Immunology

Nail fold capillaroscopy did not reveal telangiectasia or ragged cuticles. Further examination of the skin showed confluent macular violaceous erythema on the eyelids (suggestive of the heliotrope sign), V area of the neck, upper arms, and back.

She also had a low-grade intermittent fever for the past 2 months, as well as difficulty in getting up from a squatting position and combing her hair, dyspnea on exertion, blue discoloration of the fingers on exposure to cold, and intermittent pain, stiffness, and swelling in the small joints of both hands that was worse in the morning and seemed to be relieved by activity. She had no history of dysphagia or nasal regurgitation of food. Strength against resistance was reduced in both arms and knee extensors. A diagnosis of dermatomyositis with “mechanic’s hands” was considered.

Laboratory testing was negative for antinuclear antibodies and showed elevated creatine kinase and positive anti-Jo-1 antibodies. High-resolution computed tomography of the chest showed evidence of interstitial lung disease. Features were consistent with antisynthetase syndrome and dermatomyositis. An age-appropriate malignancy screen was normal.

The patient was started on oral prednisolone 60 mg, hydroxychloroquine 300 mg, and azathioprine 100 mg. For her hands, topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% with 3% salicyclic acid and emollients were advised. Her muscle weakness improved considerably after 2 months, but the photosensitivity and mechanic’s hands improved only minimally.

ANTISYNTHETASE SYNDROME

Antisynthetase syndrome is a subset of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies characterized by fever, Raynaud phenomenon, arthritis, myositis, interstitial lung disease, and mechanic’s hands. It is associated with myositis-specific antibodies directed against aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, of which anti-Jo-1 is the most common. Other antibodies including anti-PL-7 and anti-PL-12 may be present, whereas antinuclear antibodies may be negative.

Mechanic’s hands is seen in about 30% of patients with antisynthetase syndrome and is an important physical sign, as its presence in a patient with myositis and arthritis prompts an evaluation to exclude interstitial lung disease. Its onset later in the disease course may herald the flare-up of interstitial lung disease.¹ A similar hyperkeratosis may also affect the feet, and the importance of a careful cutaneous examination of the hands and feet should be stressed in patients presenting with polymyositis and dermatomyositis.

In contrast, hyperkeratotic eczema of the hand is usually pruritic, and involvement of the tips and palmar aspects of the fingers and palms is characteristic.^2,3 Vesicles (pompholyx) and coarse pitting of the nails may also be seen in eczema. Other features that help rule out eczema are the development of these features over a short period of time, asymptomatic nature, presence of systemic symptoms, and involvement of only the lateral margins of the index fingers, with no involvement of the palmar aspects and other fingers.

Degenerative collagenous plaque, closely resembling mechanic’s hands, is common in elderly people with photodamaged skin. It is asymptomatic, is not associated with systemic illness, and features clumping and thickening of elastic fibers on histopathology.

Association with cancer risk

Though antisynthetase syndrome was not previously considered to be associated with an increased risk of malignancy, a retrospective review of 124 patients with antisynthetase syndrome recently showed a malignancy risk of 6.5%.⁴ Overall, the data regarding the association of malignancy and antisynthetase syndrome are conflicting, and this needs further study. Therefore, an age-appropriate malignancy screen is recommended.^4–6 Also, the presence of malignancy and interstitial lung disease is associated with a poor prognosis in these patients.

Treatment

Glucocorticoids are the mainstay of treatment, and azathioprine and methotrexate are important steroid-sparing agents.^5,7 Use of methotrexate warrants caution in patients with interstitial lung disease, since methotrexate itself can cause pulmonary fibrosis.

In our patient, prednisolone was slowly tapered to 20 mg/day, and hydroxychloroquine and azathioprine were continued at 300 mg/day and 100 mg/day, respectively. Topical treatment for mechanic’s hands was continued, with only minimal improvement.             

Nail fold capillaroscopy did not reveal telangiectasia or ragged cuticles. Further examination of the skin showed confluent macular violaceous erythema on the eyelids (suggestive of the heliotrope sign), V area of the neck, upper arms, and back.

She also had a low-grade intermittent fever for the past 2 months, as well as difficulty in getting up from a squatting position and combing her hair, dyspnea on exertion, blue discoloration of the fingers on exposure to cold, and intermittent pain, stiffness, and swelling in the small joints of both hands that was worse in the morning and seemed to be relieved by activity. She had no history of dysphagia or nasal regurgitation of food. Strength against resistance was reduced in both arms and knee extensors. A diagnosis of dermatomyositis with “mechanic’s hands” was considered.

Laboratory testing was negative for antinuclear antibodies and showed elevated creatine kinase and positive anti-Jo-1 antibodies. High-resolution computed tomography of the chest showed evidence of interstitial lung disease. Features were consistent with antisynthetase syndrome and dermatomyositis. An age-appropriate malignancy screen was normal.

The patient was started on oral prednisolone 60 mg, hydroxychloroquine 300 mg, and azathioprine 100 mg. For her hands, topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% with 3% salicyclic acid and emollients were advised. Her muscle weakness improved considerably after 2 months, but the photosensitivity and mechanic’s hands improved only minimally.

ANTISYNTHETASE SYNDROME

Antisynthetase syndrome is a subset of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies characterized by fever, Raynaud phenomenon, arthritis, myositis, interstitial lung disease, and mechanic’s hands. It is associated with myositis-specific antibodies directed against aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, of which anti-Jo-1 is the most common. Other antibodies including anti-PL-7 and anti-PL-12 may be present, whereas antinuclear antibodies may be negative.

Mechanic’s hands is seen in about 30% of patients with antisynthetase syndrome and is an important physical sign, as its presence in a patient with myositis and arthritis prompts an evaluation to exclude interstitial lung disease. Its onset later in the disease course may herald the flare-up of interstitial lung disease.¹ A similar hyperkeratosis may also affect the feet, and the importance of a careful cutaneous examination of the hands and feet should be stressed in patients presenting with polymyositis and dermatomyositis.

In contrast, hyperkeratotic eczema of the hand is usually pruritic, and involvement of the tips and palmar aspects of the fingers and palms is characteristic.^2,3 Vesicles (pompholyx) and coarse pitting of the nails may also be seen in eczema. Other features that help rule out eczema are the development of these features over a short period of time, asymptomatic nature, presence of systemic symptoms, and involvement of only the lateral margins of the index fingers, with no involvement of the palmar aspects and other fingers.

Degenerative collagenous plaque, closely resembling mechanic’s hands, is common in elderly people with photodamaged skin. It is asymptomatic, is not associated with systemic illness, and features clumping and thickening of elastic fibers on histopathology.

Association with cancer risk

Though antisynthetase syndrome was not previously considered to be associated with an increased risk of malignancy, a retrospective review of 124 patients with antisynthetase syndrome recently showed a malignancy risk of 6.5%.⁴ Overall, the data regarding the association of malignancy and antisynthetase syndrome are conflicting, and this needs further study. Therefore, an age-appropriate malignancy screen is recommended.^4–6 Also, the presence of malignancy and interstitial lung disease is associated with a poor prognosis in these patients.

Treatment

Glucocorticoids are the mainstay of treatment, and azathioprine and methotrexate are important steroid-sparing agents.^5,7 Use of methotrexate warrants caution in patients with interstitial lung disease, since methotrexate itself can cause pulmonary fibrosis.

In our patient, prednisolone was slowly tapered to 20 mg/day, and hydroxychloroquine and azathioprine were continued at 300 mg/day and 100 mg/day, respectively. Topical treatment for mechanic’s hands was continued, with only minimal improvement.             

Nail fold capillaroscopy did not reveal telangiectasia or ragged cuticles. Further examination of the skin showed confluent macular violaceous erythema on the eyelids (suggestive of the heliotrope sign), V area of the neck, upper arms, and back.

She also had a low-grade intermittent fever for the past 2 months, as well as difficulty in getting up from a squatting position and combing her hair, dyspnea on exertion, blue discoloration of the fingers on exposure to cold, and intermittent pain, stiffness, and swelling in the small joints of both hands that was worse in the morning and seemed to be relieved by activity. She had no history of dysphagia or nasal regurgitation of food. Strength against resistance was reduced in both arms and knee extensors. A diagnosis of dermatomyositis with “mechanic’s hands” was considered.

Laboratory testing was negative for antinuclear antibodies and showed elevated creatine kinase and positive anti-Jo-1 antibodies. High-resolution computed tomography of the chest showed evidence of interstitial lung disease. Features were consistent with antisynthetase syndrome and dermatomyositis. An age-appropriate malignancy screen was normal.

The patient was started on oral prednisolone 60 mg, hydroxychloroquine 300 mg, and azathioprine 100 mg. For her hands, topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% with 3% salicyclic acid and emollients were advised. Her muscle weakness improved considerably after 2 months, but the photosensitivity and mechanic’s hands improved only minimally.

