Search

Background Evidence about tralokinumab treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in daily practice is limited. Aim To report the first evidence, to our knowledge, from daily practice of treatment with tralokinumab in patients with AD. Methods In this observational prospective study, patients with AD who received tralokinumab treatment in the context of routine care at the Erasmus Medical Centre were included between November 2021 and February 2022. This included 28 patients who had previously been treated with dupilumab, and 14 patients who had been treated with a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi). The Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA; 0–4) and the numeric rating scale peak pruritus during the past 7 days (NRS itch 7d: 0–10), adverse events and reasons for discontinuation were analysed. A good clinical response was defined as any decrease in IGA and NRS itch 7d and if a patient was satisfied with the treatment and wished to continue with therapy. Results In total, 37 patients were treated with tralokinumab. Twenty-two (59%) patients showed a good response to tralokinumab treatment. Fifteen (41%) patients discontinued treatment because of inadequate AD control or adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were mild in most patients. Half of the patients where treatment with dupilumab had failed had a good clinical response to tralokinumab. Conclusions Tralokinumab was found to be effective in most patients in this cohort with difficult-to-treat, severe AD from daily practice. Interestingly, tralokinumab was also found to be effective in 50% of patients who had previously experienced insufficient response or adverse events with dupilumab treatment.

Contains fulltext : 251784.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants, but clinical data on breakthrough infections are still scarce. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants, and controls (patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who had received full COVID-19 vaccinations. The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, including humoral immune responses after vaccination. METHODS: In this substudy, we pooled data collected in two large ongoing prospective multicentre cohort studies conducted in the Netherlands (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and Amsterdam Rheumatology Center COVID [ARC-COVID] study). Both studies recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and healthy controls. We sourced clinical data from standardised electronic case record forms, digital questionnaires, and medical files. We only included individuals who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. For T2B!, participants were recruited between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, and for ARC-COVID, participants were recruited between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. In this study we assessed data on breakthrough infections collected between July 1 and Dec 15, 2021, a period in which the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant was the dominant variant in the Netherlands. We defined a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection as a PCR-confirmed or antigen test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred at least 14 days after vaccination. All breakthrough infections during this period were assumed to be due to the delta variant due to its dominance during the study period. We analysed post-vaccination serum samples for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies to assess the humoral vaccination response (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC-COVID study only). We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore potential clinical and humoral determinants associated with the odds of breakthrough infections. The T2B! study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, Trial ID NL8900, and the ARC-COVID study is registered with Dutch Trial Register, trial ID NL8513. FINDINGS: We included 3207 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressants, and 1807 controls (985 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 822 healthy controls). Among patients receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 2042 (64%) of 3207 were female and 1165 (36%) were male; among patients not receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 54 years (SD 14), 598 (61%) of 985 were female and 387 (39%) were male; and among healthy controls, mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 549 (67%) of 822 were female and 273 (33%) were male. The cumulative incidence of PCR-test or antigen-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was similar in patients on immunosuppressants (148 of 3207; 4·6% [95% CI 3·9-5·4]), patients not on immunosuppressants (52 of 985; 5·3% [95% CI 4·0-6·9]), and healthy controls (33 of 822; 4·0% [95% CI 2·8-5·6]). There was no difference in the odds of breakthrough infection for patients with immune-mediate inflammatory disease on immunosuppressants versus combined controls (ie, patients not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls; adjusted odds ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·66-1·18]). Seroconversion after vaccination (odds ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·34-0·98]; T2B! cohort only) and SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (0·34 [0·18-0·56]) were associated with a lower odds of breakthrough infections. INTERPRETATION: The incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants was similar to that in controls. However, caution might still be warranted for those on anti-CD20 therapy and those with traditional risk factors. FUNDING: ZonMw (the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development) and Reade foundation.

Romy van der Groef,1 Pascal HP de Jong,1 Dirk Jan Hijnen,2 Christien J van der Woude,3 Jan AM van Laar,4 P Hugo M van der Kuy,5 Jan-Dietert Brugma,6 Annelieke Pasma1 1Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 2Department of Dermatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 3Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 4Department of Internal Medicine and Immunology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 5Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 6Department of Outpatient Pharmacy, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Romy van der Groef, Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Rheumatology, Room Na-523, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Tel +31 648284141, Email r.vandergroef@erasmusmc.nlPurpose: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, national and international societies have recommended continuing biological agents in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. However, adherence to biological treatment might decrease, because these recommendations contradict patients’ beliefs. Especially an increased concern about side effects could have influenced the adherence to biological treatment during the first lockdown. The primary objective was to investigate the impact of the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown on adherence to biological treatment in IMID patients.Patients and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, IMID patients who received a biological agent before and during the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown (March 2020- June 2020) were included. Patients were excluded if they did not complete the medication adherence report scale-5 (MARS-5) questionnaire at ≥ 1 visit before the lockdown and ≥ 1 visit during the lockdown. Adherence to biological treatment was measured with the MARS-5 and Medication Possession Ratio (MPR).Results: We included 157 IMID patients. The percentage of adherent patients, defined as MARS-5 score > 21, was significantly lower during the lockdown compared to the period before the lockdown (88.5% vs 84.1%, p< 0.001). Additionally, the overall percentage of adherent patients during the lockdown based on the MPR ≥ 90% was significantly lower compared to adherence based upon the MARS-5 (65.1% vs 84.1%, p< 0.001).Conclusion: This study showed that the first SARS-CoV-2 lockdown negatively impacts adherence to biological treatment in IMID patients. Therefore, treating physicians should be aware of this problem to minimize the potential harmful effects of non-adherence.Keywords: adherence, biological, SARS-CoV-2, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

