Search

Objective: Musculoskeletal manifestations of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) after checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for cancer remain incompletely characterized and poorly understood. A recently published case series suggested that immunotherapy-induced arthritis is an aggressive process requiring high-dose corticosteroids.Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of all patients with musculoskeletal irAEs first seen by one of the authors between 2014 and 2016. All patients had been treated for a malignancy with immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 (nivolumab, pembrolizumab), PD-L1 (durvalumab), and/or CTLA-4 (ipilimumab, tremelimumab) at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.Results: We identified 10 patients with a mean ± SD age of 63.2 ± 9.7 years. Seven were treated with a combination of checkpoint inhibitors and 3 with nivolumab monotherapy. Four patients developed inflammatory polyarthritis, 4 oligoarthritis, and 2 tenosynovitis. Six were antinuclear antibody positive and 2 had anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Mean ± SD time from the first dose of immunotherapy until joint involvement was 6.3 ± 4.3 months. All 10 patients were treated with systemic corticosteroids, but 6 of 10 required ≤20 mg per day of prednisone. Five patients received steroid-sparing agents. Mean ± SD time until resolution of joint symptoms after the last dose of immunotherapy was 9.2 ± 6.1 months.Conclusion: Musculoskeletal irAEs can manifest as a rheumatoid arthritis-like polyarthritis, oligoarthritis, tenosynovitis, or polymyalgia rheumatica. Musculoskeletal symptoms can last more than a year, but they can generally be managed with low to moderate doses of corticosteroids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer and have emerged as a pillar of standard cancer care. However, their use is complicated by adverse effects known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis. ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis is distinguished from other irAEs by its persistence and requirement for long-term treatment. TNF inhibitors are commonly used to treat inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathies and inflammatory bowel disease, and have also been adopted as second-line agents to treat irAEs refractory to glucocorticoid treatment. Experiencing an irAE is associated with a better antitumour response after ICI treatment. However, whether TNF inhibition can be safely used to treat irAEs without promoting cancer progression, either by compromising ICI therapy efficacy or via another route, remains an open question. In this Review, we discuss clinical and preclinical studies that address the relationship between TNF, TNF inhibition and cancer. The bulk of the evidence suggests that at least short courses of TNF inhibitors are safe for the treatment of irAEs in patients with cancer undergoing ICI therapy. Data from preclinical studies hint that TNF inhibition might augment the antitumour effect of ICI therapy while simultaneously ameliorating irAEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) is challenging, as features of IA flares can mimic infection. We aimed to cross-sectionally determine if the optimal tests to diagnose PJI in osteoarthritis were present in patients with IA flares., Methods: We enrolled patients from October 2020 to July 2022 in 3 groups: ( a ) PJI-total joint arthroplasty patients undergoing revision for infection, ( b ) IA Flare-IA patients with a flaring native joint, and ( c ) IA Aseptic-total joint arthroplasty patients with IA undergoing aseptic arthroplasty revision. We compared blood and synovial fluid markers between the cohorts using Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests to assess marker sensitivity and specificity., Results: Of 52 cases overall, 40% had rheumatoid arthritis, 20% psoriatic arthritis, and 11% osteoarthritis (in PJI group). PJI cases had higher C-reactive protein (CRP) and synovial fluid polymorphonuclear neutrophil percentage (%PMN). Alpha-defensin tested positive in 93% of PJI cases, 20% of IA Flares, and 6% of IA Aseptic ( p < 0.01). Synovial white blood cell count >3000/μL and positive alpha-defensin were highly sensitive (100%) in diagnosing infection; however, specificity was 50% for white blood cell counts and 79% for alpha-defensin. PJI diagnosis was nearly 5 times more likely with positive alpha-defensin and almost 6 times more likely with %PMNs >80. Blood markers interleukin-6, procalcitonin, and d -dimer were neither sensitive nor specific, whereas erythrocyte sedimentation rate and CRP showed 80% sensitivity, but 47% and 58% respective specificities., Conclusions: Although synovial %PMNs, CRP, and alpha-defensin are sensitive tests for diagnosing PJI, they are less specific and may be positive in IA flares., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Perioperative practices have been introduced over the last decade to decrease the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We sought to determine whether rates of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for PJI decreased during the period 2006-2016., Methods: This observational cohort study used data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System to identify patients undergoing TKA in 2006-2016. Data through 2017 were used to determine if patients underwent revision TKA for PJI (including debridement, antibiotics and implant