ANTISYNTHETASE SYNDROME

Antisynthetase syndrome is a subset of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies characterized by fever, Raynaud phenomenon, arthritis, myositis, interstitial lung disease, and mechanic’s hands. It is associated with myositis-specific antibodies directed against aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, of which anti-Jo-1 is the most common. Other antibodies including anti-PL-7 and anti-PL-12 may be present, whereas antinuclear antibodies may be negative.

Mechanic’s hands is seen in about 30% of patients with antisynthetase syndrome and is an important physical sign, as its presence in a patient with myositis and arthritis prompts an evaluation to exclude interstitial lung disease. Its onset later in the disease course may herald the flare-up of interstitial lung disease.¹ A similar hyperkeratosis may also affect the feet, and the importance of a careful cutaneous examination of the hands and feet should be stressed in patients presenting with polymyositis and dermatomyositis.

In contrast, hyperkeratotic eczema of the hand is usually pruritic, and involvement of the tips and palmar aspects of the fingers and palms is characteristic.^2,3 Vesicles (pompholyx) and coarse pitting of the nails may also be seen in eczema. Other features that help rule out eczema are the development of these features over a short period of time, asymptomatic nature, presence of systemic symptoms, and involvement of only the lateral margins of the index fingers, with no involvement of the palmar aspects and other fingers.

Degenerative collagenous plaque, closely resembling mechanic’s hands, is common in elderly people with photodamaged skin. It is asymptomatic, is not associated with systemic illness, and features clumping and thickening of elastic fibers on histopathology.

Association with cancer risk

Though antisynthetase syndrome was not previously considered to be associated with an increased risk of malignancy, a retrospective review of 124 patients with antisynthetase syndrome recently showed a malignancy risk of 6.5%.⁴ Overall, the data regarding the association of malignancy and antisynthetase syndrome are conflicting, and this needs further study. Therefore, an age-appropriate malignancy screen is recommended.^4–6 Also, the presence of malignancy and interstitial lung disease is associated with a poor prognosis in these patients.

Treatment

Glucocorticoids are the mainstay of treatment, and azathioprine and methotrexate are important steroid-sparing agents.^5,7 Use of methotrexate warrants caution in patients with interstitial lung disease, since methotrexate itself can cause pulmonary fibrosis.

In our patient, prednisolone was slowly tapered to 20 mg/day, and hydroxychloroquine and azathioprine were continued at 300 mg/day and 100 mg/day, respectively. Topical treatment for mechanic’s hands was continued, with only minimal improvement.             

ORLANDO – Twice-daily treatment with a combination of olopatadine and mometasone showed significant clinical benefit and demonstrated safety for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.

The combination, known as GSP301, is a fixed-dose nasal spray containing olopatadine, a Food and Drug Adminstration–approved antihistamine, and mometasone, an FDA-approved corticosteroid.

“You expect this outcome,” Dr. Hampel said in an interview. “Olopatadine is a good drug, mometasone is a good drug, so you’d expect the combination to be good, and it was.”

Dr. Hampel and his colleagues also analyzed changes in baseline scores for patients in the olopatadine group and the mometasone group and compared those changes with those seen in the placebo group. Patients in the mometasone group experienced statistically significant improvement, compared with those in the placebo group (P = .004), and patients in the olopatadine group also appeared to experienced benefit (P = .076).

Adverse events were similar across all treatment groups, although a slightly higher percentage of patients in the GSP301 group (12.9%) and olopatadine groups (12.5%) experienced adverse events, Dr. Hampel said.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Hampel reported funding from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and other pharmaceutical companies

SOURCE: Hampel F et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 546.

ORLANDO – Twice-daily treatment with a combination of olopatadine and mometasone showed significant clinical benefit and demonstrated safety for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.

The combination, known as GSP301, is a fixed-dose nasal spray containing olopatadine, a Food and Drug Adminstration–approved antihistamine, and mometasone, an FDA-approved corticosteroid.

“You expect this outcome,” Dr. Hampel said in an interview. “Olopatadine is a good drug, mometasone is a good drug, so you’d expect the combination to be good, and it was.”

Dr. Hampel and his colleagues also analyzed changes in baseline scores for patients in the olopatadine group and the mometasone group and compared those changes with those seen in the placebo group. Patients in the mometasone group experienced statistically significant improvement, compared with those in the placebo group (P = .004), and patients in the olopatadine group also appeared to experienced benefit (P = .076).

Adverse events were similar across all treatment groups, although a slightly higher percentage of patients in the GSP301 group (12.9%) and olopatadine groups (12.5%) experienced adverse events, Dr. Hampel said.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Hampel reported funding from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and other pharmaceutical companies

SOURCE: Hampel F et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 546.

ORLANDO – Twice-daily treatment with a combination of olopatadine and mometasone showed significant clinical benefit and demonstrated safety for patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis, according to the results of a phase 3 trial.

The combination, known as GSP301, is a fixed-dose nasal spray containing olopatadine, a Food and Drug Adminstration–approved antihistamine, and mometasone, an FDA-approved corticosteroid.

“You expect this outcome,” Dr. Hampel said in an interview. “Olopatadine is a good drug, mometasone is a good drug, so you’d expect the combination to be good, and it was.”

Dr. Hampel and his colleagues also analyzed changes in baseline scores for patients in the olopatadine group and the mometasone group and compared those changes with those seen in the placebo group. Patients in the mometasone group experienced statistically significant improvement, compared with those in the placebo group (P = .004), and patients in the olopatadine group also appeared to experienced benefit (P = .076).

Adverse events were similar across all treatment groups, although a slightly higher percentage of patients in the GSP301 group (12.9%) and olopatadine groups (12.5%) experienced adverse events, Dr. Hampel said.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Hampel reported funding from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and other pharmaceutical companies

SOURCE: Hampel F et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 546.

Q) How has the Affordable Care Act affected people living with multiple sclerosis—­an Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disease?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a source of controversy since it became law in 2010. Perhaps some of the tension surrounding it stems from misunderstanding; however, it is clear that individual experiences and/or perceptions flavor the ongoing debate. Rather than perpetuate the contention, we’d simply like to outline some of the ways in which patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have benefited from the ACA—and what we must do to ensure continued quality and affordability of care in the event of changes to the law.

Living with MS in the United States is costly. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, average annual costs—both direct and indirect (ie, lost wages)—are about $69,000. Health care costs account for more than half of this total (about $39,000). Total costs for all people in the US living with MS are estimated at $28 billion per year.¹

In 2016, according to the US Census Bureau, almost 13% of Americans lived below the federal poverty level, and 6% of Americans reported “deep poverty”—defined as household income below 50% of the poverty threshold for that year.² It has been reported that while at least 90% of people living with MS are insured, 70% are struggling to pay for health care. In fact, 30% put off seeking care because of costs; one consequence is delay in filling prescriptions.³

The burden of expense for our MS patients is considerable. Here’s how the ACA has impacted our patients by attempting to minimize the devastating cost.

Guaranteed Health Insurance Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions. When the ACA became law in March 2010, there were three main goals: making affordable health insurance available to more people, expanding the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the federal poverty level, and supporting innovative medical care delivery methods to lower the cost of health care.⁴

Following the ACA’s full implementation in 2014, private health insurance companies were prevented from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, such as MS. This was a game changer, since patients, regardless of their MS diagnosis, were now guaranteed individual insurance. Furthermore, they could not be charged increased premiums based on their prior medical history.⁵

Preventive Services Covered Without Cost-sharing. Under the ACA, health plans generally must provide preventive services, such as those rated A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force. This includes routine immunizations for both adults and children, which represents a cost savings to patients living with MS. Another advantage is that women, including those living with MS, have access to sexually transmitted infection screenings, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening, and contraceptives.⁶

Improved Coverage Through Medicare. The ACA mandated improvement in coverage with Medicare Part D benefits. In addition to the preventive care benefits noted above, which apply to Medicare recipients as well, the ACA reduced federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time and provided bonus payments to plans with high quality ratings.⁷

Further changes in Medicare spending included the creation of a 15-person, by-appointment board (known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board) tasked with identifying ways to “modify benefits, eligibility, premiums, or taxes,” which will hopefully continue to optimize the cost of care for patients living with MS and utilizing Medicare.⁷

Cost Savings With Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion was enacted to keep patients with a costly illness, such as MS, from financial destitution because of their condition. As of January 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia have seen expansion of their programs.⁸ In those states, people with a household income below 138% of the poverty level (less than $27,000 for a family of three) can now qualify for Medicaid. States that have not expanded coverage include Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.⁸ The expansion of Medicaid helps MS patients by shrinking the ever-present gap that still prevents some from qualifying for the additional financial assistance they need due to their chronic illness.

One thing we have learned is that MS patients may not realize they have access to some of these services—particularly preventive care—or they may hesitate to obtain services due to a lack of clarity on whether they are covered. Health care providers can remind patients that they may qualify for “unrealized services,” which could provide value and optimize general preventive care. MS patients with Medicare and Medicaid, for example, may not know that they have access to colorectal cancer screenings via a waived deductible.⁶

Since last year, there has been vigorous discussion about repealing, replacing, or otherwise amending the ACA. While a political discussion is beyond the bounds of this column, we do need to be aware of how changes to the ACA would affect patients with MS.

