Use of corticosteroids in non-infectious uveitis - expert consensus in Taiwan.

PURPOSE: To offer consensus on the utilization of corticosteroids (CS) for treating non-infectious uveitis in the context of clinical practice in Taiwan. This entails examining the different administration methods, their advantages and disadvantages, and considering alternative treatments according to the prevailing evidence and health policies. METHODS: Ten ophthalmologists and one rheumatologist convened on December 11, 2022, to review and discuss literature on the topic. The databases explored were the Central Cochrane library, EMBASE, Medline, PUBMED, and Web of Science using relevant keywords. The search spanned from January 1996 to June 2023. After the initial results of the literature review were presented, open voting determined the final statements, with a statement being accepted if it secured more than 70% agreement. This consensus was then presented at significant meetings for further discussions before the final version was established. RESULTS: A flow chart and nine statements emerged from the deliberations. They address the importance of CS in uveitis management, guidelines for using topical CS, indications for both periocular or intravitreal and systemic therapies, and tapering and discontinuation methods for both topical and systemic CS. CONCLUSION: While CS are a cornerstone for non-infectious uveitis treatment, their administration requires careful consideration, depending on the clinical situation and the specific type of uveitis. The consensus generated from this article provides a guideline for practitioners in Taiwan, taking into account local health policies and the latest research on the subject. It emphasizes the significance of strategic tapering, the potential for alternative therapies, and the importance of patient-centric care.

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity, and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5%-64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR], 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-3.31; number needed to treat [NNT], 7; moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95% CI: 0.87-6.83; risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00-7.62; risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm, 9; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

Diagnosing and Treating IgAN: Steroids, Budesonide, or Maybe Both?

IgA nephropathy (IgAN), the most common primary glomerulonephritis worldwide, is characterized by a mesangial IgA deposit and a variety of histological lesions, as described by the Oxford classification system. Despite the well-described "four-hit hypothesis", there are still plenty of less or undescribed mechanisms that participate in the disease pathogenesis, such as B-cell priming, which seems to be initiated by different antigens in the intestinal microbiota. Diagnosis of the disease is currently based on kidney biopsy findings, as the sensitivity and specificity of the many serum and urinary biomarkers described so far do not seem to have diagnostic accuracy. Therapeutic strategies consist of the initial step of non-immune medication, aiming to reduce both the intraglomerular pressure and proteinuria to below 0.5 g/day, followed by systemic corticosteroid administration in patients who remain at high risk for progressive chronic kidney disease despite the maximum non-immune treatment. The 6-month systemic corticosteroid treatment reduces proteinuria levels; however, the increased possibility of adverse events and increased relapse rate after treatment raises the need for a new therapeutic approach. Targeted-release budesonide is a therapeutic modality that aims to inhibit disease pathogenetic pathways at early stages; it has minor systemic absorption and proven beneficial effects on renal function and proteinuria. In the present systemic review, the benefits and adverse events of steroids and budesonide are described, and the possibility of combined treatment is questioned in selected cases with active histologic lesions.

Monoclonal antibodies in idiopathic chronic eosinophilic pneumonia: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (ICEP) is a rare disease characterized by pulmonary radiological alterations, peripheral eosinophilia, and demonstrated pulmonary eosinophilia. Oral steroids (OSs) are the standard management, but relapses occur in up to 50% of patients during the decrease or suspension of steroids, usually requiring reinitiation of treatment, exposing patients to secondary events derived from the management. Management with monoclonal antibodies has been proposed in these cases to control the disease and limit the secondary effects. The objective is to describe the extent and type of evidence regarding the use of monoclonal antibodies for ICEP. METHODS: A panoramic review of the literature was performed. Observational and experimental studies of pediatric and adult populations that managed recurrent ICEP with monoclonal antibodies were included. Data search, selection, and extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: 937 studies were found. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 37 titles remained for the final analysis: a retrospective, observational, real-life study, two case series publications, and 34 case reports published in academic poster sessions and letters to the editor. In general, the use of monoclonal antibodies approved for severe asthma could be useful for the control of ICEP, since most of the results show a good response for clinical and radiological outcomes. Biological drugs seem to be a safer option for controlling relapses in ICEP, allowing lowering/suspension of OSs, and sometimes replacing them in patients intolerant to them, patients with significant comorbidities, and patients who have already developed adverse events. CONCLUSION: The extent of the evidence supporting management of ICEP with monoclonal antibodies against IL-5 and IgE (omalizumab) is limited, but it could be promising in patients who present frequent relapses, in cortico-dependent individuals, or in patients in whom the use of steroids is contraindicated. The extent of the evidence for management with dupilumab is more limited. Studies with better design and structure are needed to evaluate quality of life and outcomes during a clear follow-up period. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review of the literature showing the extent of the evidence for the management of ICEP with monoclonal antibodies.

