Abatacept therapy and safety management

Development and real-life use assessment of a self-management smartphone application for patients with inflammatory arthritis. A user-centred step-by-step approach

Background

Mobile health applications (apps) are increasing in interest to enhance patient self-management. Few apps are actually used by patients and have been developed for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs which use entails risk of adverse effects such as infections.

Objective

To develop Hiboot, a self-management mobile app for patients with IA, by using a user-centred step-by-step approach and assess its real-life use.

Methods

The app development included first a qualitative study with semi-guided audiotaped interviews of 21 patients to identify the impact of IA on daily life and patient treatments practices and an online cross-sectional survey of 344 patients to assess their health apps use in general and potential user needs. A multidisciplinary team developed the first version of the app via five face-to-face meetings. After app launch, a second qualitative study of 21 patients and a users’ test of 13 patients and 3 rheumatologists led to the app’s current version. The number of app installations, current users and comments were collected from the Google Play store and the Apple store.

Results

The qualitative study revealed needs for counselling, patient–health professional partnership, and skills to cope with risk situations; 86.8% participants would be ready to use an app primarily on their rheumatologist’s recommendation. Six functionalities were implemented: a safety checklist before treatment administration, aids in daily life situations based on the French academic recommendations, treatment reminders, global well-being self-assessment, periodic counselling messages, and a diary. The Hiboot app was installed 20,500 times from September 2017 to October 2020, with 4300 regular current users. Scores were 4.4/5 stars at Android and iOS stores.

Conclusion

Hiboot is a free self-management app for patients with IA developed by a step-by-step process including patients and health professionals. Further evaluation of the Hiboot benefit is needed.

Efficacy of a nurse-led patient education intervention in promoting safety skills of patients with inflammatory arthritis treated with biologics: a multicentre randomised clinical trial

Objective

To evaluate the effect of a nurse-led patient education on safety skills of patients with inflammatory arthritis treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).

Methods

This is a multicentre, open-labelled, randomised controlled trial comparing an intervention group (face-to-face education by a nurse at baseline and 3 months later) with a control group (usual care) at the introduction of a first subcutaneous bDMARD. The primary outcome was score on the BioSecure questionnaire at 6 months (0–100 scale), a validated questionnaire assessing competencies in dealing with fever, infections, vaccination and daily situations. The secondary outcomes were disease activity, coping, psychological well-being, beliefs about medication, self-efficacy and severe infection rate.

Results

129 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis were enrolled in nine rheumatology departments; 122 completed the study; 127 were analysed; and 64 received the intervention (mean duration: 65 min at baseline and 44 min at 3 months). The primary outcome was met: the BioSecure score was 81.2±13.1 and 75.6±13.0 in the education and usual care groups (difference: +6.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.1, p=0.015), demonstrating higher safety skills in the education group. Exploratory analyses showed better skills regarding infections, greater willingness for vaccinations and greater adherence-related behaviours in the education group. Coping was significantly more improved by education; other secondary outcomes were improved in both groups, with no difference.

Conclusions

Educating patients was effective in promoting patient behaviours for preventing adverse events with bDMARDs. An education session delivered to patients starting a first bDMARD can be useful to help them self-manage safety issues.

Trial registration number

NCT02855320.

Biologics During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Among Women With Rheumatic Diseases: Safety Clinical Evidence on the Road

Females are generally more affected by autoimmune diseases, a fact that underlines the relationship with pregnancy and the safety of anti-rheumatic drugs in pregnancy and lactation. Biologic therapies are increasingly prescribed to treat and maintain remission in a significant number of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. The experience with the use of biologics during gestation is extremely lacking because of the observational nature of the available studies and the difficulty in designing proper clinical trials in pregnancy. Among the studied biologics, more information was published on TNFα inhibitors and, in particular, on their potential passage through the placenta and impact on the fetus. Currently, a fragment of anti-TNFα monoclonal IgG, certolizumab pegol, is considered safe with almost no placental transfer. Subsequent observations are suggesting a comparable safety for the soluble TNFα receptor etanercept. Another biologic, eculizumab, the anti-C5a antibody used to treat complement-mediated microangiopathies, is also considered safe due to the unique engineered IgG2/4κ formulation that limits its passage through the placental barrier. Still, long-term data about children born to women treated with biologics in pregnancy are not attainable. Data on breastfeeding are currently available for several biologics. This article reviews the literature available about which drugs are considered safe during pregnancy and lactation, which are not, and on future prospects.

Systematic Review of Recommendations on the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate consensus recommendations regarding management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases, guideline registries, and relevant web sites for cancer-specific recommendations on RA management. Reviewers independently selected and appraised the recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. We identified similarities and discrepancies among recommendations.