Optimizing wellness and prevention and providing access to care to patients with a costly disease, such as MS, is important. In addition to ensuring ongoing access to affordable services, we need to do more to improve mental health access and reduce the cost of needed medications. We also need to close the insurance gap in all 50 states. Continued dialogue will be necessary to help government leaders understand the cost impact of MS (and other diseases), in order to keep our country moving in a positive direction that optimizes wellness and health care reform. —ALD

Amy L. Dix, MPAS, PA-C, MSCS
Department of Neurology at Kansas City Multiple Sclerosis Center in Overland Park, Kansas

Q) How has the Affordable Care Act affected people living with multiple sclerosis—­an Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disease?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a source of controversy since it became law in 2010. Perhaps some of the tension surrounding it stems from misunderstanding; however, it is clear that individual experiences and/or perceptions flavor the ongoing debate. Rather than perpetuate the contention, we’d simply like to outline some of the ways in which patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have benefited from the ACA—and what we must do to ensure continued quality and affordability of care in the event of changes to the law.

Living with MS in the United States is costly. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, average annual costs—both direct and indirect (ie, lost wages)—are about $69,000. Health care costs account for more than half of this total (about $39,000). Total costs for all people in the US living with MS are estimated at $28 billion per year.¹

In 2016, according to the US Census Bureau, almost 13% of Americans lived below the federal poverty level, and 6% of Americans reported “deep poverty”—defined as household income below 50% of the poverty threshold for that year.² It has been reported that while at least 90% of people living with MS are insured, 70% are struggling to pay for health care. In fact, 30% put off seeking care because of costs; one consequence is delay in filling prescriptions.³

The burden of expense for our MS patients is considerable. Here’s how the ACA has impacted our patients by attempting to minimize the devastating cost.

Guaranteed Health Insurance Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions. When the ACA became law in March 2010, there were three main goals: making affordable health insurance available to more people, expanding the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the federal poverty level, and supporting innovative medical care delivery methods to lower the cost of health care.⁴

Following the ACA’s full implementation in 2014, private health insurance companies were prevented from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, such as MS. This was a game changer, since patients, regardless of their MS diagnosis, were now guaranteed individual insurance. Furthermore, they could not be charged increased premiums based on their prior medical history.⁵

Preventive Services Covered Without Cost-sharing. Under the ACA, health plans generally must provide preventive services, such as those rated A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force. This includes routine immunizations for both adults and children, which represents a cost savings to patients living with MS. Another advantage is that women, including those living with MS, have access to sexually transmitted infection screenings, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening, and contraceptives.⁶

Improved Coverage Through Medicare. The ACA mandated improvement in coverage with Medicare Part D benefits. In addition to the preventive care benefits noted above, which apply to Medicare recipients as well, the ACA reduced federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time and provided bonus payments to plans with high quality ratings.⁷

Further changes in Medicare spending included the creation of a 15-person, by-appointment board (known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board) tasked with identifying ways to “modify benefits, eligibility, premiums, or taxes,” which will hopefully continue to optimize the cost of care for patients living with MS and utilizing Medicare.⁷

Cost Savings With Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion was enacted to keep patients with a costly illness, such as MS, from financial destitution because of their condition. As of January 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia have seen expansion of their programs.⁸ In those states, people with a household income below 138% of the poverty level (less than $27,000 for a family of three) can now qualify for Medicaid. States that have not expanded coverage include Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.⁸ The expansion of Medicaid helps MS patients by shrinking the ever-present gap that still prevents some from qualifying for the additional financial assistance they need due to their chronic illness.

One thing we have learned is that MS patients may not realize they have access to some of these services—particularly preventive care—or they may hesitate to obtain services due to a lack of clarity on whether they are covered. Health care providers can remind patients that they may qualify for “unrealized services,” which could provide value and optimize general preventive care. MS patients with Medicare and Medicaid, for example, may not know that they have access to colorectal cancer screenings via a waived deductible.⁶

Since last year, there has been vigorous discussion about repealing, replacing, or otherwise amending the ACA. While a political discussion is beyond the bounds of this column, we do need to be aware of how changes to the ACA would affect patients with MS.

Optimizing wellness and prevention and providing access to care to patients with a costly disease, such as MS, is important. In addition to ensuring ongoing access to affordable services, we need to do more to improve mental health access and reduce the cost of needed medications. We also need to close the insurance gap in all 50 states. Continued dialogue will be necessary to help government leaders understand the cost impact of MS (and other diseases), in order to keep our country moving in a positive direction that optimizes wellness and health care reform. —ALD

Amy L. Dix, MPAS, PA-C, MSCS
Department of Neurology at Kansas City Multiple Sclerosis Center in Overland Park, Kansas

Q) How has the Affordable Care Act affected people living with multiple sclerosis—­an Americans with Disabilities Act recognized disease?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a source of controversy since it became law in 2010. Perhaps some of the tension surrounding it stems from misunderstanding; however, it is clear that individual experiences and/or perceptions flavor the ongoing debate. Rather than perpetuate the contention, we’d simply like to outline some of the ways in which patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have benefited from the ACA—and what we must do to ensure continued quality and affordability of care in the event of changes to the law.

Living with MS in the United States is costly. According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, average annual costs—both direct and indirect (ie, lost wages)—are about $69,000. Health care costs account for more than half of this total (about $39,000). Total costs for all people in the US living with MS are estimated at $28 billion per year.¹

In 2016, according to the US Census Bureau, almost 13% of Americans lived below the federal poverty level, and 6% of Americans reported “deep poverty”—defined as household income below 50% of the poverty threshold for that year.² It has been reported that while at least 90% of people living with MS are insured, 70% are struggling to pay for health care. In fact, 30% put off seeking care because of costs; one consequence is delay in filling prescriptions.³

The burden of expense for our MS patients is considerable. Here’s how the ACA has impacted our patients by attempting to minimize the devastating cost.

Guaranteed Health Insurance Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions. When the ACA became law in March 2010, there were three main goals: making affordable health insurance available to more people, expanding the Medicaid program to cover all adults with income below 138% of the federal poverty level, and supporting innovative medical care delivery methods to lower the cost of health care.⁴

Following the ACA’s full implementation in 2014, private health insurance companies were prevented from refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, such as MS. This was a game changer, since patients, regardless of their MS diagnosis, were now guaranteed individual insurance. Furthermore, they could not be charged increased premiums based on their prior medical history.⁵

Preventive Services Covered Without Cost-sharing. Under the ACA, health plans generally must provide preventive services, such as those rated A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force. This includes routine immunizations for both adults and children, which represents a cost savings to patients living with MS. Another advantage is that women, including those living with MS, have access to sexually transmitted infection screenings, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening, and contraceptives.⁶

Improved Coverage Through Medicare. The ACA mandated improvement in coverage with Medicare Part D benefits. In addition to the preventive care benefits noted above, which apply to Medicare recipients as well, the ACA reduced federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time and provided bonus payments to plans with high quality ratings.⁷

Further changes in Medicare spending included the creation of a 15-person, by-appointment board (known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board) tasked with identifying ways to “modify benefits, eligibility, premiums, or taxes,” which will hopefully continue to optimize the cost of care for patients living with MS and utilizing Medicare.⁷

Cost Savings With Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion was enacted to keep patients with a costly illness, such as MS, from financial destitution because of their condition. As of January 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia have seen expansion of their programs.⁸ In those states, people with a household income below 138% of the poverty level (less than $27,000 for a family of three) can now qualify for Medicaid. States that have not expanded coverage include Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.⁸ The expansion of Medicaid helps MS patients by shrinking the ever-present gap that still prevents some from qualifying for the additional financial assistance they need due to their chronic illness.

One thing we have learned is that MS patients may not realize they have access to some of these services—particularly preventive care—or they may hesitate to obtain services due to a lack of clarity on whether they are covered. Health care providers can remind patients that they may qualify for “unrealized services,” which could provide value and optimize general preventive care. MS patients with Medicare and Medicaid, for example, may not know that they have access to colorectal cancer screenings via a waived deductible.⁶

Since last year, there has been vigorous discussion about repealing, replacing, or otherwise amending the ACA. While a political discussion is beyond the bounds of this column, we do need to be aware of how changes to the ACA would affect patients with MS.

Optimizing wellness and prevention and providing access to care to patients with a costly disease, such as MS, is important. In addition to ensuring ongoing access to affordable services, we need to do more to improve mental health access and reduce the cost of needed medications. We also need to close the insurance gap in all 50 states. Continued dialogue will be necessary to help government leaders understand the cost impact of MS (and other diseases), in order to keep our country moving in a positive direction that optimizes wellness and health care reform. —ALD

Amy L. Dix, MPAS, PA-C, MSCS
Department of Neurology at Kansas City Multiple Sclerosis Center in Overland Park, Kansas

Q) How do you monitor for infection in patients with multiple sclerosis who take disease-modifying therapies?