Dupilumab Reduces Asthma Disease Burden and Recurrent SCS Use in Patients with CRSwNP and Coexisting Asthma.

Purpose: Dupilumab significantly reduced the requirement for systemic corticosteroids (SCS) in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Patients with CRSwNP and coexisting asthma typically have a higher disease burden and have more difficulty in managing disease. Here, we report an analysis of asthma outcomes and SCS use in patients with CRSwNP and coexisting asthma. Patients and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 studies (NCT02912468/NCT02898454) in patients with severe CRSwNP and coexisting asthma (patient self-reported) from the pooled intention-to-treat population randomized to dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks or placebo. On-treatment SCS use was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), percent predicted FEV1, and the 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) were assessed at baseline and Week 24 (pooled SINUS-24/52) in patients with/without history of asthma exacerbation or prior SCS use. Results: Of 337 patients with coexisting asthma, 88 (26%) required on-treatment SCS use. The requirement for on-treatment SCS use for any reason was significantly lower with dupilumab (20/167 patients; 12%) vs placebo (68/170; 40%); hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.248 (0.150-0.409); p < 0.0001. The most frequent reasons for SCS use were nasal polyps (dupilumab 3% and placebo 27%) and asthma (2% and 9%, respectively). FEV1, percent predicted FEV1, and ACQ-6 were all significantly improved at Week 24 with dupilumab vs placebo irrespective of history of asthma exacerbation or prior SCS use (all p < 0.01). Conclusion: Dupilumab significantly reduced the requirement for SCS and improved asthma outcomes irrespective of history of asthma exacerbation or prior SCS use vs placebo in patients with CRSwNP and coexisting asthma, demonstrating concomitant reduction of SCS use and asthma disease burden in these patients.

Experience report of two living systematic Cochrane reviews on COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) are essential for making evidence-based decisions. During the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a particular need for up-to-date evidence, making the living systematic review (LSR) approach an appropriate review type. However, this approach poses certain challenges. OBJECTIVE AND OUTLINE: We aim to provide practice insights and report challenges that we faced while conducting two Cochrane LSRs on COVID-19 treatments with (i) convalescent plasma and (ii) systemic corticosteroids. We address our objective with an experience report and share challenges of the following components based on Iannizzi et al. (2022): study design, publication types, intervention/comparator, outcomes, search strategy, review updates and transparent reporting of differences between review updates. RESULTS: Regarding the study design, the plasma LSR included different study designs because RCT data were not available at the beginning of the pandemic, whereas for the corticosteroids LSR, which started several months later, RCT data were already available. The challenges in both LSRs included the publication types (preprints were included with caution) and the intervention/comparator, for instance the unavailability of standard of care for either LSR, or SARS-CoV-2 variants occurrence. Further challenges in both LSRs occurred in the components "outcome sets" (which had to be adjusted) and "literature search". The decision criteria for updating were based on important studies and available resources in both LSRs and policy relevance in the plasma LSR. Transparent reporting of the differences between the various update versions were discussed for both LSRs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In summary, there are similarities and differences regarding challenges of review components for both LSRs. It is important to keep in mind that the two LSR examples presented here were conducted in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, many of the challenges are attributable to the pandemic and are not specific to LSRs, such as constant adjustments of the outcome sets or changes in the database search. Nevertheless, we believe that some of these aspects are helpful for LSR authors and are applicable to other LSRs outside the pandemic context, particularly in areas where new evidence is rapidly emerging.

