ABSTRACT
Background: X-Linked Moesin-Associated Immune Deficiency (X-MAID) is a rare severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) subtype that can present at any age due to its variability. Depending on severity, patients demonstrate failure to thrive, recurrent bacterial and viral infections, and increased susceptibility to varicella zoster. It has been characterized by marked lymphopenia with hypogammaglobulinemia and impaired T-cell migration and proliferation. Case Presentation: This is a report of a Cuban 7-year-old male with poor weight gain and facial dysmorphia. He had a history of recurrent bacterial gastrointestinal infections and pneumonia beginning at 4 months of age. He additionally had 4-6 upper respiratory tract and ear infections annually. While still living in Cuba, he was admitted for a profound EBV infection in the setting of significant leukopenia. A bone marrow biopsy confirmed no malignancy. After he moved to the United States, his laboratory work-up revealed marked leukopenia with low absolute neutrophil and lymphocyte count with low T and B cells, very low immunoglobulin levels IgG, IgA, and IgM, and poor vaccination responses to streptococcus pneumonia, varicella zoster, and SARS-CoV-2. Genetic testing revealed a missense pathogenic variant c.511C>T (p.Arg171Trp) in the moesin (MSN) gene associated with X-MAID. He was managed with Bactrim and acyclovir prophylaxis, and immunoglobulin replacement therapy, and considered for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Discussion(s): Diagnosis of X-MAID should be considered in patients with recurrent infections and profound lymphopenia. As with SCID, early diagnosis and intervention is of utmost importance to prevent morbidity and mortality. This case demonstrates the importance of genetic testing in identifying this disease as it may prompt an immunologist to consider HSCT if conservative management is suboptimal. In the current literature, HSCT appears promising, but the long-term outcomes have yet to be described.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Varicella is common infectious disease mainly in childhood, usually is a mild, self-limited illness and complications are usually rare. The incubation period for this disease is generally 14- 16 days but may vary from 7 to 21 days. Varicella in the adults with comorbidities or immunosuppressed children may be severe and prolonged with complications. Method(s): A case report of a 6-year-old girl hospitalized for new-onset manifestations of disseminated vesicular exanthema, the manifestations of which occurred mainly on the chest, back, capillitium, oral cavity, and genital area. The child was suffering from abdominal, knee and lumbosacral pain at that time. The patient's history revealed that 10 days prior to the cutaneous manifestations, she had influenza with bronchopneumonia requiring oxygen therapy, steroids and antibiotics. Result(s): The condition progressed within 48 h, complicated by the development of multi-organ failure, coagulopathy with the development of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy over the course of antiviral, antibiotic and antifungal therapy. Laboratory parameters included high elevation of C-reactive protein, il-6, leukocytosis, neutrophilia and highly elevated liver enzymes. Varicella infection was confirmed by detection of herpes zoster virus - polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from vesicles. The patient received intravenous immunoglobulin therapy at a dose of 2 g/L and fresh frozen plasma, thrombocyte concentrate. The girl was intubated with analogization. Laboratory parameters subsequently revealed high anti CoV-2 positivity, high CoV-2 IgG positivity and negative CoV-2 IgM. The patient's condition did not preclude the course of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) corticosteroids were added to the treatment at a dose of 1 mg/kg weight. Patient's condition stabilized after 1 month. Discussion(s): Our case report presents an example of fulminant complicated life-threatening course of varicella. Even in common respiratory infections, we must think about the risk and consequences of coinfections and post-infectious complications such as in our case especially influenza and COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundConsideration is needed when using Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors to treat RA in pts aged ≥65 years or those with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. The JAK1 preferential inhibitor FIL was generally well tolerated in clinical trials[1];safety has not been determined in a real-world setting.ObjectivesTo report baseline characteristics and up to 6-month safety data from the first 480 pts treated with FIL in the FILOSOPHY study (NCT04871919), and in two mutually exclusive subgroups based on age and CV risk.MethodsFILOSOPHY is an ongoing, phase 4, non-interventional, European study of pts with RA who have been prescribed FIL for the first time and in accordance with the product label in daily practice. Baseline characteristics and the incidence of select adverse events (AEs) are assessed in pts aged ≥65 years and/or with ≥1 CV risk factor (Table 1), and in those aged <65 years with no CV risk factors.ResultsAs of the end of June 2022, 480 pts had been treated: 441 received FIL 200 mg and 39 received FIL 100 mg. Of the 480 pts, 148 (30.8%) were aged ≥65 years;332 (69.2%) were aged <65 years. In total, 86 (17.9%) were former smokers, 81 (16.9%) were current smokers and 203 (42.3%) were non-smokers (data were missing for 110 pts [22.9%]). In addition to smoking, the most frequent CV risk factors included a history of hypertension (32.3%), a history of dyslipidemia (10.2%) and a family history of myocardial infarction (8.5%;Table 1).23 pts (4.8%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. Of the 354 pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor, infections affected 64 pts (18.1%), 34 (9.6%) had COVID-19, 2 (0.6%) had herpes zoster, and cardiac disorders (angina pectoris, atrial fibrillation, palpitations