RESULTS

Of 4,077 unique citations, 39 recommendations were identified, of which half described their consensus process. Average scores for the AGREE II domains ranged from 33% to 87%. Cancer risk in RA was addressed in 79% of recommendations, with acknowledgement of increased overall cancer risk. Recommendations did not agree on the safety of using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA patients with cancer, except for the contraindication of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients at risk for lymphoma. Most recommendations agreed that RA treatment should be stopped and re-evaluated with a new diagnosis of cancer. Recommendations for patients with a history of cancer differed depending on the drug, cancer type, and time since cancer diagnosis. Few recommendations addressed all issues.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for the treatment of RA in patients with cancer often fail to meet expected methodologic criteria. There was agreement on the need for caution when prescribing DMARDs to these patients. However, several areas continue to lack consensus, and given the paucity of evidence, there is an urgent need for research and expert opinion to guide and standardize the management of RA in patients with cancer.

Immunosuppressives and biologics during pregnancy and lactation : A consensus report issued by the Austrian Societies of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

An increasing and early-onset use of immunosuppressives and biologics has become more frequently seen among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) and rheumatic disorders. Many women in their childbearing years currently receive such medications, and some of them in an interdisciplinary setting. Many questions arise in women already pregnant or wishing to conceive with respect to continuing or discontinuing treatment, the risks borne by the newborns and their mothers and long-term safety. Together with the Austrian Society of Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, the IBD working group of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology has elaborated consensus statements on the use of immunosuppressives and biologics in pregnancy and lactation. This is the first Austrian interdisciplinary consensus on this topic. It is intended to serve as a basis and support for providing advice to our patients and their treating physicians.

Practical Pearls About Current Rheumatic Medications

New and existing rheumatic disease is frequently encountered in the primary care setting. The number of medications used to treat various rheumatic conditions continues to increase. Some medications have very specific indications, whereas others have increasing off-label uses. Regardless of the indication, the medications used in rheumatology have variable dosing recommendations, significant side effects, recommended monitoring parameters, and potential medication interactions. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential uses as well as possible pitfalls associated with medications used in rheumatology.

Safety of Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis With Serologic Evidence of Past or Present Hepatitis B Virus Infection

OBJECTIVE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with concomitant hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection represents a therapeutic challenge due to the risk of HBV reactivation under immunosuppressive treatment. To date there are few data coming from anecdotal case reports that concern HBV reactivation following treatment with abatacept. This observational retrospective study was aimed to assess the safety profile of abatacept in this particular clinical setting.

METHODS

Eleven Italian rheumatologic centers provided data from patients with RA and positive HBV serology treated with intravenous abatacept. HBV markers and clinical and laboratory data were checked at followup visits every 3 months.

RESULTS

In total, 72 patients were included in the study: 47 inactive carriers, 21 occult carriers, and 4 chronic active carriers for HBV. At baseline all of the patients had normal liver function tests and low or undetectable HBV DNA levels, except for those with chronic active hepatitis. Thirteen patients received prophylaxis with lamivudine, and 4 received treatment with adefovir or tenofovir. At the end of the 24-month followup period, 49 patients were being treated. Data from 316 followup visits showed that abatacept was safe. No patients experienced reactivation of hepatitis B. Treatment withdrawals (23 patients) were due to lack of efficacy, subject decision/lost at followup, or adverse events not related to HBV infection.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides reassuring data about the safety profile of abatacept in RA with concomitant HBV infection without universal antiviral prophylaxis. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

[New horizons in the use of biological agents during pregnancy in patients with rheumatic disease]

Pregnancy in the presence of rheumatic diseases (RD) and adequate therapy before planned conception, during gestation, and after delivery during lactation is challenging. Advances in the treatment of RD are largely due to the clinical introduction of a new class of biological agents (BAs). There are less than two decades of experience in using BAs in rheumatology and to date there are no unified standards and accepted rules governing their use during pregnancy. According to the current requirements, information on a medicine should be given in three sections: 1) pregnancy; 2) lactation, and 3) use in men and women who are planning concept (the latter section has appeared for the first time). The present article summarizes data on the possible use of BAs in patients with RD during pregnancy planning, pregnancy, and breastfeeding.

The use of biologics in pregnant patients with rheumatic disease

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of female patients with autoimmune diseases are treated with biologic drugs. Concerns in regard to safety of biologics during pregnancy arise in patients who have not completed their families. Areas covered: A review of the literature dealing with child outcomes of pregnancies exposed to biologics shows that TNF inhibitors (TNFi) are the best studied in regard to human pregnancy. In studies comparing exposed pregnancies to disease-matched controls no increased risk of spontaneous abortion, low birth weight, prematurity or congenital malformations has been observed. For rituximab, tocilizumab, anakinra, belimumab and ustekinumab no prospective, controlled studies are available, and firm conclusions about their safety during pregnancy cannot be drawn. Expert commentary: TNFi appear fairly safe when given in early pregnancy. For biologics other than TNFi prospective, controlled studies on outcomes after early and late pregnancy exposure are urgently needed. Possible effects of TNFi and all other biologics on children's immune function, infection rate and vaccination responses are either limited or absent and need to be extended. Development of laboratory tests to measure concentrations of biologics routinely in children exposed in utero would facilitate decisions in regard to the time point of vaccination with live vaccines.