BACKGROUND Despite enormous clinical improvements, due to better management strategies and the availability of biologicals, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) still have a significant impact on patients’ lives. To further reduce disease burden, provider- as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be taken into account during treatment and follow-up. Web-based collection of these outcomes generates valuable repeated measurements, which could be used (1) in daily clinical practice for patient-centered care, including shared decision-making; (2) for research purposes; and (3) as an essential step toward the implementation of value-based health care (VBHC). Our ultimate goal is that our health care delivery system is completely aligned with the principles of VBHC. For aforementioned reasons, we implemented the IMID registry. OBJECTIVE The IMID registry is a digital system for routine outcome measurement that mainly includes PROs to improve care for patients with IMIDs. METHODS The IMID registry is a longitudinal observational prospective cohort study within the departments of rheumatology, gastroenterology, dermatology, immunology, clinical pharmacy, and outpatient pharmacy of the Erasmus MC, the Netherlands. Patients with the following diseases are eligible for inclusion: inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, uveitis, Behçet disease, sarcoidosis, and systemic vasculitis. Generic and disease-specific (patient-reported) outcomes, including adherence to medication, side effects, quality of life, work productivity, disease damage, and activity, are collected from patients and providers at fixed intervals before and during outpatient clinic visits. Data are collected and visualized through a data capture system, which is linked directly to the patients’ electronic health record, which not only facilitates a more holistic care approach, but also helps with shared decision-making. RESULTS The IMID registry is an ongoing cohort with no end date. Inclusion started in April 2018. From start until September 2022, a total of 1417 patients have been included from the participating departments. The mean age at inclusion was 46 (SD 16) years, and 56% of the patient population is female. The average percentage of filled out questionnaires at baseline is 84%, which drops to 72% after 1 year of follow-up. This decline may be due to the fact that the outcomes are not always discussed during the outpatient clinic visit or because the questionnaires were sometimes forgotten to set out. The registry is also used for research purposes and 92% of the patients with IMIDs gave informed consent to use their data for that. CONCLUSIONS The IMID registry is a web-based digital system that collects provider- and PROs. The collected outcomes are used to improve care for the individual patient with an IMID and facilitate shared decision-making, and they are also used for research purposes. The measurement of these outcomes is an essential step toward the implementation of VBHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/43230

Background: Disease-specific studies have reported impaired humoral responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with specific immunosuppressants. Disease-overarching studies, and data on recall responses and third vaccinations are scarce. Our primary objective was to investigate the effects of immunosuppressive monotherapies on the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with prevalent immune-mediated inflammatory disorders.Methods: We did a cohort study in participants treated in outpatient clinics in seven university hospitals and one rheumatology treatment centre in the Netherlands as well as participants included in two national cohort studies on COVID-19-related disease severity. We included patients aged older than 18 years, diagnosed with any of the prespecified immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, who were able to understand and complete questionnaires in Dutch. Participants with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders who were not on systemic immunosuppressants and healthy participants were included as controls. Anti-receptor binding domain IgG responses and neutralisation capacity were monitored following standard vaccination regimens and a three-vaccination regimen in subgroups. Hybrid immune responses-ie, vaccination after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection-were studied as a proxy for recall responses.Findings: Between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, we included 3222 participants in our cohort. Sera from 2339 participants, 1869 without and 470 participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were analysed (mean age 49·9 years [SD 13·7]; 1470 [62·8%] females and 869 [37·2%] males). Humoral responses did not differ between disorders. Anti-CD20 therapy, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators, and mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids were associated with lower relative risks for reaching seroconversion following standard vaccination (0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·49] for anti-CD20 therapy, 0·35 [0·21-0·55] for S1P modulators, and 0·61 [0·40-0·90] for mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids). A third vaccination increased seroconversion for mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments (from 52·6% after the second vaccination to 89·5% after the third) but not significantly for anti-CD20 therapies (from 36·8% to 45·6%) and S1P modulators (from 35·5% to 48·4%). Most other immunosuppressant groups showed moderately reduced antibody titres after standard vaccination that did not increase after a third vaccination, although seroconversion rates and neutralisation capacity were unaffected. In participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were boosted after vaccination, regardless of immunosuppressive treatment.Interpretation: Humoral responses following vaccination are impaired by specific immunosuppressants. After standard vaccination regimens, patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders taking most immunosuppressants show similar seroconversion to controls, although antibody titres might be moderately reduced. As neutralisation capacity and recall responses are also preserved in these patients, this is not likely to translate to loss of (short-term) protection. In patients on immunosuppressants showing poor humoral responses after standard vaccination regimens, a third vaccination resulted in additional seroconversion in patients taking mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments, whereas the effect of a third vaccination in patients on anti-CD20 therapy and S1P modulators was limited.Funding: ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development).