and tachycardia) affected 5 pts (1.4%);no cases of malignancies were observed. In the subgroup aged <65 years and with no CV risk factors (n=126), infections occurred in 18 pts (14.3%) (9 [7.1%] had COVID-19;3 [2.4%] had herpes zoster) and malignancies (myeloproliferative neoplasm) affected 1 pt (0.8%);no pts had cardiac disorders. There were no cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in either subgroup.ConclusionIn this interim analysis of FILOSOPHY, no unexpected safety signals emerged at up to 6 months. Although infections and cardiac disorders affected a numerically greater proportion of pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk vs those aged <65 years with no CV risk, longer follow-up on a broader cohort is necessary to further characterize the safety of FIL in different groups of pts with RA.Reference[1]Winthrop K, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:184–92Table 1.Baseline characteristics and CV risk factorsBaseline demographics/CV risk factorsAll FIL-treated pts (N=480)≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor (n=354)<65 years and no CV risk factor (n=126)*Female sex, n (%)351 (73.1)252 (71.2)99 (78.6)Age, years, mean (SD)57.6 (11.5)60.4 (10.8)49.6 (9.6)Rheumatoid factor positive, n (%)†228 (47.5)167 (47.2)61 (48.4)Anti-citrullinated protein antibody positive, n (%)‡243 (50.6)176 (49.7)67 (53. 2)Body mass index, kg/m2, mean (SD)27.6 (5.7) n=43728.0 (5.4) n=33126.3 (6.4) n=106RA disease duration, years, mean (SD)10.4 (9.4) n=47810.5 (9.5) n=35310.0 (8.8) n=125Tender joint count 28, mean (SD)8.6 (6.9) n=4578.7 (7.1) n=3408.3 (6.3) n=117Swollen joint count 28, mean (SD)5.6 (5.2) n=4525.7 (5.4) n=3365.4 (4.4) n=116Former smoker, n (%)§86 (17.9)86 (24.3)0Current smoker, n (%)§81 (16.9)81 (22.9)0Non-smoker, n (%)§203 (42.3)130 (36.7)73 (57.9)Family history of myocardial infarction, n (%)41 (8.5)41 (11.6)0Medical history of: n (%) CV disease33 (6.9)33 (9.3)0 Diabetes35 (7.3)35 (9.9)0 Dyslipidemia49 (10.2)49 (13.8)0 Hypertension155 (32.3)155 (43.8)0 Ischemic CNS vascular disorders11 (2.3)11 (3.1)0 Peripheral vascular disease17 (3.5)17 (4.8)0*Includes 53 pts with missing smoking status data who were aged <65 years with no other CV risk factors.†Missing/unknown in 154 pts;‡Missing in 153 pts;§Smoking status data missing in 110 pts (22.9%).AcknowledgementsWe thank the physicia s and patients who participated in this study. The study was funded by Galapagos NV, Mechelen, Belgium. Publication coordination was provided by Fabien Debailleul, PhD, of Galapagos NV. Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of InterestsPatrick Verschueren Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Roularta, Consultant of: Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Nordic Pharma, Sidekick Health, Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Pfizer, Jérôme Avouac Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Novartis, Pfizer, Karen Bevers Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Sanofi, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Lilly, MSD, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Thomas Debray Consultant of: Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, Francesco De Leonardis Employee of: Galapagos, James Galloway Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Medicago, Novavax, Pfizer, Monia Zignani Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients (pts) with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) through 14 weeks (wks) of treatment.[1]ObjectivesThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) through 1 year.MethodsThe SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study included a 52-wk randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Enrolled adults had a clinical diagnosis of active nr-axSpA fulfilling the 2009 ASAS classification criteria, objective signs of inflammation based on MRI sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein, and an inadequate response to NSAIDs. One-third of pts had an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily or PBO. Concomitant medications, including NSAIDs, had to be kept stable through wk 52. The study protocol outlined that pts who did not achieve ASAS20 at any two consecutive study visits between wks 24 to 52 should receive rescue therapy with NSAIDs, corticosteroids, conventional synthetic/biologic DMARDs, or analgesics. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle missing data and intercurrent events for binary efficacy endpoints. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to assess continuous efficacy endpoints. NRI was used for binary endpoints after rescue and as observed analysis excluding data after rescue for continuous endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through wk 52.ResultsOf the 314 pts randomized, 259 (82%;UPA, n=130;PBO, n=129) completed wk 52 on study drug. More pts achieved an ASAS40 response with UPA vs PBO from wks 14 to 52 with a 20% treatment difference at wk 52 (63% vs 43%;nominal P <.001;Figure 1). The proportion of pts achieving ASDAS inactive disease with UPA remained higher than PBO at wk 52 (33% vs 11%;nominal P <.0001;Figure 1). Consistent improvements and maintenance of efficacy were also seen across other disease activity measures. Between wks 24 and 52, fewer pts on UPA (9%) than PBO (17%) received rescue therapy. A similar proportion of pts in each treatment group had a TEAE (Table 1). Infections were the most common TEAE;the rates of serious infections and herpes zoster were higher with UPA vs PBO, although no new serious infections were reported from wks 14 to 52. COVID-19 events were balanced between treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported. Two pts (1.3%) on PBO had adjudicated venous thromboembolic events.ConclusionUPA showed consistent improvement and maintenance of efficacy vs PBO through 1 year across multiple disease activity measures. No new safety risks were identified with longer-term UPA exposure. These results continue to support the benefit of UPA in pts with active