Safety of anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in pregnancy and lactation

Women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are often of childbearing age and therefore questions regarding reproductive health and the use of medications, including disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may arise during the clinical consultation. Each patient requires individual assessment in order to effectively manage the disease while minimizing any treatment-associated risks to the fetus. Although good-quality controlled trials are lacking, there is an increasing volume of evidence surrounding the use of immunosuppressive therapies in pregnancy and lactation. This review summarizes the currently available information which can be of benefit to clinicians guiding patients and their families through the risks and benefits of continuing RA therapy during pregnancy and lactation. Further studies and ongoing surveillance of drug safety in pregnancy are required to resolve the uncertainties that remain regarding synthetic and biologic DMARDs.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis during pregnancy: challenges and solutions

Rheumatoid arthritis, a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease with significant physical disability, affects women three times more frequently than men, often in their childbearing years. Parenthood decisions can be challenging, often affected by perceptions of their disease state, health care needs, and complex pharmacological treatments. Many women struggle to find adequate information to guide them on pregnancy planning, lactation, and early parenting in relation to their chronic condition. The expanded availability and choice of pharmacotherapies have supported optimal disease control prior to conception and enhanced physical capabilities for women to successfully overcome the challenges of raising children but require a detailed understanding of their risks and safety in the setting of pregnancy and breastfeeding. This review outlines the various situational challenges faced by rheumatologists in providing care to men and women in the reproductive age group interested in starting a family. Up to date evidence-based solutions particularly focusing on the safe use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic response modifiers to assist rheumatologists in the care of pregnant and lactating women with RA are reviewed.

[Recommendations of the German Society for Rheumatology on the perioperative approach under therapy with DMARDs and biologicals in inflammatory rheumatic diseases]

BACKGROUND

The perioperative administration of antirheumatic medication can lead to an increased risk of infection and to a malfunction in wound healing up to a manifest infection; however, the termination of antirheumatic therapy can result in a flare up of the disease. Both situations can endanger the success of the operation, particularly in arthroplasty.

METHOD

The recommendations have been developed and approved by the Pharmacotherapy Commission of the German Society for Rheumatology following a systematic literature search (as of 30 April 2013) and a consensus process.

RESULTS

As very little data with sufficiently high evidence are available, the present recommendations should be considered as having an advisory quality and an individual risk assessment should always be carried out. Classical disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), such as methotrexate can be continued in normal cases but whether this is also true for leflunomide is still undecided. For biologicals a break of two half-life periods before the operation is recommended. The therapy can be continued after wound healing has been completed and when there are no signs of infection.

Systemic diseases and biotherapies: understanding, evaluating, and preventing the risk of hepatitis B reactivation

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can occur in chronic carriers of the HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) and constitutes a well-known complication of immunosuppressive therapy. HBV reactivation has also been reported after contact with the HBV. The increasing use of biological agents (TNFα antagonists, rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) to treat systemic diseases has resulted in numerous publications about the risk of HBV reactivation. The relevant scientific societies have issued recommendations designed to prevent HBV reactivation. The main measures consist of screening for markers indicating chronic HBV infection (HBsAg) or HBV infection in the distant past (antibodies to the HBV core antigen) before initiating biological therapies, vaccinating marker-negative patients, and considering close follow-up or antiviral treatment before immunosuppressive treatment initiation or in the event of HBV reactivation. Here, we discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying HBV reactivation during biological treatments, most notably in patients with occult HBV infection or markers for remote HBV infection, whose hepatocyte nuclei may contain a resistance form of HBV DNA known as covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA). Assessment of the risk of reactivation relies on the HBV status, drugs used, and data from the literature. Finally, we discuss the various recommendations and modalities for HBV vaccination, preemptive treatment, and patient management, according to the level of risk and to the circumstances in which reactivation occurs.

Comparison of national clinical practice guidelines and recommendations on vaccination of adult patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases

The aim of the study is to identify and compare national recommendations on vaccination of adult patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) in Europe, North America, and Australia. We conducted a search for recommended immunizations in adult patients with ARDs in the Medline database and the Web sites of National Rheumatologic Societies, Ministries of Health, National Advisory Committees on Immunization, and other relevant National Scientific Societies. We compared national guidelines and identified points of agreement and differences. Guidelines on vaccination of adult patients with ARDs were identified in 21 countries. Points of agreement include administering influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in addition to inactivated age-appropriate or travel-related vaccines, and avoiding the use of live vaccines in immunocompromised patients with ARDs. The most important differences concern the steroid dose that induces immunosuppression, the time interval between live vaccines and the initiation of immunosuppressive treatment, herpes zoster vaccination, and the preferred pneumococcal vaccine in patients with ARDs. We observed significant differences among national recommendations on immunizations in patients with ARDs, reflecting the lack of evidence-based data.