The immune-related adverse events paradox in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after atezolizumab immunotherapy: analysis of individual patient data from IMvigor210 and IMvigor211 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and oncological outcomes in patients with advanced urothelial cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and whether the administration of systemic corticosteroids diminishes therapeutic impact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The association between irAEs occurrence and clinical progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) was tested by means of multivariable Cox or competing-risks regression, when appropriate. Patients experiencing irAEs were further stratified based on systemic corticosteroids administration. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by repeating all the analyses with median time to irAE as landmark point. RESULTS: We relied on individual participant data from two prospective trials for advanced urothelial cancer: IMvigor210 and IMvigor211. A total of 896 patients who received atezolizumab for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer were considered. Overall, irAEs were recorded in 195 patients and the median time to irAEs was 64 days. On multivariable analysis, irAEs were inversely associated with the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.61; P < 0.001), overall mortality (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.41-0.64; P < 0.001), and cancer-specific mortality (subdistributional HR [sHR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.72; P < 0.001). Moreover, our results did not refute the supposition that the administration of systemic corticosteroids does not impact oncological outcomes (PFS: HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62-1.34, P = 0.629; OS: HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.51-1.64, P = 0.613; CSS: sHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60-1.36, P = 0.630). The sensitivity analysis confirmed our findings. CONCLUSIONS: The development of irAEs while receiving atezolizumab treatment was associated with improved oncological outcomes, namely overall and cancer-specific mortality, and PFS. These findings seem to not be substantially affected by administration of systemic corticosteroids.

Early Administration of Steroids in the Ambulance Setting: An Observational Design Trial (EASI-AS-ODT).

BACKGROUND: In the emergency department (ED), prompt administration of systemic corticosteroids for pediatric asthma exacerbations decreases hospital admission rates. However, there is sparse evidence for whether earlier administration of systemic corticosteroids by emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians, prior to ED arrival, further improves pediatric asthma outcomes. METHODS: Early Administration of Steroids in the Ambulance Setting: An Observational Design Trial is a multicenter, observational, nonrandomized stepped-wedge design study with seven participating EMS agencies who adopted an oral systemic corticosteroid (OCS) into their protocols for pediatric asthma treatment. Using univariate analyses and multivariable mixed-effects models, we compared hospital admission rates for pediatric asthma patients ages 2-18 years before and after the introduction of a prehospital OCS and for those who did and did not receive a systemic corticosteroid from EMS. RESULTS: A total of 834 patients were included, 21% of whom received a systemic corticosteroid from EMS. EMS administration of systemic corticosteroids increased after the introduction of an OCS from 14.7% to 28.1% (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between hospital admission rates and ED length of stay before and after the introduction of OCS or between patients who did and did not receive a systemic corticosteroid from EMS. Mixed-effects models revealed that age 14-18 years (coefficient -0.83, p = 0.002), EMS administration of magnesium (coefficient 1.22, p = 0.04), and initial EMS respiratory severity score (coefficient 0.40, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, the addition of an OCS into EMS agency protocols for pediatric asthma exacerbations significantly increased systemic corticosteroid administration but did not significantly decrease hospital admission rates. As overall EMS systemic corticosteroid administration rates were low, further work is required to understand optimal implementation of EMS protocol changes to better assess potential benefits to patients.

The Role of Adjuvant Systemic and Intravitreal Corticosteroids in Fungal Endophthalmitis Treatment.

Endophthalmitis refers to inflammation involving internal ocular structures, including the anterior and posterior eye segments, associated with infectious agents, most commonly bacteria and fungi. This review focuses on endophthalmitis caused by fungi. Medical and surgical management are the two main treatment modalities for fungal endophthalmitis, with medical management utilizing systemic or intravitreal antifungals. The use of systemic or intravitreal corticosteroids as an adjuvant treatment to dampen the severity of inflammation is controversial. Based on the pathobiology of fungal endophthalmitis as well as the mechanism of action of corticosteroids, it was hypothesized that corticosteroids affected the immune response against fungal infection. In vitro studies mostly carried out during the 1980s showed that dexamethasone plays a role in the suppression of phagocytosis of yeasts and demonstrated the facilitation of yeast proliferation by dexamethasone. In vivo studies analysis was compromised entirely of retrospective studies describing steroid use in fungal endophthalmitis, with the outcomes of the patients in these studies varying greatly and often being anecdotally noted, thus difficult to discern any definitive results. Given the limited clinical data and the heterogeneity of the existing studies, additional experimentation human studies with clinical trials or observations over more extended periods analyzing the effect of systemic and intravitreal corticosteroids in fungal endophthalmitis are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Oral Pemphigus Vulgaris: A Case Report With Review of Literature.

Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is a chronic autoimmune bullous disease that is characterized by mucocutaneous blister formation resulting in painful erosions. The autoantibody immunoglobulin (Ig) G directed toward glycoproteins desmoglein (Dsg) 3 and desmoglein 1 is the main underlying mechanism behind PV leading to intraepithelial clefting and bulla formation. Patients usually present with oral ulcers causing severe pain and dysphagia that can be misdiagnosed as erythema multiforme (EM) or viral infections. The diagnostic process requires the correlation between clinical, histopathological, and immunopathological findings. Systemic and/or local corticosteroids are considered the cornerstone therapy of PV cases. This article describes a case of a 42-year-old male patient who presented in the Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology with chronic oral ulcers that were diagnosed with PV and treated using systemic corticosteroids.

Current biologics in treatment of pemphigus foliaceus: a systematic review.

Background: Pemphigus foliaceus (PF) differs from pemphigus vulgaris (PV) in that it affects only the skin and mucous membranes are not involved. Pemphigus is commonly treated with systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive agents (ISAs). More recently, biologics have been used. The current literature on biologic therapy often combines treatment of PF with PV, hence it is often difficult for clinicians to isolate the treatment of PF from PV. The purpose of this review was to provide information regarding the use of current biological therapy, specifically in PF. Materials and methods: A search of PubMed, Embase, and other databases was conducted using keywords pemphigus foliaceus (PF), rituximab (RTX), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and biologics. Forty-one studies were included in this review, which produced 105 patients with PF, treated with RTX, IVIg, or a combination of both. Eighty-five patients were treated with RTX, eight patients with IVIg, and 12 received both RTX and IVIg. Results: Most patients in this review had PF that was nonresponsive to conventional immunosuppressive therapies (CIST), and had significant side effects from their use. RTX treatment resulted in complete remission (CR) in 63.2%, a relapse rate of 39.5%, an infection rate of 19.7%, and a mortality rate of 3.9%. Relapse was greater in the lymphoma (LP) protocol than the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) protocol (p<0.0001). IVIg led to CR in 62.5% of patients, with no relapses or infections. Patients receiving both biologics experienced better outcomes when RTX was first administered, then followed by IVIg. Follow-up durations for patients receiving RTX, IVIg, and both were 22.1, 24.8, and 35.7 months, respectively. Discussion: In pemphigus foliaceus patients nonresponsive to conventional immunosuppressive therapy or in those with significant side effects from CIST, RTX and IVIg appear to be useful agents. Profile of clinical response, as well as relapse, infection, and mortality rates in PF patients treated with RTX were similar to those observed in PV patients. The data suggests that protocols specific for PF may produce better outcomes, less adverse effects, and improved quality of life.

Treatment of Pediatric Pemphigus Foliaceus.

Pemphigus foliaceus (PF) is an autoimmune blistering disease limited to the superficial skin without mucosal involvement. It is clinically, histologically, and immunopathologically distinct from pemphigus vulgaris (PV). As data on pediatric PF is often merged with data on both pediatric and adult PV patients, isolating clinical outcomes in pediatric PF is not always possible. Therefore, the authors of this review analyzed clinical outcomes following therapy in pediatric PF patients only. A search of databases resulted in 33 pediatric patients with PF. In total, 19 (57.6%) patients were treated with conventional immunosuppressive therapies (CISTs), which consisted of systemic corticosteroids and multiple immunosuppressive agents (ISAs). Further, 14 (42.4%) patients were treated with biologic agents, predominantly rituximab (RTX). The mean age of those treated with biologics was 12.8 years (range = 0.88-18 years) compared to 8.9 years (range = 0.92-15 years) of those treated with CIST (p = 0.01). Treatment with biologics was initiated significantly longer after the diagnosis of PF when compared to patients treated with CIST (p = 0.003). RTX was used in all patients who received biologic therapy. Two (6%) patients also received intravenous immunoglobulin. When clinical outcomes were compared between CIST and biologic therapy, rates of clinical remission, partial remission, and relapse, were not statistically significantly different between groups. When RTX was used, rates of relapse and adverse events were higher in those treated with the lymphoma protocol (375 mg/m2 once weekly for four weeks) compared to those treated with the rheumatoid arthritis protocol (two doses of 1,000 mg two weeks apart) (p < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events was statistically significantly higher in patients treated with CIST when compared to RTX (p = 0.003). These included both physical and psychological changes. The infection rate after treatment with RTX was 7.1%. These outcomes occurred during a follow-up of 12.5 months (range = 1-36 months) in the CIST group and 20.5 months (range = 6-67 months) in the biologic therapy group. The difference in the follow-up period was not statistically significant. The literature suggests that biologics are superior to CIST in treating pemphigus patients. The results of this review suggest similar responses to therapy in pediatric PF patients treated with biologics compared to CIST. This may have been due to a limited duration of follow-up and a lack of detailed treatment outcomes in pediatric PF patients. The data in this review strongly suggests that specific treatment protocols need to be developed and implemented for pediatric PF patients. These patients are at a critical phase in life where PF therapy can influence or affect physical growth, hormonal changes, psychosocial development, and essential education.

