbial metabolic products impact antibody development to common immunomodulatory therapies in opposite ways,” which is itself a surprising finding.

Such antibodies to anti-TNF therapy are common in IBD, he said, but one implication of the study is how antibiotics could be carefully used “to reduce risk of ADAs and enhance efficacy of anti-TNF therapy.”

However, because any antibiotic therapy will modify the gut microbiome and lead to unwanted effects, “further research is needed on how these agents impact the gut microbiome, with the ultimate goal of identifying specific microbiota or microbial metabolic products that can reproduce the intriguing findings of this paper.”

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, CytoReason, Takeda, and Pfizer. Dr. Isaacs had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the GI&Hepatology News board of editors. Dr. Roper had no relevant disclosures.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

The use fluoroquinolones or macrolides reduced immunogenicity risk in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients on anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, according to data from nearly 2,000 individuals.

luchschen/Thinkstock

Anti-TNF therapy with monoclonal antibodies is an established treatment for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but approximately 40% of patients fail to respond initially and even more fail to achieve complete remission, wrote Yuri Gorelik, MD, of Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues.

“Immunogenicity, which refers to the development of antidrug antibodies [ADA] is considered as the main factor driving secondary loss of response and is likely involved in primary nonresponse as well,” but data on how to predict the risk for ADA formation are limited, they said.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers identified data from 1,946 IBD patients using the epi-IIRN (epidemiology group of the Israeli IBD research nucleus), a nationwide registry of all IBD patients in Israel.

A total of 363 patients had positive ADA after a median follow-up period of 651 days after starting therapy. Overall, the risk of ADA development was significantly higher in patients on cephalosporins (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.44) or penicillin with beta-lactamase inhibitors (BLIs) (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74) during anti-TNF therapy, and it was higher still for patients using both. By contrast, the risk was lower in patients on macrolides (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82) or fluoroquinolones (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35). All P values were less than .05 when compared with nontreated groups.

In the same study, the researchers reported data on mice treated with antibiotics and challenged with infliximab to evaluate the causative effect of antibiotics and the associated disruption to the gut microbiome on the formation of ADA. After 14 days, the researchers found significantly increased ADA production in mice treated with cephalosporins, compared with those treated with macrolides, but germ-free mice produced no ADA, which supports the role of microbial composition on ADA production.

The investigators cited previous research into the microbiome as a biomarker for prediction response to anti-TNF therapy; past results have also suggested that the effect of cephalosporins and penicillin-BLIs could be explained by the particular dysbiosis induced by those agents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, as well as the inability to adjust antibiotic exposure according to type and severity of infection, they noted. However, “this is the first large scale study that extensively evaluated the effect of different antibiotic classes on immunogenicity of anti-TNF therapy,” and the results suggest that ADA development during anti-TNF therapy may to reduced by the use of fluoroquinolones and macrolides.

“Specific microbial manipulation may serve as a tool to modify immunogenicity which is preferably turned on for protective immunizations and off for biological therapy,” they noted. “Further studies involving detailed analysis of the antibiotic effects on the human microbiome and immune milieu are needed, as well as comparative experiments with other medications used to reduce immunogenicity.”
 

Unexpected findings may drive future drug choices

“Development of antidrug antibodies in patients on biologics for inflammatory bowel disease is an important mechanism for loss of response to a therapeutic agent,” Kim L. Isaacs, MD, AGAF, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “To date the causes of development of ADAs is relatively understudied. Our approach to prevent ADA includes increasing immunosuppression in patients most commonly with combination therapy with thiopurines. If factors that provoke or prevent antibody formation are elucidated, therapy can be tailored to prevent ADAs and maximize the duration of response of many of our biologic therapies.”

A prior study performed by the ABIRISK European consortium demonstrated associations with antibiotics. “In the current study, there was a differential effect of cephalosporins/penicillins (increased immunogenicity) and macrolides (decreased immunogenicity),” she said. “These studies suggest that the microbiome may be important in ADA formation to biologics – this is a concept that is novel and unexpected.

“The rationale for the choice of antibiotics in the population studied is not known, and it is possible that different infections may have led to different antibiotic choices, which in turn may have affected immunogenicity,” said Dr. Isaacs. However, clinicians might be able to tailor antibiotic choice in the future if the microbiome is playing a major role in risk for development of ADA.

“Further research is needed to further correlate microbiome changes with immunogenicity, to look at other classes of antibiotics and their role in immunogenicity, and to clarify the infections or reasons that these patients are receiving antibiotics,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.
 

Understanding the microbiome

Recent observations have shown associations between clinical response to anti-TNF and gut microbiota composition, noted Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “More broadly, a growing body of evidence suggests that the gut microbiota modulates the metabolism of many therapeutic agents, as well as immune responses to infections.”

That said, Dr. Roper was surprised that “clinical use of different antibiotics, often short term, had such distinct effects on ADA levels.” Furthermore, “these findings suggest that distinct microbiota or microbial metabolic products impact antibody development to common immunomodulatory therapies in opposite ways,” which is itself a surprising finding.

Such antibodies to anti-TNF therapy are common in IBD, he said, but one implication of the study is how antibiotics could be carefully used “to reduce risk of ADAs and enhance efficacy of anti-TNF therapy.”

However, because any antibiotic therapy will modify the gut microbiome and lead to unwanted effects, “further research is needed on how these agents impact the gut microbiome, with the ultimate goal of identifying specific microbiota or microbial metabolic products that can reproduce the intriguing findings of this paper.”

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology. Dr. Gorelik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, CytoReason, Takeda, and Pfizer. Dr. Isaacs had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the GI&Hepatology News board of editors. Dr. Roper had no relevant disclosures.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.