The answer to this question is “it depends”—on several factors, including current and previous use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), concomitant medications, comorbidities, vaccination history, presence of John Cunningham virus (JCV) antibodies (in the case of natalizumab use), and prior or current use of immunosuppressive therapies.

There are many FDA-approved DMTs for multiple sclerosis (MS). Each has a different rate of infection occurring in clinical trials and varying requirements and/or recommendations for safety monitoring. The package inserts for each DMT offer some guidance for clinicians.

Injectable therapies. For two in­terferon therapies—­interferon ß-1b SC and interferon ß-1a—it is recommended to order a complete blood count (CBC), blood chemistry, and liver function tests (LFTs) at baseline, then again at one, three, and six months, and then at ­clinician discretion thereafter.^1,2 For peginterferon ß-1a, ordering a CBC, basic chemistry, and LFTs, at the clinician’s discretion, is advised.³ The package insert for interferon ß-1a IM does not offer specific recommendations for routine safety monitoring.⁴

The package insert for glatiramer acetate offers no recommendations for routine safety monitoring.⁵

In patients for whom two or more DMTs have failed to work, the monoclonal antibody daclizumab may be indicated. Compared to placebo and active comparator, this drug was associated with a higher risk for infection in clinical trials. The most commonly observed types were upper respiratory, urinary tract, and viral infections. There are no recommendations for CBC monitoring with daclizumab, but monthly LFTs are required due to increased risk for hepatic injury.⁶

Oral DMTs. Patients taking fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate have increased risk for infection; as a result, there are more safety monitoring recommendations for these medications.^7-9

Prior to starting therapy with fingolimod, baseline CBC, blood chemistries, and varicella antibody testing should be done. ­During therapy, routine CBC testing and LFTs are advised at the clinician’s discretion or if the patient exhibits signs and symptoms of infection (see Table). In clinical trials, fingolimod use was interrupted if the lymphocyte count was sustained at < 200. In rare cases, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) has occurred—so the patient’s age, JCV antibody status, prior use of immunosuppressant therapy, and length of fingolimod treatment should be taken into consideration.⁷

Patients starting teriflunomide should have baseline LFTs and CBC and tuberculosis (TB) testing (either skin or serum), with subsequent monthly LFTs for the first six months on treatment. Some patients may experience neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphopenia. As a result, patients may have an increased risk for infection. Safety monitoring is at the clinician’s discretion.⁸

For patients initiating dimethyl fumarate, a baseline CBC is recommended, to be repeated every six to 12 months thereafter, and/or as clinically indicated. Since lymphopenia may occur, consider interruption of dimethyl fumarate in patients with lymphocyte counts < 0.5 persisting for more than six months. Rare cases of PML have also occurred; at the first suggestive sign or symptom, dimethyl fumarate should be withheld and appropriate diagnostic testing should be completed.⁹

Natalizumab is an integrin receptor antagonist administered in monthly IV infusions. Patients receiving natalizumab may have increased risk for urinary tract infections, lower respiratory infections, gastroenteritis, vaginitis, and herpes infections. These risks should be monitored at the clinician’s discretion. There have been several cases of PML associated with natalizumab; risk factors include duration of therapy, prior use of immunosuppressants, and presence of JCV antibodies.¹¹

Alemtuzumab is a CD52-directed monoclonal antibody indicated in patients with relapsing forms of MS who have had an inadequate response to at least two DMTs. In clinical trials, subjects had a higher risk for nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis, herpetic infections, influenza, and bronchitis. Due to the increased risk for infection and secondary autoimmunities, patients are required to have monthly CBC testing, LFTs, and urinalysis for up to 48 months after their last infusion.¹²

Lastly, ocrelizumab is a CD20-directed cytolytic antibody for the treatment of relapsing and progressive forms of MS. In clinical trials, there was a higher incidence of upper and lower respiratory infections, skin infections, and herpes-related infections. Prior to initiating ocrelizumab, hepatitis B virus screening should be completed. There are no specific recommendations for routine monitoring during therapy, although providers should monitor patients clinically for any signs and symptoms of infection.¹³

A word of caution: The common signs and symptoms of infection are listed in the Table. If these symptoms are present in your patient, consider ordering diagnostic testing to evaluate for infection.

Symptoms of PML include progressive unilateral weakness, clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes. At the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML, the DMT should be discontinued and diagnostic testing performed.

Providers may contact the manufacturer directly for further guidance on DMT surveillance and treatment protocols. —CK

Christen Kutz, PhD, PA-C
Colorado Springs Neurological Associates

Q) How do you monitor for infection in patients with multiple sclerosis who take disease-modifying therapies?

The answer to this question is “it depends”—on several factors, including current and previous use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), concomitant medications, comorbidities, vaccination history, presence of John Cunningham virus (JCV) antibodies (in the case of natalizumab use), and prior or current use of immunosuppressive therapies.

There are many FDA-approved DMTs for multiple sclerosis (MS). Each has a different rate of infection occurring in clinical trials and varying requirements and/or recommendations for safety monitoring. The package inserts for each DMT offer some guidance for clinicians.

Injectable therapies. For two in­terferon therapies—­interferon ß-1b SC and interferon ß-1a—it is recommended to order a complete blood count (CBC), blood chemistry, and liver function tests (LFTs) at baseline, then again at one, three, and six months, and then at ­clinician discretion thereafter.^1,2 For peginterferon ß-1a, ordering a CBC, basic chemistry, and LFTs, at the clinician’s discretion, is advised.³ The package insert for interferon ß-1a IM does not offer specific recommendations for routine safety monitoring.⁴

The package insert for glatiramer acetate offers no recommendations for routine safety monitoring.⁵

In patients for whom two or more DMTs have failed to work, the monoclonal antibody daclizumab may be indicated. Compared to placebo and active comparator, this drug was associated with a higher risk for infection in clinical trials. The most commonly observed types were upper respiratory, urinary tract, and viral infections. There are no recommendations for CBC monitoring with daclizumab, but monthly LFTs are required due to increased risk for hepatic injury.⁶

Oral DMTs. Patients taking fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate have increased risk for infection; as a result, there are more safety monitoring recommendations for these medications.^7-9

Prior to starting therapy with fingolimod, baseline CBC, blood chemistries, and varicella antibody testing should be done. ­During therapy, routine CBC testing and LFTs are advised at the clinician’s discretion or if the patient exhibits signs and symptoms of infection (see Table). In clinical trials, fingolimod use was interrupted if the lymphocyte count was sustained at < 200. In rare cases, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) has occurred—so the patient’s age, JCV antibody status, prior use of immunosuppressant therapy, and length of fingolimod treatment should be taken into consideration.⁷

Patients starting teriflunomide should have baseline LFTs and CBC and tuberculosis (TB) testing (either skin or serum), with subsequent monthly LFTs for the first six months on treatment. Some patients may experience neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphopenia. As a result, patients may have an increased risk for infection. Safety monitoring is at the clinician’s discretion.⁸

For patients initiating dimethyl fumarate, a baseline CBC is recommended, to be repeated every six to 12 months thereafter, and/or as clinically indicated. Since lymphopenia may occur, consider interruption of dimethyl fumarate in patients with lymphocyte counts < 0.5 persisting for more than six months. Rare cases of PML have also occurred; at the first suggestive sign or symptom, dimethyl fumarate should be withheld and appropriate diagnostic testing should be completed.⁹

Natalizumab is an integrin receptor antagonist administered in monthly IV infusions. Patients receiving natalizumab may have increased risk for urinary tract infections, lower respiratory infections, gastroenteritis, vaginitis, and herpes infections. These risks should be monitored at the clinician’s discretion. There have been several cases of PML associated with natalizumab; risk factors include duration of therapy, prior use of immunosuppressants, and presence of JCV antibodies.¹¹

Alemtuzumab is a CD52-directed monoclonal antibody indicated in patients with relapsing forms of MS who have had an inadequate response to at least two DMTs. In clinical trials, subjects had a higher risk for nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis, herpetic infections, influenza, and bronchitis. Due to the increased risk for infection and secondary autoimmunities, patients are required to have monthly CBC testing, LFTs, and urinalysis for up to 48 months after their last infusion.¹²

Lastly, ocrelizumab is a CD20-directed cytolytic antibody for the treatment of relapsing and progressive forms of MS. In clinical trials, there was a higher incidence of upper and lower respiratory infections, skin infections, and herpes-related infections. Prior to initiating ocrelizumab, hepatitis B virus screening should be completed. There are no specific recommendations for routine monitoring during therapy, although providers should monitor patients clinically for any signs and symptoms of infection.¹³

A word of caution: The common signs and symptoms of infection are listed in the Table. If these symptoms are present in your patient, consider ordering diagnostic testing to evaluate for infection.

Symptoms of PML include progressive unilateral weakness, clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes. At the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML, the DMT should be discontinued and diagnostic testing performed.