nr-axSpA.Reference[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10349):369–379.Table 1.Safety through week 52Event, n (%)PBO (n = 157)UPA 15 mg QD (n = 156)Any AE103 (66%)107 (69%)Serious AE6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)AE leading to D/C4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)COVID-19-related AE22 (14%)24 (15%)Deaths00Infection60 (38%)68 (44%) Serious infection1 (0.6%)2 (1.3%) Herpes zoster1 (0.6%)5 (3.2%)Malignancy other than NMSC00NMSC1 (0.6%)0Hepatic disorder7 (4.5%)6 (3.8%)Neutropenia1 (0.6%)8 (5.1%)MACE (adjudicated)00VTE (adjudicated)2 (1.3%)a0Uveitisb3 (1.9%)2 (1.3%)Inflammatory bowel disease00aBoth patients had non-serious events of deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb with risk factors including obesity and prior deep vein thrombosis in one patient and concomitant COVID-19 infection in the other patient.bThree events of uveitis occurred in each treatment group (among n = 3 patients in the PBO group and n = 2 patients in the UPA group);two events in the PBO group and one in the UPA group occurred in patients with a history of uveitis.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, res arch, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsFilip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer., Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis., Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB., Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSjögren's syndrome (SS) is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease affecting exocrine glands, primarily the salivary and tear glands, with potentially severe manifestations in multiple organs. No approved disease-modifying therapies exist. Dazodalibep (DAZ) is a biologic antagonist of CD40L.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity (NCT04129164).MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to evaluate DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity, as defined by a EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score ≥ 5. Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous DAZ 1500 mg or placebo (PBO) Q2W x 3 doses, then Q4W x 4 additional doses. Starting on Day 169, subjects initially randomized to DAZ received PBO Q4W x 5 doses and subjects randomized to PBO received DAZ Q4W x 5 doses and were then followed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from Baseline in ESSDAI at Day 169. Safety assessments included the incidence of adverse (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs of special interest (AESIs).ResultsThe 74 randomized subjects all received ≥1 dose of study medication (DAZ, N=36;PBO, N=38). The baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between the two groups. The change from Baseline to Day 169 in ESSDAI score (LS mean ± SE), was -6.3 ± 0.6 in DAZ-treated subjects compared to -4.1 ± 0.6 in the PBO group, a difference of -2.2 (p = 0.0167). Compared to the PBO group, the DAZ group showed positive trends in the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index score, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score at Day 169. A post-hoc responder analysis of subjects achieving high levels (5 and 6 points) of improvement on ESSDAI favored DAZ (61.1% and 60.0%) over PBO (35.1% and 34.3%).The reported AEs were generally mild through Day 169 and similar in frequency between treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs occurring in ≥5% of DAZ-treated subjects and >PBO were COVID-19, diarrhea, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, contusion, device allergy, fatigue, hypertension, and oropharyngeal pain. Two SAEs were reported in a single DAZ-treated subject: this subject was a 59-year-old female who experienced a grade 3 SAE of COVID-19 infection and later died of unknown cause 46 days after last administration of DAZ (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). There was a single AESI of herpes zoster in a DAZ-treated subject.ConclusionDAZ is a potential new therapy for the treatment of systemic disease activity in patients with SS. SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease receiving DAZ experienced a statistically significant reduction in disease activity relative to PBO as measured by the improvement in ESSDAI score. Except for a case of severe COVID-19 infection, DAZ therapy in SS subjects appeared to be well tolerated. Larger controlled trials of DAZ therapy for SS are warranted to further explore its safety profile and confirm its clinical efficacy.Table 1.Efficacy and Safety DataPBO N=38DAZ 1500 mg N=36EfficacyΔESSDAI, LS mean (SE) †-4.1 (0.6)-6.3 (0.6)*ΔESSPRI, LS mean (SE) †-1.12 (0.29)-1.80 (0.31)ΔFACIT-Fatigue, LS mean (SE) †5.8 (1.6)8.1 (1.6)AE Summary, n (%)≥1 AE23 (60.5)28 (77.8)≥1 related AE8 (21)10 (27.8)≥1 SAE01 (2.8)≥1 related SAE00≥1 AE leading to discontinuation00≥1 AESI01 (2.8)≥1 Death01 (2.8)Efficacy endpoints as of Day 169;† Analyzed using MMRM;Comparisons vs PBO;*p<0.05;AE summaries based on AEs that occurred through Day 169;AE, adverse event;AESI, adverse event of special interest;ESSDAI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index;ESSPRI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index;FACIT-Fatigue, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue;PBO, placebo;SAE, serious adverse eventFigure 1.AcknowledgementsFunded by Horizon herapeutics. Medical writing support provided by B Lujan, PhD, an employee of Horizon Therapeutics.Disclosure of InterestsE. William St. Clair Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Resolve Therapeutics, Sonoma Biotherapeutics. Royalties: UpToDate, Liangwei Wang Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Ilias Alevizos Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, William Rees Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Alan Baer Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Wan Fai Ng Consultant of: Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbvie, BMS, Sanofi, MedImmune, Janssen and UCB, Ghaith Noaiseh Consultant of: Novartis, Chiara Baldini Consultant of: GSK, and Sanofi.