retention) within 1 year of the primary surgery. A generalized estimating equation model, clustered by hospital, was used to examine the impact of time on likelihood of revision TKA for PJI., Results: In 2006-2016, 233,165 primary TKAs performed were included. Mean age was 66.1 (standard deviation 10.3) years, and 65% were women. Overall, 0.5% of the patients underwent revision TKA for PJI within 1 year of surgery. The generalized estimating equation model showed that for primary TKA performed in 2006-2013, year of surgery did not impact the likelihood of revision TKA for PJI (odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.03, P  = .9221), but that for primary TKA performed in 2014-2016, the likelihood decreased by year (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.88, P  = .0002)., Conclusions: The likelihood of revision TKA for PJI was stable from 2006 to 2013 but declined during the period 2014-2016 across patient and hospital categories. This decline could be due to infection mitigation strategies or other unmeasured factors., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Objectives: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) associated inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) occurs in 4-6% of ICI-treated patients based on one observational study. We identified cases of ICI-IA using administrative claims to study its incidence and characteristics at the population level., Methods: We used the Medicare 5% sample to identify patients initiating ICIs. Cancer patients were identified by having ≥ 2 ICD-9/10-CM diagnosis codes from an oncologist for lung cancer, melanoma, or renal/urothelial cancer. ICI-IA was defined as having two Medicare claims ≥ 30 days apart with combinations of ICD-9/10-CM diagnosis codes that favored specificity. ICI-IA was identified in patients with a musculoskeletal diagnosis after ICI initiation, who had i.) no inflammatory arthritis or inflammatory rheumatic disease before ICI initiation ever, and ii) no musculoskeletal complaint in the one year prior to ICI. We examined DMARD utilization and visits to rheumatology in patients with ICI-IA. Landmark analysis and a time varying Cox proportional hazards model for overall survival was constructed., Results: The incidence of ICI-IA was 7.2 (6.1-8.4) per 100 patient years. Patients with ICI-IA were mean (SD) age 73.5(7.0) years, 48% women, 91% white. Median(IQR) time from ICI initiation to first ICI-IA diagnosis was 124(56, 252) days. Only 24(16%) received care from a rheumatologist, and 24(16%) were prescribed a DMARD (46% by a rheumatologist). The HR for mortality in patients with ICI-IA was 0.86 (95% CI 0.59-1.26, p= 0.45)., Conclusions: The incidence of ICI-IA identified in claims data is similar to that reported in observational studies, however, few patients are treated with a DMARD or see a rheumatologist. There was no difference in overall survival between ICI-treated patients with and without ICI-IA., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Black patients are at an increased risk of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when compared to White patients. The goal of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in revision TKA risk are related to surgeon characteristics., Methods: This was an observational cohort study. We used inpatient administrative data to identify Black patients who underwent unilateral primary TKA in New York State. There were 21,948 Black patients who were matched 1:1 to White patients on age, sex, ethnicity, and insurance type. The primary outcome was aseptic revision TKA within 2 years of primary TKA. We calculated annual surgeon TKA volume and identified surgeon characteristics such as training in North America, board certification, and years of experience., Results: Black patients had a higher odds of aseptic revision TKA (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% CI 1.12-1.54, P < .001) and were disproportionately cared for by low volume surgeons (≤12 TKA/year). The relationship between low volume surgeons and risk of aseptic revision was not statistically significant (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.72-2.11, P = .436). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for aseptic revision TKA in Black versus White patients varied across surgeon/hospital TKA volume category pairs, with the greatest aOR when TKA were performed by the highest volume surgeons at the highest volume hospitals (aOR 2.8, 95% CI 0.98- 8.09, P = .055)., Conclusion: Black patients were more likely to undergo aseptic TKA revision than matched White patients. This disparity was not explained by surgeon characteristics., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Press Ganey (PG) inpatient survey is widely used to track patient satisfaction with the hospital experience. Our aim was to use the PG survey to determine if there are racial differences in overall hospital experience and perception of nurses and surgeons following hip and knee arthroplasty., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed Black and White patients from hip and knee arthroplasty registries from a single institution between July 2010 and February 2012. The overall assessment score for the hospital experience and perception of the nurse and surgeon questions from the PG inpatient survey were dichotomized as "not completely satisfied" or "completely satisfied". Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to determine the impact of race on the likelihood of being 'completely satisfied' in the hip and knee cohorts., Results: There were 2517 hip and 2114 knee patients who underwent surgery and completed the PG survey, of whom 3.9% were Black and 96.0% were White. Black patients were less likely to be completely satisfied with their hospital experience compared to White patients in the hip (odds ratio 0.62, confidence interval 0.39-1.00, P  = .049) and knee (odds ratio 0.52, confidence interval 0.33-0.82, P  = .005) cohorts. Black patients were also less likely to be completely satisfied with multiple aspects of care they received from the nurse and surgeon in both cohorts., Conclusions: We found that the PG Survey shows Black patients were less likely to be completely satisfied than White patients with the hospital experience, including their interactions with nurses and surgeons. More work is needed to understand this difference.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies used to treat cancer, such as anti-PD-1 antibodies, can induce autoimmune conditions in some individuals. The T cell mechanisms mediating such iatrogenic autoimmunity and their overlap with spontaneous autoimmune diseases remain unclear. Here, we compared T cells from the joints of 20 patients with an inflammatory arthritis induced by ICI therapy (ICI-arthritis) with two archetypal autoimmune arthritides, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Single-cell transcriptomic and antigen receptor repertoire analyses highlighted clonal expansion of an activated effector CD8 T cell population in the joints and blood of patients with ICI-arthritis. These cells were identified as CD38 hi CD127 - CD8 T cells and were uniquely enriched in ICI-arthritis joints compared with RA and PsA and also displayed an elevated interferon signature. In vitro, type I interferon induced CD8 T cells to acquire the ICI-associated CD38 hi phenotype and enhanced cytotoxic function. In a cohort of patients with advanced melanoma, ICI therapy markedly expanded circulating CD38 hi CD127 - T cells, which were frequently bound by the therapeutic anti-PD-1 drug. In patients with ICI-arthritis, drug-bound CD8 T cells in circulation showed marked clonal overlap with drug-bound CD8 T cells from synovial fluid. These results suggest that ICI therapy directly targets CD8 T cells in patients who develop ICI-arthritis and induces an autoimmune pathology that is distinct from prototypical spontaneous autoimmune arthritides.

Objective: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)., Methods: This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation., Results: This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence., Conclusion: Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings., (© 2023 American College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), increasingly used cancer therapeutics, can cause off-target inflammatory effects called immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-induced IA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (ICI-induced PMR). There are no validated classification criteria or outcome measures for these conditions, and adaptation of treatment recommendations from corresponding rheumatic diseases may not be appropriate. We summarized clinical descriptors of ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR and aggregated domains used for these conditions in order to inform the development of a core set of outcome domains., Methods: As the initial step of the core domain set generation process, we systemically searched Medline (Pubmed), EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINHL through March 2021 to identify all studies that provide both clinical descriptions and domains relevant to ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR. Domains were mapped to core areas, such as pathophysiological manifestations, life impact, resource use, and longevity/survival, as suggested by the OMERACT 2.1 Filter., Results: We identified 69 publications, over a third of which utilized non-specific diagnoses of "arthritis," "arthralgia," and/or "PMR". Other publications provided the number, the distribution and/or names of specific joints affected, while others labeled the irAE as the corresponding rheumatic disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis. Most distinct domains mapped to the pathophysiology/manifestations core area (24 domains), such as signs/symptoms (13 domains), labs (6 domains), and imaging (5 domains), with harm domains of adverse effects from irAE treatment and fear of irAE treatment decreasing ICI efficacy. Forty-three publications also referenced irAE treatment and 35 subsequent response, as well as 32 tumor response., Conclusion: There is considerable heterogeneity in the domains used to clinically characterize ICI-induced IA and ICI-induced PMR. There were several domains mapped to the pathophysiologic manifestations core area, although several publications highlighted domains evenly distributed among the other core areas of life impact, longevity/survival and resource use., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interest CB - Consulting: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi; Grant support: BMS. EC - Research grants from Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB, consultancy from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Biocon, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, RPharm and Sanofi, speakers fee from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myer