Providers may contact the manufacturer directly for further guidance on DMT surveillance and treatment protocols. —CK

Christen Kutz, PhD, PA-C
Colorado Springs Neurological Associates

Q) How do you monitor for infection in patients with multiple sclerosis who take disease-modifying therapies?

The answer to this question is “it depends”—on several factors, including current and previous use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), concomitant medications, comorbidities, vaccination history, presence of John Cunningham virus (JCV) antibodies (in the case of natalizumab use), and prior or current use of immunosuppressive therapies.

There are many FDA-approved DMTs for multiple sclerosis (MS). Each has a different rate of infection occurring in clinical trials and varying requirements and/or recommendations for safety monitoring. The package inserts for each DMT offer some guidance for clinicians.

Injectable therapies. For two in­terferon therapies—­interferon ß-1b SC and interferon ß-1a—it is recommended to order a complete blood count (CBC), blood chemistry, and liver function tests (LFTs) at baseline, then again at one, three, and six months, and then at ­clinician discretion thereafter.^1,2 For peginterferon ß-1a, ordering a CBC, basic chemistry, and LFTs, at the clinician’s discretion, is advised.³ The package insert for interferon ß-1a IM does not offer specific recommendations for routine safety monitoring.⁴

The package insert for glatiramer acetate offers no recommendations for routine safety monitoring.⁵

In patients for whom two or more DMTs have failed to work, the monoclonal antibody daclizumab may be indicated. Compared to placebo and active comparator, this drug was associated with a higher risk for infection in clinical trials. The most commonly observed types were upper respiratory, urinary tract, and viral infections. There are no recommendations for CBC monitoring with daclizumab, but monthly LFTs are required due to increased risk for hepatic injury.⁶

Oral DMTs. Patients taking fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate have increased risk for infection; as a result, there are more safety monitoring recommendations for these medications.^7-9

Prior to starting therapy with fingolimod, baseline CBC, blood chemistries, and varicella antibody testing should be done. ­During therapy, routine CBC testing and LFTs are advised at the clinician’s discretion or if the patient exhibits signs and symptoms of infection (see Table). In clinical trials, fingolimod use was interrupted if the lymphocyte count was sustained at < 200. In rare cases, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) has occurred—so the patient’s age, JCV antibody status, prior use of immunosuppressant therapy, and length of fingolimod treatment should be taken into consideration.⁷

Patients starting teriflunomide should have baseline LFTs and CBC and tuberculosis (TB) testing (either skin or serum), with subsequent monthly LFTs for the first six months on treatment. Some patients may experience neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and lymphopenia. As a result, patients may have an increased risk for infection. Safety monitoring is at the clinician’s discretion.⁸

For patients initiating dimethyl fumarate, a baseline CBC is recommended, to be repeated every six to 12 months thereafter, and/or as clinically indicated. Since lymphopenia may occur, consider interruption of dimethyl fumarate in patients with lymphocyte counts < 0.5 persisting for more than six months. Rare cases of PML have also occurred; at the first suggestive sign or symptom, dimethyl fumarate should be withheld and appropriate diagnostic testing should be completed.⁹

Natalizumab is an integrin receptor antagonist administered in monthly IV infusions. Patients receiving natalizumab may have increased risk for urinary tract infections, lower respiratory infections, gastroenteritis, vaginitis, and herpes infections. These risks should be monitored at the clinician’s discretion. There have been several cases of PML associated with natalizumab; risk factors include duration of therapy, prior use of immunosuppressants, and presence of JCV antibodies.¹¹

Alemtuzumab is a CD52-directed monoclonal antibody indicated in patients with relapsing forms of MS who have had an inadequate response to at least two DMTs. In clinical trials, subjects had a higher risk for nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infections, upper respiratory infections, sinusitis, herpetic infections, influenza, and bronchitis. Due to the increased risk for infection and secondary autoimmunities, patients are required to have monthly CBC testing, LFTs, and urinalysis for up to 48 months after their last infusion.¹²

Lastly, ocrelizumab is a CD20-directed cytolytic antibody for the treatment of relapsing and progressive forms of MS. In clinical trials, there was a higher incidence of upper and lower respiratory infections, skin infections, and herpes-related infections. Prior to initiating ocrelizumab, hepatitis B virus screening should be completed. There are no specific recommendations for routine monitoring during therapy, although providers should monitor patients clinically for any signs and symptoms of infection.¹³

A word of caution: The common signs and symptoms of infection are listed in the Table. If these symptoms are present in your patient, consider ordering diagnostic testing to evaluate for infection.

Symptoms of PML include progressive unilateral weakness, clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes. At the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML, the DMT should be discontinued and diagnostic testing performed.

Providers may contact the manufacturer directly for further guidance on DMT surveillance and treatment protocols. —CK

Christen Kutz, PhD, PA-C
Colorado Springs Neurological Associates

Nearly 10% of children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) developed macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) at some point during a mean follow-up time of more than 3 years at one center, and most were concomitantly diagnosed with the syndrome.

Although the investigators from the University of Toronto reported significantly higher mortality among patients with MAS, most cases were successfully treated with corticosteroids, and no relapses were observed during follow-up.

MAS was first identified in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and is most well known as a complication of that broadly named disease, but data on outcomes and disease course in SLE patients are limited, first author Roberto Ezequiel Borgia, MD, and his colleagues wrote in their report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers identified 403 children with SLE seen at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto during 2002-2012. Overall, 38 patients (9%) had MAS; of those patients, 68% received a MAS diagnosis within 7 days of the SLE diagnosis – termed “concomitant” diagnosis – while another 29% received a MAS diagnosis within 180 days of their SLE diagnosis.

The researchers explained that “since there are no validated nor universally accepted diagnostic criteria for MAS in SLE, the definition of MAS was based on the treating pediatric rheumatologist’s expert opinion at the time of the initial presentation.” The most common presenting feature of MAS was fever (100%), followed by generalized lymphadenopathy (24%), hepatomegaly (18%), CNS dysfunction secondary to MAS (18%), hemorrhage (13%), and splenomegaly (10%).

The average age of the children at diagnosis was nearly 14 years, and 79% were female. The average follow-up was 3.5 years. There were no significant differences in the demographic features of children with and without MAS nor were there any in variables used to assess lupus outcomes, which included immunosuppressive drug use, average daily corticosteroid dose (18.3 mg/day with MAS vs. 18.6 mg/day without MAS), and the number of pediatric ICU visits (incidence rate ratio for MAS vs. non-MAS, 1.60 [95% CI, 0.74-3.18]).

Mortality was significantly higher in children with MAS, compared with those without MAS (5.3% vs. 0.3%; P = .02), although the overall number of deaths in the cohort was small (n = 3). Apart from the “acute illness which was associated with 2 deaths secondary to MAS,” the investigators said that they “did not find any significant differences in the number of deaths or damage accrual between the cohorts, including overall SLICC [Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics] damage score or any specific damage feature within the score.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of validated MAS criteria for children with SLE and a lack of follow-up data on the patients beyond 18 years of age, the researchers said.

The results suggest that MAS remains a life-threatening complication in children with SLE and should be considered an important cause of mortality for them, but “if the initial presentation does not result in death, the long-term outcome seem[s] to be comparable to those without MAS,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

rhnews@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Borgia R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018 Jan 17. doi: 10.1002/art.40417

Nearly 10% of children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) developed macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) at some point during a mean follow-up time of more than 3 years at one center, and most were concomitantly diagnosed with the syndrome.

Although the investigators from the University of Toronto reported significantly higher mortality among patients with MAS, most cases were successfully treated with corticosteroids, and no relapses were observed during follow-up.

MAS was first identified in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and is most well known as a complication of that broadly named disease, but data on outcomes and disease course in SLE patients are limited, first author Roberto Ezequiel Borgia, MD, and his colleagues wrote in their report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers identified 403 children with SLE seen at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto during 2002-2012. Overall, 38 patients (9%) had MAS; of those patients, 68% received a MAS diagnosis within 7 days of the SLE diagnosis – termed “concomitant” diagnosis – while another 29% received a MAS diagnosis within 180 days of their SLE diagnosis.

The researchers explained that “since there are no validated nor universally accepted diagnostic criteria for MAS in SLE, the definition of MAS was based on the treating pediatric rheumatologist’s expert opinion at the time of the initial presentation.” The most common presenting feature of MAS was fever (100%), followed by generalized lymphadenopathy (24%), hepatomegaly (18%), CNS dysfunction secondary to MAS (18%), hemorrhage (13%), and splenomegaly (10%).

The average age of the children at diagnosis was nearly 14 years, and 79% were female. The average follow-up was 3.5 years. There were no significant differences in the demographic features of children with and without MAS nor were there any in variables used to assess lupus outcomes, which included immunosuppressive drug use, average daily corticosteroid dose (18.3 mg/day with MAS vs. 18.6 mg/day without MAS), and the number of pediatric ICU visits (incidence rate ratio for MAS vs. non-MAS, 1.60 [95% CI, 0.74-3.18]).