ABSTRACT
RAG mutations cause various phenotypes: SCID, Omenn syndrome (OS), leaky SCID (LS) and combined immunodeficiency (CID). We had previously reported autoantibodies targeting IFN-alpha, IFN-omega in patients with RAG deficiency. However, how the presence of such antibodies correlated with the severity of the clinical phenotype and with the recombination activity of the mutant proteins was unknown. To address this, we have studied anti-cytokine antibodies in 118 patients with RAG defects (SCID, n = 28;OS, n = 29;LS, n = 29;CID, n = 32), and in 42 controls (protocols NCT03394053 and NCT03610802). RAG mutant proteins associated with CID and LS retained 35.6 +/- 4.3 (mean +/- SE) and 29.8 +/- 5.1% recombination activity respectively, compared to wildtype protein, which was significantly higher than the recombination activity of the mutant RAG proteins associated with OS (4.1 +/- 1.5%) and SCID (5.7 +/- 2.1%) (p < 0.0001). Among 32 CID patients, 24 tested positive for anti-IFN-alpha and 21 for anti-IFN-omega antibodies. Among 29 LS patients, 15 had high levels of anti-IFN-alpha and 13 of anti-IFN-omega antibodies. A minority of the CID and LS patients had also high levels of anti-IFN-beta and anti-IL-22 antibodies. By contrast, none of the OS patients tested positive for anti-cytokine antibodies. High levels of anti-IFN-alpha and anti-IFN-omega antibodies correlated with their neutralizing activity as demonstrated in vitro by analysis of STAT1 phosphorylation upon stimulation of healthy donor monocytes in the presence of the appropriate cytokine and patient's or control plasma. Severe viral infections were recorded in 26/41 patients with CID and LS who tested positive and in 7/20 who tested negative for anti-IFN-alpha and/or anti-IFN-omega antibodies (p <0.05). Among those with anti-IFN antibodies, EBV (n = 8), CMV (n = 6), HSV (n = 5), VZV (n = 4) and adenovirus (n = 4) infections were more common. Two patients had COVID-19, which was fatal in one. Presence of the rubella virus was documented in 5 patients with anti-type I IFN antibodies. These results demonstrate that high levels of neutralizing anti-IFN-alpha and anti-IFN-omega antibodies are common in patients with RAG mutations manifesting as CID and LS, but not in those with OS, and that their presence is associated with a high risk of serious viral infections.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.
ABSTRACT
Shingles is a viral skin disease caused by the Varicella Zoster virus. We report varicella zoster virus reactivation in three long-time athletes after vaccination with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The three athletes had no evidence of immunosuppressive conditions or other illnesses, and all three did not suffer from COVID-19. The first patient is a 21-year-old athlete with an 8-year sports career. He developed shingles four days after being vaccinated against COVID-19. The second athlete is 20 years old and has been actively involved in fitness for ten years. He was diagnosed with herpes zoster three days after the vaccination. The third athlete is 23 years old and has been actively involved in sports and fitness since the age of 6;he was diagnosed 4 days after the vaccination against COVID-19. All three were diagnosed by a dermatologist. Discussion: The relationship between the development of herpes zoster after the administration of a vaccine against COVID-19 has been the subject of many studies worldwide, but the occurrence of herpes zoster after Covid-19 vaccination in athletes is described for the first time. Our team did not find a report of a case of an athlete with herpes zoster after vaccination for COVID-19 anywhere, which motivated us to describe the above three cases.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) improved symptoms in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD-IR) through week (wk) 104 or 2 years of treatment in SELECT-PsA 1 [1].ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) through wk 152 or 3 years from the ongoing long-term open-label extension of SELECT-PsA 1.MethodsPts were randomized to receive UPA 15 mg (UPA15) or UPA 30 mg (UPA30) once daily, ADA 40 mg (ADA) every other wk, or placebo (PBO). At wk 24, PBO pts switched to UPA15 or UPA30. Following approval of UPA15, the protocol was amended so pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest at wk 104). Efficacy was assessed through wk 152, and safety through June 13, 2022.ResultsOf 1704 pts randomized, 911 completed 152 wks of treatment. The proportions of pts achieving.≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50/70), minimal disease activity (MDA), and ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at wk 152 were generally consistent with those at wk 1041. UPA had greater ACR20/50/70 and MDA responses vs ADA, and a greater mean change from baseline (BL) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pt's assessment of pain, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index vs ADA. Change from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score were similar between UPA30 and ADA, and numerically higher with UPA15 (Table 1). The overall UPA safety profile remained unchanged (Figure 1) [1,2]. UPA had numerically higher rates of serious infection (SI), herpes zoster (HZ), anemia, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation, and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) vs ADA. Increases for SI, HZ, anemia, and CPK elevation with UPA were dose dependent. Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy excluding NMSC were low and generally similar across groups. The most common cause of death was COVID-19.ConclusionEfficacy of UPA in nbDMARD-IR pts with PsA was maintained through 3 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified.References[1]McInnes IB, et al. Rheumatol Ther 2022;1–18 [Epub ahead of print].[2]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open 2021;7(3):e001838.Table 1.Efficacy endpoints at wk 152UPA15 (n=429)UPA30a (n=423)ADA (n=429)Proportion of pts (%)NRIAONRIAONRIAOACR20/50/7064.6/52.0/35.9*89.8/71.6/ 48.263.1/54.1*/ 35.787.9/74.4/ 47.861.1/46.6/ 28.786.2/65.2/ 39.8Minimal disease activity37.555.143.5*60.335.950.2PASI75/90/100b50.5/42.5/32.269.2/58.5/ 43.458.1/46.7/3 7.678.6/63.5/ 50.954.0/40.8/ 30.379.6/59.9/ 44.6Resolution of enthesitis by Leeds Enthesitis Indexc50.475.248.973.846.077.0Resolution of dactylitis by Leeds Dactylitis Indexd65.495.266.197.965.497.1Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire- Disability Index-0.51-0.55-0.53*-0.58-0.45-0.49Pt's assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-3.3*-3.5-3.3*-3.6-2.8-3.0Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Indexf-3.09-3.27-3.16-3.54-2.81-2.71Modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score0.210.190.050.040.090.09aFollowing a protocol amendment, all pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest switch at wk 104);data are presented by originally randomized group. bPts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL. cPts with LEI >0 at BL;resolution LEI=0. dPts with LDI >0 at BL;resolution LDI=0. eData shown as MMRM (least squares mean) and AO (mean). fPts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL. n value ranges: UPA15 (99–429), UPA30 (95–423), ADA (89–429). Nominal *p<0.05 UPA vs ADA.ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria;ADA, adalimumab;AO, as observed;BL, baseline;MMRM, mixed effect model repeated measurement;NRI, non-responder imputation;PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index;pt, patient;UPA15/30, upadacitinib 15/30 mg once daily;wk, weekAcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Carl Davies, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsIain McInnes Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Causeway Therapeutics, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Marina Magrey Consultant of: BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Avotres, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Sorono, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB Pharma, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life Sciences, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB;and has received honoraria or other fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB Pharma, Yihan Li Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Yanxi Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Jianzhong Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Ralph Lippe Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Peter Wung Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA), although their safety profile continues to be analysed due to the possible increase in adverse events (AEs) in relation to anti-TNFs (mild and severe infections, haematological alterations, thromboembolism, increase in neoplasms).ObjectivesTo evaluate in real clinical practice the AEs of JAKinibs in a cohort of patients with RA and SpA. In addition, adherence and reasons for discontinuation (1st or 2nd failure, AE) are analysed.MethodsObservational study of 116 patients diagnosed with RA or SpA who received treatment with JAKinibis (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib) after failure of treatment with different classical synthetic (FAMEsc) or biological (FAMEb) disease-modifying drugs. The following data were analysed: demographic characteristics of the patients, years of disease progression, 1st or 2nd failures and AE.ResultsMean age was 52 years, with Baricitinib being older (60 years -SD 13.6), higher prevalence of females in all groups, and a disease progression time of about 10 years. Mean number of FAMEsc was 1.6 and mean number of FAMEb was 2,3 to Tofacitinib(Tofa), 2,76 to Baricitinib(Bari) and 4,4 to Upadacitinib(Upa). 71 (63%) patients had active corticosteroid therapy. The median treatment time with Tofa was 8.8 months, Bari 9.5 and Upa 2.4 months.Most frequent AEs with Tofa were urinary tract infections(UTI) (11.9%, 7 cases) and headaches (8.47%, 5 cases). There were 3 cases of herpes zoster (5.1%), one of which was recurrent, and 2 cases respectively of tachycardia and gastrointestinal intolerance (3.4%). With Baricitnib, 2(5%) cases of UTI and 2(5%) of influenza A were reported. Most frequent AEs related to Upadacitinb are gastrointestinal intolerance, labialis and facial herpes, anterior uveitis and recurrent UTI, with 1 case for each adverse event. There were 4 success with Baricitinib treatment: 2 due to severe COVID, 1 influenza A and 1 due to stroke. 