Squibbs, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, RPharm, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. JL - grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer; Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Sanofi; honoraria for consulting or speaking: Abbvie, BMS, Galapagos Janssen-Cilag, Gilead, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, UCB. LC – Supported by AR075872 from NIAMS, Consulting: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tremeau Pharmaceuticals, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. Research Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb. MK - Consulting/speaker fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Novartis. KB -Consultancy and/or speaker fees and/or travel reimbursements: Abbvie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Viatris, UCB. Scientific support: Medical Faculty of University of Heidelberg, Rheumaliga Baden-Württemberg e.V., AbbVie, Novartis. MH - Advisory boards: Boehringer Ingelheim, Alexion, Mallinckrodt; Research grants: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb. CC - speaker and consulting for Sanofi/Regeneron. MSA- Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Avenue Therapeutics, Chemocentryx, Gilead, Bristol Myers Squibb, AMAG, Agile Therapeutics. SG: Grant from Novartis, Advisory board for UCB, ACR guideline subcommittee chair. MLO - National Cancer Institute and Rheumatology Research Foundation. All other co-authors have no declarations., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors activate the immune system to combat cancer. In doing so, however, they can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including rheumatic syndromes, such as inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and myositis. This article reviews rheumatic irAEs that may be encountered in the general medicine practice and provides guidance to support prompt recognition, referral, and treatment of these patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have no commercial or financial conflicts of interest. N. Ghosh is supported by an NIH grant as a Master’s degree student in Clinical and Translational Investigation at Weill Cornell Medicine: NIH/NCATSUL1-TR-0023849., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: We have no conflicts of interest or outside financial support. Permissions have been granted for the figures and tables used in the manuscript.

Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are sometimes associated with autoantibodies, but we do not know how frequently or whether these autoantibodies are present before ICI initiation. Our aim was to determine the positivity rate of autoantibodies in patients with organ-specific ICI-associated irAEs and determine their value as pretreatment biomarkers., Methods: We searched for all English, peer-reviewed publications from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library through February 20, 2020, and included any publication describing patients with irAEs and reporting results of any autoantibody investigation. Three reviewers independently extracted data, and 1 reviewer verified all data for accuracy and quality of reporting., Results: We identified 515 publications. Most reports described endocrine, rheumatic, gastrointestinal/hepatic, and myositis/myasthenia/myocarditis irAEs. Autoantibodies were present in close to 50% of patients with ICI-associated endocrinopathies. Anti-BP180 was found in more than 50% of patients with skin irAEs. Antibodies were also common in patients with the triad of myositis/myasthenia/myocarditis including striational antibodies (49%), acetylcholine receptor antibodies (40%), and myositis-associated antibodies (27%). Only 11% of patients with arthritis had either rheumatoid factor or cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, and only 30% of patients with sicca had Sjögren antibodies. Autoantibodies were also relatively uncommon in patients with hepatitis (antinuclear antibody, 18%) and colitis (perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody, 19%). Some cohort studies analyzing pre-ICI seropositivity suggest there may be a role for autoantibodies as biomarkers of irAEs., Conclusions: Reported autoantibody positivity is high in irAEs involving the endocrine organs, skin, and muscle, but lower in irAEs affecting other organ systems. Autoantibody investigations in pre-ICI treatment patients have yielded mixed results regarding their utility as a biomarker of irAEs., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review to identify all reports of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated inflammatory arthritis to describe it phenotypically and serologically., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for reports of musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events secondary to ICI treatment. Publications were included if they provided individual patient level data regarding the pattern of joint involvement. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results., Results: A total of 4339 articles were screened, of which 67 were included, encompassing 372 patients. The majority of patients had metastatic melanoma (57%), and they were treated with anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 therapy (78%). Median time to onset of arthritis was 4 months (range, 1 day to 53 months). Forty-nine percent had polyarthritis, 17% oligoarthritis, 3% monoarthritis, 10% arthralgia, and 21% polymyalgia rheumatica. More than half of patients were described as having a "rheumatoid arthritis-like" presentation. Nine percent tested positive for rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Seventy-four percent required corticosteroids, and 45% required additional medications. Sixty-three percent achieved arthritis control, and 32% were ultimately able to discontinue antirheumatic treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were continued in 49%, transiently withheld in 11%, and permanently discontinued due to musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events in 13%., Conclusions: Half of reported immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated arthritis cases present with polyarthritis (often RA-like), but only 9% are seropositive. Polymyalgia rheumatica is also common. Most patients respond to steroids alone, but about half require additional medications. Further studies are needed to determine long-term musculoskeletal outcomes in these patients, and the impact of arthritis treatment on cancer survival., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are often gatekeepers to specialist care. This study assessed the relationship between PCP density and total knee (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) outcomes., Methods: We obtained patient-level data from an institutional registry on patients undergoing elective primary TKA and THA for osteoarthritis, including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function scores at baseline and 2 years. Using geocoding, we identified the number of PCPs in the patient's census tract (communities). We used Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting and Cross-validated Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation to compare provider density and outcomes adjusting for potential confounders., Results: Our sample included 3606 TKA and 4295 THA cases. The median number of PCPs in each community was similar for both procedures: TKA 2 (interquartile range 1, 6) and for THA 2 (interquartile range 1, 7). Baseline and 2-year follow-up WOMAC pain, function, and stiffness scores were not statistically significantly different comparing communities with more than median number of PCPs to those with less than median number of PCPs. In sensitivity analyses, adding 1 PCP to a community with zero PCPs would not have statistically significantly improved baseline or 2-year follow-up WOMAC pain, function, and stiffness scores., Conclusions: In this sample of patients who underwent elective TKA or THA for osteoarthritis, we found no statistically significant association between PCP density and pain, function, or stiffness outcomes at baseline or 2 years. Further studies should examine what other provider factors affect access and outcomes in THA and TKA., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patients' perceived risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 at the peak of the pandemic in NYC in terms of their systemic rheumatic disease and medications., Methods: With the approval of their rheumatologists, patients were interviewed by telephone and were asked about their perceived risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 considering their rheumatic condition and whether medications increased this risk. Patients also completed surveys assessing beliefs about medication and multidimensions of physical/mental well-being. Information about current medications and rheumatologist-initiated changes in medications during the pandemic were reported by patients and verified from medical records., Results: One hundred twelve patients (86% women; mean age, 50 years; 81% White, 15% Latino) with diverse diagnoses were enrolled. Fifty-four percent thought they were at "very much greater risk" of COVID-19 because of their rheumatic condition, and 57% thought medications "definitely" put them at greater risk. In multivariable analysis, the perception of "very much greater risk" was associated with greater belief that rheumatic disease medications were necessary, worse physical function, chronic pulmonary comorbidity, and more anxiety. In a separate model, the perception that medications "definitely" caused greater risk was associated with White race, not taking hydroxychloroquine, rheumatologists initiating change in medications, more anxiety, and taking biologics and corticosteroids., Conclusions: Patients' perceived increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 was associated with beliefs about their rheumatic disease, medications, comorbidity, and anxiety. Clinicians should be aware of patients' perceptions and foster self-management practices that will alleviate anxiety, minimize exposure to the virus, and optimize systemic rheumatic disease outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors activate the immune system to combat cancer. In doing so, however, they can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including rheumatic syndromes, such as inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and myositis. This article reviews rheumatic irAEs that may be encountered in the general medicine practice and provides guidance to support prompt recognition, referral, and treatment of these patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have no commercial or financial conflicts of interest. N. Ghosh is supported by an NIH grant as a Master’s degree student in Clinical and Translational Investigation at Weill Cornell