Mortality was significantly higher in children with MAS, compared with those without MAS (5.3% vs. 0.3%; P = .02), although the overall number of deaths in the cohort was small (n = 3). Apart from the “acute illness which was associated with 2 deaths secondary to MAS,” the investigators said that they “did not find any significant differences in the number of deaths or damage accrual between the cohorts, including overall SLICC [Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics] damage score or any specific damage feature within the score.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of validated MAS criteria for children with SLE and a lack of follow-up data on the patients beyond 18 years of age, the researchers said.

The results suggest that MAS remains a life-threatening complication in children with SLE and should be considered an important cause of mortality for them, but “if the initial presentation does not result in death, the long-term outcome seem[s] to be comparable to those without MAS,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

rhnews@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Borgia R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018 Jan 17. doi: 10.1002/art.40417

Nearly 10% of children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) developed macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) at some point during a mean follow-up time of more than 3 years at one center, and most were concomitantly diagnosed with the syndrome.

Although the investigators from the University of Toronto reported significantly higher mortality among patients with MAS, most cases were successfully treated with corticosteroids, and no relapses were observed during follow-up.

MAS was first identified in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and is most well known as a complication of that broadly named disease, but data on outcomes and disease course in SLE patients are limited, first author Roberto Ezequiel Borgia, MD, and his colleagues wrote in their report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The researchers identified 403 children with SLE seen at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto during 2002-2012. Overall, 38 patients (9%) had MAS; of those patients, 68% received a MAS diagnosis within 7 days of the SLE diagnosis – termed “concomitant” diagnosis – while another 29% received a MAS diagnosis within 180 days of their SLE diagnosis.

The researchers explained that “since there are no validated nor universally accepted diagnostic criteria for MAS in SLE, the definition of MAS was based on the treating pediatric rheumatologist’s expert opinion at the time of the initial presentation.” The most common presenting feature of MAS was fever (100%), followed by generalized lymphadenopathy (24%), hepatomegaly (18%), CNS dysfunction secondary to MAS (18%), hemorrhage (13%), and splenomegaly (10%).

The average age of the children at diagnosis was nearly 14 years, and 79% were female. The average follow-up was 3.5 years. There were no significant differences in the demographic features of children with and without MAS nor were there any in variables used to assess lupus outcomes, which included immunosuppressive drug use, average daily corticosteroid dose (18.3 mg/day with MAS vs. 18.6 mg/day without MAS), and the number of pediatric ICU visits (incidence rate ratio for MAS vs. non-MAS, 1.60 [95% CI, 0.74-3.18]).

Mortality was significantly higher in children with MAS, compared with those without MAS (5.3% vs. 0.3%; P = .02), although the overall number of deaths in the cohort was small (n = 3). Apart from the “acute illness which was associated with 2 deaths secondary to MAS,” the investigators said that they “did not find any significant differences in the number of deaths or damage accrual between the cohorts, including overall SLICC [Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics] damage score or any specific damage feature within the score.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of validated MAS criteria for children with SLE and a lack of follow-up data on the patients beyond 18 years of age, the researchers said.

The results suggest that MAS remains a life-threatening complication in children with SLE and should be considered an important cause of mortality for them, but “if the initial presentation does not result in death, the long-term outcome seem[s] to be comparable to those without MAS,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

rhnews@frontlinemedcom.com

SOURCE: Borgia R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018 Jan 17. doi: 10.1002/art.40417

Janus kinase inhibitors look promising in the treatment of severe alopecia areata, particularly in adolescents, said Lucy Yichu Liu, MD, and Brett Andrew King, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Standard medical therapies for alopecia areata – usually topical or injected corticosteroids and allergic contact sensitization – are not very effective for severe disease, particularly alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway recently has been suggested as a target for treatment.

Dr. Liu and Dr. King reviewed several studies, including a retrospective cohort study of 13 patients aged 12-17 years, in which 7 patients had 100% hair loss and 6 had 20%-70% scalp hair loss. The adolescents were treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib citrate 5 mg twice daily for 2-16 months (median, 5 months). That led to 93% median improvement in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score (range, 1%-100%) from baseline. Nine patients experienced hair regrowth. There were mild adverse effects, such as upper respiratory infections and headaches.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

SOURCE: Liu LY et al. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jisp.2017.10.003.

Janus kinase inhibitors look promising in the treatment of severe alopecia areata, particularly in adolescents, said Lucy Yichu Liu, MD, and Brett Andrew King, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Standard medical therapies for alopecia areata – usually topical or injected corticosteroids and allergic contact sensitization – are not very effective for severe disease, particularly alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway recently has been suggested as a target for treatment.

Dr. Liu and Dr. King reviewed several studies, including a retrospective cohort study of 13 patients aged 12-17 years, in which 7 patients had 100% hair loss and 6 had 20%-70% scalp hair loss. The adolescents were treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib citrate 5 mg twice daily for 2-16 months (median, 5 months). That led to 93% median improvement in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score (range, 1%-100%) from baseline. Nine patients experienced hair regrowth. There were mild adverse effects, such as upper respiratory infections and headaches.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

SOURCE: Liu LY et al. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jisp.2017.10.003.

Janus kinase inhibitors look promising in the treatment of severe alopecia areata, particularly in adolescents, said Lucy Yichu Liu, MD, and Brett Andrew King, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Standard medical therapies for alopecia areata – usually topical or injected corticosteroids and allergic contact sensitization – are not very effective for severe disease, particularly alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway recently has been suggested as a target for treatment.

Dr. Liu and Dr. King reviewed several studies, including a retrospective cohort study of 13 patients aged 12-17 years, in which 7 patients had 100% hair loss and 6 had 20%-70% scalp hair loss. The adolescents were treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib citrate 5 mg twice daily for 2-16 months (median, 5 months). That led to 93% median improvement in Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score (range, 1%-100%) from baseline. Nine patients experienced hair regrowth. There were mild adverse effects, such as upper respiratory infections and headaches.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

SOURCE: Liu LY et al. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jisp.2017.10.003.

The influenza vaccine introduced in 2009 showed reduced effectiveness during the 2015-2016 influenza season, but only in adults born between 1958 and 1979, according to an analysis published online in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Using the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, researchers analyzed data from 2,115 patients with medically attended acute respiratory illness who tested positive for A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus, and 14,696 patients who tested negative for the influenza virus, from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 (excluding the 2014-2015 influenza season).

Overall, 48% of the influenza virus–negative patients and 28% of the virus-positive patients had received at least one dose of the seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine more than 2 weeks before they fell ill.

However, the vaccine, which was based on the A/California/07/2009 strain of the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, was only 47% effective during the 2015-2016 season, compared with 61% effectiveness during the 2010-2011 season through to the 2013-2014 season.

When researchers looked at vaccine effectiveness by birth cohort, they found that one particular cohort – individuals born between 1958 and 1979 – showed a significantly reduced vaccine effectiveness (22%) during the 2015-2016 season. By comparison, vaccine effectiveness in this cohort was 61% during the 2010-2013 seasons, and 56% during the 2013-2014 season.

When this birth cohort was excluded from analysis of the 2015-2016 season, the overall vaccine effectiveness for that season was 61%.

While the vaccine was based on an early reference strain of A(H1N1)pdm09, the virus itself later acquired mutations in the hemagglutinin gene, leading to the emergence of new genetic clades, including 6B, which dominated in the 2013-2014 influenza season, and 6B.1, which dominated in 2015-2016.

“Limited serologic data suggest that some adults born during 1958-1979 (age range in 2015-2016, 36-57 years) have decreased antibody titers against A(H1N1)pdm09 group 6B and 6B.1 viruses,” wrote Brendan Flannery, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his coauthors.

They suggested that individuals in this cohort may have been immunologically primed with A/USSR/90/1977-like viruses, which were the first group of A(H1N1) viruses that this cohort would have been exposed to. A(H1N1) strains didn’t circulate between 1958 and 1977. Vaccination with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses may have induced antibodies against shared antigenic components found on early versions of A(H1N1)pdm09.

If these shared antigenic epitopes were then altered in the later 6B and 6B.1 viruses, that might account for decreased antibody titers in this age group.

“Replacement of the A/California/07/2009(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine reference strain with A/Michigan/45/2015 (group 6B.1) should lead to improved [vaccine effectiveness] against circulating A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses,” the investigators noted.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Eight authors declared funding, grants, and consultancies with the pharmaceutical industry, with five also declaring funding from the CDC.

SOURCE: Flannery B et al. J Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 18. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix634.

The influenza vaccine introduced in 2009 showed reduced effectiveness during the 2015-2016 influenza season, but only in adults born between 1958 and 1979, according to an analysis published online in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Using the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, researchers analyzed data from 2,115 patients with medically attended acute respiratory illness who tested positive for A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus, and 14,696 patients who tested negative for the influenza virus, from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 (excluding the 2014-2015 influenza season).

Overall, 48% of the influenza virus–negative patients and 28% of the virus-positive patients had received at least one dose of the seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine more than 2 weeks before they fell ill.