17 patients had 1st failure to Tofa(28.81%), 8 to Bari20.0%) and 3 to Upa(18.75%);7(11.86%) and 2(5%) patients had 2nd failure to Tofa and Bari respectively, no with Upa.Mean CRP to Tofa-SD 18.9-was 17.19, 20-SD 22.7- to Bari and 24.2-SD 27.40- to Upa. Mean ESR-SD 15.3- was 25.4, -SD 26.4 and 44.3 -SD 32-, respectively. At 6 months, 36(62%) were continuing on Tofa, 22(56%) on Bari and 4(27%) on Upa. At 12 months, 27(46.6%) were still on Tofa and 12 on Bari(30.8%) and no patients were on upa.Table 1.TofaBariUpaMean age496047Male19%18%20%Female81%82%80%Time course of disease(years)81111Permanence 6 months62%56%27%Permanence 12 months46,6%31%0%Patients with corticotherapy62%64%60%Previous biological drugs2,3 SD 22,8 SD 2,34,4 SD 2,9Patients who discontinued the drug62%59%33%Mean CRP at the end of treatment172024Mean end-of-treatment ESR252644Repeated AEsUTI(7) Headache(5) Shingles(3) Nephritic colic(2) Gastrointestinal intolerance(2) Tachycardia(2)UTI(4) Headache(2)Serious AEsShingles (3)Varicella encephalopathy(1) Stroke(1) Shingles (1)1st failure28,8%20%18,7%2nd failure11,9%5%0%SuccessSARS-Cov2(2) Influenza(1) Stroke(1)Figure 1. Months stay pharmacoConclusionMost frequent adverse events with JAKinibs are mild infections, except gastrointestinal complaints with upadacitinib. Serious adverse events, including 3 deaths from viral infections, were observed, mostly in patients over 65 years. Most frequent cause of discontinuation was treatment failure. We believe that further observational studies are needed to stratify and profile the risk of infection with JAKinibs.References[1]Atzeni F, Popa CD, et al. Safety of JAK inhibitors: focus on cardiovascular and thromboembolic events. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2022 Mar;18(3):233-244. Doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2022.2039630 Epub 2022 Feb 17.PMID: 35129033[2]Alves C, Penedones A,et al. The Risk of Infections Associated With JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Mar 1;28(2):e407-e414 PMID:33902098Ackn wledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
We report two cases of mixed infection caused by Varicella Zoster and COVID-19 in sibling adolescents. We describe the disease course and provide the results of laboratory examination. High prevalence of these infections necessitates timely verification of the diagnosis and causal therapy. Particular attention should be paid to people with a high risk of pneumonia. Timely vaccination of children against Varicella Zoster and COVID-19 is increasingly important now. The aim of this article is to draw attention to the problem of this coinfection. It allows us to accumulate the data on such cases, identify the risk factors, as well as risk factors for complications.Copyright © 2022, Dynasty Publishing House. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: A 14-year-old female patient presents with marked haemorrhagic, adherent crusting of the upper and lower lip and enoral vesicles and erosions. Two weeks before, she had suffered from a respiratory tract infection. She did not take antibiotics but ibuprofen. One week later, she described a swelling and crusting of the upper and lower lips. Urogenital mucosa was also erosive. There was no ocular involvement. Another week later, cocard-like single lesions with partly central blister formation developed. A flaccid blister of 15 mm in diameter was detected in the left ear helix. In total, there was a limited cutaneous involvement of <10% BSA. The girl was admitted to the paediatric clinic. Method(s): Due to mucocutaneous eruptions, bullous lesions and multimucosal involvement, we assumed a Steven-Johnson syndrome or reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME). Intravenous rehydration and prophylactic administration of cefotaxime and aciclovir were given. She was balanced and given analgesia with novalgin. The recent increased intake of ibuprofen was discontinued. Local therapy included mometasone cream and serasept dressings. During the inpatient stay, the general condition stabilised and the skin efflorescence's showed a clear regression. Result(s): The microbiological smears for COVID-19, HSV, VZV, mycoplasma, and chlamydia were negative. Discussion(s): As adult classifications for blistering severe cutaneous adverse reactions are limited applicable in children, Ramien et al. proposed revised paediatric-focused clinical criteria 2021. They leave traditional definitions of EEM, SJS and TEN. But they distinguish erythema multiforme (EM) for classic targets with/without mucosal involvement, RIME for cases with mucosal predominance and a respiratory infection trigger, and drug-induced epidermal necrolysis (DEN) for cases caused by medications. (Ramien BJD 2021) There are no current guidelines for RIME therapy. A reasonable management approach includes symptomatic therapy, treatment of identifiable infectious triggers (if possible), consulting urologists, ophthalmologists and gynaecologists (if necessary), immunosuppression, and psychological support. (Ramien ClinExpDermatol 2021).