Mepolizumab Reduces Systemic Corticosteroid Use in Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids (SCSs) are associated with short- and long-term adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To assess mepolizumab efficacy according to prior SCS use and characterize mepolizumab's SCS-sparing capabilities, in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. METHODS: In the randomized, double-blind, phase III SYNAPSE trial (NCT03085797), adults with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps eligible for repeat sinus surgery despite standard of care treatment received mepolizumab (100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The impact of prior SCS courses (0/1/>1) on mepolizumab versus placebo treatment responses (changes from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyp [week 52], nasal obstruction visual analog scale [weeks 49-52], and 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test total [week 52] scores) was analyzed post hoc. To characterize mepolizumab's SCS-sparing capabilities, time-to-first SCS course for nasal polyps (prespecified) and total prednisolone-equivalent oral corticosteroid dose by patient baseline characteristics (post hoc, in patients with ≥1 SCS course during SYNAPSE) were assessed up to week 52. RESULTS: Mepolizumab versus placebo improved treatment responses, irrespective of prior SCS use. By week 52, the probability of requiring SCSs for nasal polyps (Kaplan-Meier estimate [95% CI]) was lower with mepolizumab (25.4% [20.0-32.1]) versus placebo (37.5% [31.1-44.6]). In patients requiring 1 or more dose of SCSs, total (mean ± SD mg/y) prednisolone-equivalent oral corticosteroid dose was lower with mepolizumab (438.9 ± 350.40) versus placebo (505.2 ± 455.091), overall and irrespective of prior sinus surgeries, blood eosinophil count, or comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab is associated with clinical benefits in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps regardless of prior SCS use and has an SCS-sparing effect.

Systemic corticosteroids in treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis-A systematic review.

Purpose: When first-line chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) treatment fails, patients can either be treated with oral or injected systemic corticosteroids. Although the EPOS and international guidelines for CRS do not mention injected corticosteroids, it is commonly used by ear, nose, and throat specialists. While the risks of systemic corticosteroids, in general, are known, the pros and cons of injected and oral corticosteroids (OCS) in CRS treatment are unclear. Methods: A systematic review of studies that report the effects and/or side effects of injected and oral corticosteroids in the treatment of CRS was made according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Altogether, 48 studies were included, only five studies reported on injected corticosteroids, and five attended with side effects. Three studies found beneficial effects of OCS perioperatively on sinus surgery, while four articles found no effect. Nineteen articles reported that OCS resulted in an improvement in symptoms. Two articles presented a longer-lasting effect of injected corticosteroids than OCS. Three studies reported adverse side effects of systemic corticosteroids, while two studies showed no adverse side effects. One study showed less adrenal suppression after injected corticosteroids compared to OCS. The evidence is not strong but shows a positive effect of systemic corticosteroids that lasts longer with injections. Conclusion: Although systemic corticosteroids are widely used to treat CRS, there is a lack of studies comparing the OCS and injected corticosteroids. The evidence is sparse, however, injected steroids show longer effects with fewer side effects. An RCT study is needed to compare OCS and injected corticosteroids.

Factors Associated with Response to Systemic Corticosteroids in Active Ulcerative Colitis: Results from a Prospective, Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with ulcerative colitis, 30-50% receive corticosteroids within the first five years after diagnosis. We aimed to reconsider their effectiveness in the context of the biologic era. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter study, patients with active ulcerative colitis (Lichtiger score ≥ 4) were eligible if initiating systemic corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was clinical response (decrease in the Lichtiger score of ≥50%) at week 4. Secondary endpoints included combined response defined as clinical response and any reduction in elevated biomarkers (CRP and/or calprotectin). Steroid dependence was assessed after three months. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included. Clinical response was achieved by 73% of patients, and combined response by 68%. A total of 15% of patients were steroid-dependent. Activity of colitis did not influence short-term response to treatment but increased the risk for steroid dependence. Biologic-naïve patients responded better than biologic-experienced patients. Past smoking history (OR 5.38 [1.71, 20.1], p = 0.003), hemoglobin levels (OR 0.76 [0.57, 0.99] for higher levels, p = 0.045), and biologic experience (OR 3.30 [1.08, 10.6], p = 0.036) were independently associated with nonresponse. CONCLUSION: Disease activity was not associated with short-term response to systemic corticosteroids but was associated with steroid dependence in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Exposure to biologics negatively affects response rates.