However, the vaccine, which was based on the A/California/07/2009 strain of the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, was only 47% effective during the 2015-2016 season, compared with 61% effectiveness during the 2010-2011 season through to the 2013-2014 season.

When researchers looked at vaccine effectiveness by birth cohort, they found that one particular cohort – individuals born between 1958 and 1979 – showed a significantly reduced vaccine effectiveness (22%) during the 2015-2016 season. By comparison, vaccine effectiveness in this cohort was 61% during the 2010-2013 seasons, and 56% during the 2013-2014 season.

When this birth cohort was excluded from analysis of the 2015-2016 season, the overall vaccine effectiveness for that season was 61%.

While the vaccine was based on an early reference strain of A(H1N1)pdm09, the virus itself later acquired mutations in the hemagglutinin gene, leading to the emergence of new genetic clades, including 6B, which dominated in the 2013-2014 influenza season, and 6B.1, which dominated in 2015-2016.

“Limited serologic data suggest that some adults born during 1958-1979 (age range in 2015-2016, 36-57 years) have decreased antibody titers against A(H1N1)pdm09 group 6B and 6B.1 viruses,” wrote Brendan Flannery, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his coauthors.

They suggested that individuals in this cohort may have been immunologically primed with A/USSR/90/1977-like viruses, which were the first group of A(H1N1) viruses that this cohort would have been exposed to. A(H1N1) strains didn’t circulate between 1958 and 1977. Vaccination with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses may have induced antibodies against shared antigenic components found on early versions of A(H1N1)pdm09.

If these shared antigenic epitopes were then altered in the later 6B and 6B.1 viruses, that might account for decreased antibody titers in this age group.

“Replacement of the A/California/07/2009(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine reference strain with A/Michigan/45/2015 (group 6B.1) should lead to improved [vaccine effectiveness] against circulating A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses,” the investigators noted.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Eight authors declared funding, grants, and consultancies with the pharmaceutical industry, with five also declaring funding from the CDC.

SOURCE: Flannery B et al. J Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 18. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix634.

The influenza vaccine introduced in 2009 showed reduced effectiveness during the 2015-2016 influenza season, but only in adults born between 1958 and 1979, according to an analysis published online in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Using the Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, researchers analyzed data from 2,115 patients with medically attended acute respiratory illness who tested positive for A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus, and 14,696 patients who tested negative for the influenza virus, from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 (excluding the 2014-2015 influenza season).

Overall, 48% of the influenza virus–negative patients and 28% of the virus-positive patients had received at least one dose of the seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine more than 2 weeks before they fell ill.

However, the vaccine, which was based on the A/California/07/2009 strain of the A(H1N1)pdm09 virus, was only 47% effective during the 2015-2016 season, compared with 61% effectiveness during the 2010-2011 season through to the 2013-2014 season.

When researchers looked at vaccine effectiveness by birth cohort, they found that one particular cohort – individuals born between 1958 and 1979 – showed a significantly reduced vaccine effectiveness (22%) during the 2015-2016 season. By comparison, vaccine effectiveness in this cohort was 61% during the 2010-2013 seasons, and 56% during the 2013-2014 season.

When this birth cohort was excluded from analysis of the 2015-2016 season, the overall vaccine effectiveness for that season was 61%.

While the vaccine was based on an early reference strain of A(H1N1)pdm09, the virus itself later acquired mutations in the hemagglutinin gene, leading to the emergence of new genetic clades, including 6B, which dominated in the 2013-2014 influenza season, and 6B.1, which dominated in 2015-2016.

“Limited serologic data suggest that some adults born during 1958-1979 (age range in 2015-2016, 36-57 years) have decreased antibody titers against A(H1N1)pdm09 group 6B and 6B.1 viruses,” wrote Brendan Flannery, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his coauthors.

They suggested that individuals in this cohort may have been immunologically primed with A/USSR/90/1977-like viruses, which were the first group of A(H1N1) viruses that this cohort would have been exposed to. A(H1N1) strains didn’t circulate between 1958 and 1977. Vaccination with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses may have induced antibodies against shared antigenic components found on early versions of A(H1N1)pdm09.

If these shared antigenic epitopes were then altered in the later 6B and 6B.1 viruses, that might account for decreased antibody titers in this age group.

“Replacement of the A/California/07/2009(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine reference strain with A/Michigan/45/2015 (group 6B.1) should lead to improved [vaccine effectiveness] against circulating A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses,” the investigators noted.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Eight authors declared funding, grants, and consultancies with the pharmaceutical industry, with five also declaring funding from the CDC.

SOURCE: Flannery B et al. J Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 18. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix634.

Q) I teach nephrology at a local PA program, and they want us to integrate dental care into each module. What’s the connection between the two?

Dental health is frequently overlooked in the medical realm, as many clinicians feel that dental issues are out of our purview. Hematuria worries us, but bleeding gums and other signs of periodontal disease are often ignored. Surprisingly, many patients don’t seem to mind when their gums bleed every time they brush; they believe that this is normal, when really, it’s not.

Growing evidence supports associations between dental health and multiple medical issues—chronic kidney disease (CKD) among them. Periodontal disease is one of several inflammatory diseases caused by an interaction between gram-negative periodontal bacterial species and the immune system. It manifests with sore, red, bleeding gums and can lead to tooth loss if left untreated.

Chronic inflammation in the gums is a good indicator of inflammation elsewhere in the body. In and of itself, periodontitis can set off an inflammatory cascade in the body. Poor dentition can also lead to poor nutrition, which then causes a feedback loop, leading to even more inflammation.

Patients with periodontal disease have higher levels of C-reactive protein and a higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate than those without the disease.¹ And a recent study by Zhang et al showed that periodontal disease increased risk for all-cause mortality in patients with CKD.²

The high cost of CKD from both a financial and personal view makes any intervention worth exploring, as the risk factors are difficult to modify and the CKD population is growing worldwide. We, as medical providers, should reiterate what our dental colleagues have been saying for years: Encourage patients with CKD to practice good dental hygiene by brushing twice a day and flossing daily, in an attempt to improve their overall outcomes. —JT

LCDR Julie Taylor, PA-C
United States Public Health Service, Boston

Q) I teach nephrology at a local PA program, and they want us to integrate dental care into each module. What’s the connection between the two?

Dental health is frequently overlooked in the medical realm, as many clinicians feel that dental issues are out of our purview. Hematuria worries us, but bleeding gums and other signs of periodontal disease are often ignored. Surprisingly, many patients don’t seem to mind when their gums bleed every time they brush; they believe that this is normal, when really, it’s not.

Growing evidence supports associations between dental health and multiple medical issues—chronic kidney disease (CKD) among them. Periodontal disease is one of several inflammatory diseases caused by an interaction between gram-negative periodontal bacterial species and the immune system. It manifests with sore, red, bleeding gums and can lead to tooth loss if left untreated.

Chronic inflammation in the gums is a good indicator of inflammation elsewhere in the body. In and of itself, periodontitis can set off an inflammatory cascade in the body. Poor dentition can also lead to poor nutrition, which then causes a feedback loop, leading to even more inflammation.

Patients with periodontal disease have higher levels of C-reactive protein and a higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate than those without the disease.¹ And a recent study by Zhang et al showed that periodontal disease increased risk for all-cause mortality in patients with CKD.²

The high cost of CKD from both a financial and personal view makes any intervention worth exploring, as the risk factors are difficult to modify and the CKD population is growing worldwide. We, as medical providers, should reiterate what our dental colleagues have been saying for years: Encourage patients with CKD to practice good dental hygiene by brushing twice a day and flossing daily, in an attempt to improve their overall outcomes. —JT

LCDR Julie Taylor, PA-C
United States Public Health Service, Boston

Q) I teach nephrology at a local PA program, and they want us to integrate dental care into each module. What’s the connection between the two?

Dental health is frequently overlooked in the medical realm, as many clinicians feel that dental issues are out of our purview. Hematuria worries us, but bleeding gums and other signs of periodontal disease are often ignored. Surprisingly, many patients don’t seem to mind when their gums bleed every time they brush; they believe that this is normal, when really, it’s not.

Growing evidence supports associations between dental health and multiple medical issues—chronic kidney disease (CKD) among them. Periodontal disease is one of several inflammatory diseases caused by an interaction between gram-negative periodontal bacterial species and the immune system. It manifests with sore, red, bleeding gums and can lead to tooth loss if left untreated.

Chronic inflammation in the gums is a good indicator of inflammation elsewhere in the body. In and of itself, periodontitis can set off an inflammatory cascade in the body. Poor dentition can also lead to poor nutrition, which then causes a feedback loop, leading to even more inflammation.

Patients with periodontal disease have higher levels of C-reactive protein and a higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate than those without the disease.¹ And a recent study by Zhang et al showed that periodontal disease increased risk for all-cause mortality in patients with CKD.²

The high cost of CKD from both a financial and personal view makes any intervention worth exploring, as the risk factors are difficult to modify and the CKD population is growing worldwide. We, as medical providers, should reiterate what our dental colleagues have been saying for years: Encourage patients with CKD to practice good dental hygiene by brushing twice a day and flossing daily, in an attempt to improve their overall outcomes. —JT

LCDR Julie Taylor, PA-C
United States Public Health Service, Boston

Q) What can I tell my kidney patients to increase acceptance of the influenza and pneumonia vaccines during cold and flu season?