ABSTRACT
Objective: We aimed to find the parameters that can change during herpes zoster infection and observe the relationship of these parameters throughout the disease. Material and Methods: We compared 40 herpes zoster patients and 2 separate control groups, who were healthy and had comorbidities similar in age and gender. Patient files were retrospectively analyzed, and laboratory parameters were compared between groups. The laboratory values of the patient group with herpes zoster were evaluated among themselves according to the duration of the symptoms. Results: Fasting glucose, creatinine, aspartate aminotransferase values, the percentage and the absolute number of monocytes, red blood cell distribution width-coefficient of variation, and C-reactive protein levels of the patients with herpes zoster were significantly higher, and the absolute number of lymphocytes, mean corpuscular volume and platelet distribution width levels were lower than the control groups. The percentage of monocytes in the first 5 days was significantly higher than in the following days, and hematocrit values were lower in the last days. Conclusion: Examining routine laboratory values during diseases may help diagnose the disease, especially in patients with faint clinical signs and zoster sine zoster. In addition, it may be useful to question patients with herpes zoster for renal dysfunction, rheumatological diseases, and malignancy.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To determine the impact of a pharmacy-based, clinical decision support (CDS) tool on herpes zoster (HZ) vaccine series completion during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic across the US. Method(s): In partnership with Kroger Health, a pharmacy CDS tool alerted staff of patients due for their second HZ vaccine dose, which had been accompanied previously by a timed text message. Once operations changed due to COVID-19, the system limited outreach to only patients visiting the pharmacy. Primary outcomes included the proportion of patients receiving both doses within a Kroger-owned pharmacy (n=2,293) and the number of days between doses, both within and across two 32-week periods before and after the pandemic hit the US. Generalized estimating equation-based (GEE) logistic and linear regression models determined differences in completion rates and time to completion. Result(s): During the observation period, 38,937 adults received at least one HZ vaccine dose, with 77.2% receiving both doses. Patients engaged by the CDS tool achieved 80.5% dose completion, versus 65.4% of those not intervened (p<0.0001), which was lower than in the period immediately before the pandemic (85.8%, p<0.0001). The dosing window averaged 119.4 days (SD: 26.91), which was the longest timeframe between doses since the HZ vaccine was launched and nearly one month longer than before the pandemic (93.0 days [SD: 28.02], p<0.0001). The odds of dose completion increased in areas of higher health literacy (OR: 1.01;95% CI: 1.007-1.014), but decreased in areas of higher poverty (OR: 0.992;95% CI: 0.988-0.995). Time to completion was slightly shorter (B=-0.04, p<0.05) in areas of higher health literacy. Conclusion(s): Despite changes in clinical processes, a nationwide community pharmacy was successful in completing HZ vaccine dose series for adults during the pandemic, suggesting that processes in community pharmacies can protect staff while remaining committed to providing preventive health services during public health crises.Copyright © 2023
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) are at increased risk of infection. CLL is associated with a secondary immunodeficiency and impaired response to vaccination. Recent British Society of Haematology guidelines recommend that patients with CLL should receive vaccination against pneumococcal infection at diagnosis, an annual influenza vaccine and COVID-19 vaccination. Patients aged 70-79 years should also receive the Shingrix vaccine. Patients with CLL should not receive live vaccines. In response to this guideline, a letter detailing vaccination requirements was created for patients to give to their general practitioner (GP). The local process for vaccination referral has since changed. Previously, vaccination requirements were communicated to the GP via letter. There is now a dedicated Vaccination Hub to which clinicians can directly refer patients for appropriate vaccinations. Aim(s): The aim of this project was to assess vaccination referral and vaccination status in patients with newly diagnosed CLL. Method(s): All new diagnoses of CLL from 2021 to 2022 were identified by review of the Haematology Multi-Disciplinary Team meeting electronic registration forms. Electronic patient records were reviewed to determine vaccination referral completion and vaccination status. Result(s): A total of 29 patients were identified as new diagnoses of CLL. Seventeen patients were diagnosed in 2021 and 12 in 2022. Sixty-nine percent of the patients were male and the average age was 70.9 years. Vaccination was discussed with 11 patients (38%) and 10 patients (34%) were referred for vaccination. Eleven patients (38%) had never received a pneumococcal vaccine. Nine patients (31%) had previously received the vaccine but not within the past 5 years. Five patients (17%) patients had received one dose of Pneumovax 23 following referral. No patients had received the initial Prevenar 13 vaccine. Twelve patients (41%) had not received an influenza vaccine. Of those who had received the vaccine, the majority (70%) had received this routinely. Similarly, 71% of patients had received the COVID-19 vaccine routinely as opposed to three patients who received this postreferral. Of those who were eligible, 50% had received the Shingrix vaccine. Conclusion/Discussion: Local rates of vaccination in patients with CLL are low. Numbers were too small to allow for comparison between the methods of referral. Of those referred, not all received the appropriate vaccinations. Further work is therefore required to improve both the number and completion of the referrals. Future steps will include local teaching on vaccinations in CLL and the referral pathway.
ABSTRACT