Histoid leprosy complicated by erythema nodosum leprosum mimicking connective tissue disease.

Erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) is an immunological complication of leprosy seen in 50% of lepromatous and 10% of borderline lepromatous leprosy. It usually presents as a multisystem disease with papulo-nodular skin lesions and fever. Arthralgia or arthritis is a common initial presentation of erythema nodosum leprosum. Pure rheumatologic presentation of lepromatous leprosy complicated by erythema nodosum leprosum is extremely rare, mimics connective tissue disease and is treated with steroids.

Definition of severity and treatment response in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a Delphi study among French experts.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of biotherapies has significantly changed the management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). These drugs are generally reserved for severe or recurrent CRSwNP. Thus, the concepts of severity of the disease and treatment response must be mastered by otorhinolaryngologists. However, a clear definition of these concepts in CRSwNP is missing. METHODS: This article focuses on definitions of severity and treatment response in CRSwNP by providing an expert consensus among French rhinologists, using a Delphi study. RESULTS: The severity assessment should seek the presence of uncontrolled asthma, olfactory disorders, nasal blockage, impaired quality of life (QOL) and cumulative annual dose of systemic corticosteroids.The treatment response should assess the presence of olfactory disorders, nasal blockage, QOL impairment, response to background therapy, resistance and/or dependence to oral corticosteroids, cumulative annual dose of systemic corticosteroids, response to surgery and to biologics.A failure after polypectomy should not be considered as a failure of surgical management of CRSwNP and must discuss the realization of an extended sinus surgery procedure before the prescription of biologics. CONCLUSION: Definitions of severity, control of CRSwNP, as well as therapeutic strategies to improve patients' QOL achieved high level of consensus.

Managing IBD in the COVID-19 era.

Over the last 2 years the lives of millions have changed because of the emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) represent a sizable population with their own sets of challenges to providers in the wake of so much uncertainty. The Centers for Disease Control considers immunocompromised individuals at higher risk of infection and complications from COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, the specific risks for IBD patients were unclear as guidance was based on expert opinion regarding the management of IBD during a COVID-19 era. Fortunately, after considerable work in the field, the overwhelming evidence suggests that IBD patients as a whole do not appear to be at increased risk for more severe disease from COVID-19. Certain risk factors such as age, steroids, comorbidities, combination immunomodulatory therapy, and IBD disease activity have been associated with worse outcomes. Most IBD medications are low risk, with the exception of immunomodulator monotherapy and combination therapy with thiopurine and anti-TNF. Vaccination remains safe and effective for all IBD patients, although additional booster doses may be necessary, particularly in patients taking anti-TNF agents.

The use of systemic corticosteroids in asthma management in Latin American countries.

The stepwise treatment approach recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) includes systemic corticosteroids (SCS) suggested as a final step if asthma is severe and/or difficult to treat. Yet, despite the effectiveness of SCS, they are also associated with potentially irreversible adverse outcomes such as type 2 diabetes, adrenal suppression, and cardiovascular disease. Based on recent data indicating that the risk of developing these conditions can increase after as few as 4 short-term (burst) courses of SCS, even patients with mild asthma who receive SCS occasionally for exacerbations are also at risk of these events. As a result, recent updates by GINA and the Latin American Thoracic Society recommend decreasing SCS use by optimizing administration of non-SCS therapies and/or increasing the use of alternatives, such as biologic agents. Recent and ongoing studies characterizing treatment patterns among patients with asthma have revealed alarming trends suggesting the widespread overuse of SCS around the world. In Latin America, asthma prevalence is approximately 17%, and data suggest that the majority of patients have uncontrolled disease. In this review, we summarize currently available data on asthma treatment patterns in Latin America, which indicate that SCS are prescribed to 20-40% of patients with asthma considered to be well controlled and over 50% of patients with uncontrolled disease. We also offer potential strategies to help reduce SCS use for asthma in everyday clinical practice.