The CDC recommends that everyone ages 6 months and older receive an annual flu vaccination, unless contraindicated.¹ Additionally, administration of either the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) or the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) is recommended for all adults ages 65 and older and for younger adults (ages 19 to 64) with diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic heart disease, and/or solid organ transplant.¹ Despite these recommendations, patients often decline vaccination. What they may not realize is that CKD increases their risk for infection.

In a cohort of more than 1 million Swedish patients, researchers found that any stage of CKD increased risk for community-acquired infection and that the risk for lower respiratory tract infection increased as glomerular filtration rate declined.² Patients on hemodialysis have an increased risk for pneumonia and an incidence of pneumonia-related mortality that is up to 16 times higher than that of the general population.³ Pneumonia also increases the risk for cardiovascular events among all patients with CKD, regardless of stage.⁴

So, can vaccines reduce these risks in our kidney patients? McGrath and colleagues found that patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who were vaccinated against the flu had lower mortality rates than those who were not vaccinated—even when the vaccine was poorly matched to the circulating virus strain.⁵ Additional research has demonstrated that for patients with any stage of CKD, including those on dialysis, the flu vaccine is safe and effective, and its protection may be durable over time.⁶

For pneumonia vaccines, antibody response in patients with CKD may be suboptimal; however, Medicare data have demonstrated that patients with ESRD who are vaccinated against pneumonia have lower rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than unvaccinated patients do.⁵ Given their increased vulnerability to vaccine-preventable respiratory illnesses, it is imperative that our kidney patients receive both the flu and pneumonia vaccines. —NDM

Nicole DeFeo McCormick, DNP, MBA, NP-C, CCTC
Assistant Professor
School of Medicine at the University of Colorado

Q) What can I tell my kidney patients to increase acceptance of the influenza and pneumonia vaccines during cold and flu season?

The CDC recommends that everyone ages 6 months and older receive an annual flu vaccination, unless contraindicated.¹ Additionally, administration of either the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) or the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) is recommended for all adults ages 65 and older and for younger adults (ages 19 to 64) with diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic heart disease, and/or solid organ transplant.¹ Despite these recommendations, patients often decline vaccination. What they may not realize is that CKD increases their risk for infection.

In a cohort of more than 1 million Swedish patients, researchers found that any stage of CKD increased risk for community-acquired infection and that the risk for lower respiratory tract infection increased as glomerular filtration rate declined.² Patients on hemodialysis have an increased risk for pneumonia and an incidence of pneumonia-related mortality that is up to 16 times higher than that of the general population.³ Pneumonia also increases the risk for cardiovascular events among all patients with CKD, regardless of stage.⁴

So, can vaccines reduce these risks in our kidney patients? McGrath and colleagues found that patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who were vaccinated against the flu had lower mortality rates than those who were not vaccinated—even when the vaccine was poorly matched to the circulating virus strain.⁵ Additional research has demonstrated that for patients with any stage of CKD, including those on dialysis, the flu vaccine is safe and effective, and its protection may be durable over time.⁶

For pneumonia vaccines, antibody response in patients with CKD may be suboptimal; however, Medicare data have demonstrated that patients with ESRD who are vaccinated against pneumonia have lower rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than unvaccinated patients do.⁵ Given their increased vulnerability to vaccine-preventable respiratory illnesses, it is imperative that our kidney patients receive both the flu and pneumonia vaccines. —NDM

Nicole DeFeo McCormick, DNP, MBA, NP-C, CCTC
Assistant Professor
School of Medicine at the University of Colorado

Q) What can I tell my kidney patients to increase acceptance of the influenza and pneumonia vaccines during cold and flu season?

The CDC recommends that everyone ages 6 months and older receive an annual flu vaccination, unless contraindicated.¹ Additionally, administration of either the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) or the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) is recommended for all adults ages 65 and older and for younger adults (ages 19 to 64) with diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic heart disease, and/or solid organ transplant.¹ Despite these recommendations, patients often decline vaccination. What they may not realize is that CKD increases their risk for infection.

In a cohort of more than 1 million Swedish patients, researchers found that any stage of CKD increased risk for community-acquired infection and that the risk for lower respiratory tract infection increased as glomerular filtration rate declined.² Patients on hemodialysis have an increased risk for pneumonia and an incidence of pneumonia-related mortality that is up to 16 times higher than that of the general population.³ Pneumonia also increases the risk for cardiovascular events among all patients with CKD, regardless of stage.⁴

So, can vaccines reduce these risks in our kidney patients? McGrath and colleagues found that patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who were vaccinated against the flu had lower mortality rates than those who were not vaccinated—even when the vaccine was poorly matched to the circulating virus strain.⁵ Additional research has demonstrated that for patients with any stage of CKD, including those on dialysis, the flu vaccine is safe and effective, and its protection may be durable over time.⁶

For pneumonia vaccines, antibody response in patients with CKD may be suboptimal; however, Medicare data have demonstrated that patients with ESRD who are vaccinated against pneumonia have lower rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than unvaccinated patients do.⁵ Given their increased vulnerability to vaccine-preventable respiratory illnesses, it is imperative that our kidney patients receive both the flu and pneumonia vaccines. —NDM

Nicole DeFeo McCormick, DNP, MBA, NP-C, CCTC
Assistant Professor
School of Medicine at the University of Colorado

A 23-year-old woman presented with hematuria. Her blood pressure was normal, and she had no rash, joint pain, or other symptoms. Urinalysis was positive for proteinuria and hematuria, and urinary sediment analysis showed dysmorphic red blood cells (RBCs) and red cell casts, leading to a diagnosis of glomerulonephritis. She had proteinuria of 1.2 g/24 hours. Laboratory tests for systemic diseases were negative. Renal biopsy study revealed stage III immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy.

See related editorial

GLOMERULAR HEMATURIA

Glomerular hematuria may represent an immune-mediated injury to the glomerular capillary wall, but it can also be present in noninflammatory glomerulopathies.¹

The type of dysmorphic RBCs (crenated or misshapen cells, acanthocytes) may be of diagnostic importance. In particular, dysmorphic red cells alone may be predictive of only renal bleeding, while acanthocytes (ring-shaped RBCs with vesicle-shaped protrusions best seen on phase-contrast microscopy) appear to be most predictive of glomerular disease.² For example, in 1 study,³ the presence of acanthocytes comprising at least 5% of excreted RBCs had a sensitivity of 52% for glomerular disease and a specificity of 98%.³

A 23-year-old woman presented with hematuria. Her blood pressure was normal, and she had no rash, joint pain, or other symptoms. Urinalysis was positive for proteinuria and hematuria, and urinary sediment analysis showed dysmorphic red blood cells (RBCs) and red cell casts, leading to a diagnosis of glomerulonephritis. She had proteinuria of 1.2 g/24 hours. Laboratory tests for systemic diseases were negative. Renal biopsy study revealed stage III immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy.

See related editorial

GLOMERULAR HEMATURIA

Glomerular hematuria may represent an immune-mediated injury to the glomerular capillary wall, but it can also be present in noninflammatory glomerulopathies.¹

The type of dysmorphic RBCs (crenated or misshapen cells, acanthocytes) may be of diagnostic importance. In particular, dysmorphic red cells alone may be predictive of only renal bleeding, while acanthocytes (ring-shaped RBCs with vesicle-shaped protrusions best seen on phase-contrast microscopy) appear to be most predictive of glomerular disease.² For example, in 1 study,³ the presence of acanthocytes comprising at least 5% of excreted RBCs had a sensitivity of 52% for glomerular disease and a specificity of 98%.³

A 23-year-old woman presented with hematuria. Her blood pressure was normal, and she had no rash, joint pain, or other symptoms. Urinalysis was positive for proteinuria and hematuria, and urinary sediment analysis showed dysmorphic red blood cells (RBCs) and red cell casts, leading to a diagnosis of glomerulonephritis. She had proteinuria of 1.2 g/24 hours. Laboratory tests for systemic diseases were negative. Renal biopsy study revealed stage III immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy.

See related editorial

GLOMERULAR HEMATURIA

Glomerular hematuria may represent an immune-mediated injury to the glomerular capillary wall, but it can also be present in noninflammatory glomerulopathies.¹

The type of dysmorphic RBCs (crenated or misshapen cells, acanthocytes) may be of diagnostic importance. In particular, dysmorphic red cells alone may be predictive of only renal bleeding, while acanthocytes (ring-shaped RBCs with vesicle-shaped protrusions best seen on phase-contrast microscopy) appear to be most predictive of glomerular disease.² For example, in 1 study,³ the presence of acanthocytes comprising at least 5% of excreted RBCs had a sensitivity of 52% for glomerular disease and a specificity of 98%.³