Background: Lymphoproliferation is the persistent proliferation of lymphoid cells and it's incidence in inborn errors of immunity varies from 0.7 to 18%. Material(s) and Method(s): This is a retrospective analysis of patients referred to the department of Immunology, B. J. Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai between March 2017 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria consisted of 3 months duration of significant lymphadenopathy and/or splenomegaly or history of lymphoma. The clinical characteristics, laboratory and molecular findings of the included patients were analyzed. Result(s): A total of 66 patients were included. There was a male preponderance with male:female ratio of 25:8. Median age of onset of lymphoproliferation was 4.75 years(Range 1 year to 60 years). Splenomegaly was seen in 75%. Infections included recurrent pneumonia (14/66), recurrent ear infections(5/66), COVID(4/66), one episode of pneumonia(6/66), herpes zoster(3/66), recurrent subcutaneous abscess (3/66), abdominal koch(3/66), chronic sinusitis(2/66), dermatophytosis(2/66), esophageal candidiasis(2/66), recurrent malaria(1/66), recurrent varicella(1/66), cryptococcal meningitis(1/66), gram negative sepsis(1/66), BCG adenitis(1/66), pseudomonas osteomyelitis(1/66), impetigo (1/66), pseudomonas urinary tract infection (1/66), chicken pox(1/66), herpes keratitis(1/66), dengue(1/66), Other manifestations included Evans plus phenotype(10/66), Evans phenotype(8/66), Autoimmune hemolytic anemia(5/66), bronchiectasis(5/66), Type 1 diabetes(3/66), hyper reactive airway disease(2/66), inflammatory bowel disease(4/66), autoimmune thrombocytopenia(2/66), stroke(3/66), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis(2/66), hypertriglyceridemia(2/66), hypothyroidism(2/66), celiac disease(1/66), Type 2 diabetes(1/66), autoimmune encephalitis(1/66), autoimmune hepatitis(2/66), anti-parietal cell antibody(1/66), arthritis(1/66), autoimmune enteropathy(1/66), systemic lupus erythromatosus(1/66), primary biliary cirrhosis requiring liver transplant(1/66), nephrotic syndrome(1/66), lymphoedema(1/66), hypersplenism(1/66), recurrent oral ulcers(1/66), gout(1/66), dermatitis(1/66), ovarian teratoma(1/66), alopecia areata(1/66). Hodgkin's lymphoma(HL) was the most common malignancy(9/66), followed by non Hodgkin lymphoma(NHL)(6/66), transformation from NHL to HL(1/66), Burkitt to T-cell lymphoma(1/66), HL to DLBCL(1/66), HL to anaplastic T-cell lymphoma(1/66). EBV driven lymphoproliferation was seen in biopsy of21/66. Genetic testing showed mutations in LRBA(11/66), PIK3CD(5/66), CTLA4(3/66), TET2(2/66), IL2RA (1/66), IL12RB1(1/66), BACH2(1/66), PRKCD(1/66), TNFSFR13B(1/66), TNFAIP3(1/66), FAS(2/66), FASL(1/66), Caspase8(1/66), CARD11(1/66), RTEL1(1/66), AICD(1/66), PIK3R1(1/66), IKBKB(1/66). Treatment included IVIG, chemotherapy, rituximab, sirolimus, abatacept, HSCT. Conclusion(s): All children with persistent lymphoproliferation, with or without autoimmunity and/or infections should be worked up for an underlying monogenic disorder of immune dysregulation. Lymphomas presenting at abnormal site and/or age, relapse and EBV driven lymphomas require further evaluation. Presence of monogenic cause helps in providing targeted therapy.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.
ABSTRACT
Clinical presentation of COVID-19 infection can be variable in the current pandemic even in patients presenting to the clinic with a mild history of upper respiratory complaints. Various cutaneous manifestations have been noticed in COVID-19 patients with herpes zoster (HZ) being one among them. HZ is an infection that results when varicella zoster virus reactivates from its latent state in the posterior dorsal root ganglion. Here, we aim to expand our knowledge by reporting three cases of associated zoster infection in COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care unit in view of respiratory complaints. All the three patients admitted, had revealed lymphocytopenia at the time of HZ diagnosis, and were managed conservatively throughout the course. In all the cases, acyclovir/valacyclovir led to the resolution of lesions in 10 days. No postherpetic sequelae were observed. We here suggest that the clinical presentation of HZ at the time of the current pandemic should be considered as an alarming sign for a latent subclinical SARS CoV-2 infection and thorough follow-up of such patients be adopted.Copyright © 2021 Bali Journal of Anesthesiology. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a multisystem disease that has caused a devastating global pandemic. The COVID-19 vaccine produced in response to the pandemic has been effective but can have side effects. One well-established condition is the reactivation of herpes zoster (HZ). Various risk factors increase the risk of HZ reactivation such as age, infections, and immunosuppressed states. HZ can have severe complications, including herpes zoster ophthalmicus and postherpetic neuralgia. Here, we present a unique case where a patient experienced HZ reactivation after both primary doses of the COVID-19 vaccine despite receiving early antiviral treatment.
ABSTRACT
Background: According to WHO, there have been 9205 fatal COVID-19 cases confirmed in Saudi Arabia out of 793,729 cases overall (5). During the development of COVID-19 vaccines, several technologies were used including DNA-based, RNA-based vaccines, non-replicating viral vector vaccines, and inactivated vaccines. Objective: We present a case of varicella zoster virus reactivation post COVID-19 vaccine in a young medically free 16 years old female and review of the literature using the keywords "Herpes Zoster, "varicella zoster"," shingles", "post COVID-19 vaccine", "Post COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations". Methods: The search was conducted in Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science data bases. Results: We encountered 241 published studies in regard to post COVID-19 dermatologic manifestations including post COVID-19 vaccine herpes zoster reactivation in the English literature and one case in German. Our case and 4 other reported cases in the literature are patients aged of 20 years old and below. Conclusion: Varicella zoster virus falls under the family of Herpesviridae, It's characterized by its ability to escape host immune system and remain dormant in ganglionic neurons. Reactivation of the infection will result in herpes zoster manifesting as painful vesicles in a dermatomal distribution. Possible link is the suppression of type-one interferons caused by the mRNA-based vaccine such as COVID-19 vaccines. Yet, potential correlation remains to be demonstrated.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Herpes Zoster Vaccine , Herpes Zoster , Adolescent , Female , Humans , Chickenpox Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Herpes Zoster Vaccine/adverse effects , Herpesvirus 3, Human/physiologyABSTRACT
Background/Aims Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to >=1 biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECTPsA 2. Methods Pts were randomized to UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received >=1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results A total of 641 pts received >=1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks. Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 were consistent with that reported at wk 56. Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and two with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to>=1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to two years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified in this long-term extension.