Medicine: NIH/NCATSUL1-TR-0023849., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the perceptions and behaviors of rheumatologists in the United States (US) regarding the risk of COVID-19 for their autoimmune patients and the subsequent management of immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory medications., Methods: We administered an online survey to a convenience sample of rheumatologists in the US from 4/8/20-5/4/20 via social media and group emails. Survey respondents provided demographic information such as, age, gender, state of practice, and practice type. We asked questions about COVID-19 risk in rheumatic patients, as well as their medication management during the pandemic. We conducted descriptive analysis and Multivariable regression models., Results: 271 respondents completed the survey nationally. 48% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "Patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of COVID-19 irrespective of their immunosuppressive medications". 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "The pandemic has led you to reduce the use/dosage/frequency of biologics", while 56% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "The pandemic has led you to reduce the use/dosage/frequency of steroids". A third of respondents indicated that at least 10% of their patients had self-discontinued or reduced at least one immunosuppressive medication to mitigate their risk of COVID-19. Responses to these questions as well as to questions regarding NSAID prescription patterns were significantly different in the Northeast region of US compared to other regions., Conclusion: In this national sample of rheumatologists, there are variations regarding perceptions of patients' risk of COVID-19, and how to manage medications such as NSAIDs, biologics and steroids during the pandemic. These variations are more pronounced in geographical areas where COVID-19 disease burden was high., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Said Ibrahim receives grant funds from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Susan Goodman grants and personal fees from Novartis-consulting/ research support, and personal fees from American College of Rheumatology; Deanna Jannat-Khah owns stocks in the following companies: Cytodyn,Walgreens, AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are monoclonal antibodies that target inhibitory molecules, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), or its ligand, programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1), and lead to immune activation in the tumor micro-environment. ICIs can induce durable treatment responses in patients with advanced cancers, but they are commonly associated with immune related adverse events (irAEs) such as rash, colitis, hepatitis, pneumonitis, and endocrine and musculoskeletal disorders. Almost all patients experience some form of irAE, but high grade irAEs occur in approximately half of those on combination therapy (eg, anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1), and up to one quarter receiving ICI monotherapy. Fatal irAEs occur in approximately 1.2% of patients on CTLA-4 blockade and 0.4% of patients receiving PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade, and case fatality rates are highest for myocarditis and myositis. IrAEs typically occur in the first three months after ICI initiation, but can occur as early as one day after the first dose to years after ICI initiation. The mainstay of treatment is with corticosteroids, but tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are commonly used for refractory irAEs. Although ICIs are generally discontinued when high grade irAEs occur, ICI discontinuation alone is rarely adequate to resolve irAEs. Consensus guidelines have been published to help guide management, but will likely be modified as our understanding of irAEs grows., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The authors declare the following other interests: none. Further details of The BMJ policy on financial interests are here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests, (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters were developed for the treatment of venous thromboembolism but in high-risk patients are often used for prophylaxis instead. In the study reported here, we reviewed all the orthopedic surgery cases in which IVC filters were used at our institution in 2005. Charts were analyzed and patients contacted by telephone for long-term follow-up. IVC filters were used in 90 (0.96%) of the 9,348 inpatient orthopedic surgeries. Sixty-one percent of filters were placed for prophylaxis, though only 42% of patients with prophylactic filters had a contraindication to anticoagulation. Eighty-one percent of patients with prophylactic filters who received anticoagulation received warfarin. Ratios of prophylactic-to-treatment filters were 3.25 for fracture surgeries, 2.1 for arthroplasties, and 0.89 for spine surgeries. Five percent of patients with prophylactic filters developed deep vein thrombosis. Fifty-two percent of filters were retrievable, but only 40% of those were removed a mean of 5.1 months (SD, 3.9 months) after placement. Filter removal was associated with complications in 11% of patients, and in another 10% the filter could not be removed. Forty-one patients were contacted a mean of 21 months (SD, 3 months) after filter placement. Only 32% of those who still had filters were on anticoagulation at follow-up.