Follow-up testing of interferon-gamma release assays are useful in ankylosing spondylitis patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha for latent tuberculosis infection

2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Objectives

To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).

Methods

An international Task Force (TF) (22 members/15 countries) formulated recommendations, supported by systematic literature review findings. Level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned for each recommendation. Level of agreement was provided anonymously by each TF member.

Results

Four overarching principles (OAP) and eight recommendations were developed. The OAPs highlight the need for infections to be discussed with patients and with other medical specialties, in accordance with national regulations. In addition to biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for which screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) should be performed, screening could be considered also before conventional synthetic DMARDs, glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. Interferon gamma release assay should be preferred over tuberculin skin test, where available. Hepatitis B (HBV) antiviral treatment should be guided by HBV status defined prior to starting antirheumatic drugs. All patients positive for hepatitis-C-RNA should be referred for antiviral treatment. Also, patients who are non-immune to varicella zoster virus should be informed about the availability of postexposure prophylaxis should they have contact with this pathogen. Prophylaxis againstPneumocystis jiroveciiseems to be beneficial in patients treated with daily doses >15–30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent for >2–4 weeks.

Conclusions

These recommendations provide guidance on the screening and prevention of chronic and opportunistic infections. Their adoption in clinical practice is recommended to standardise and optimise care to reduce the burden of opportunistic infections in people living with AIIRD.

Systematic literature review informing the 2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).

METHODS

SLR (inception-12/2021) based on the following search domains: (1) infectious agents, (2) AIIRD, (3) immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, (4) screening terms and (5) prophylaxis terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from (1) AND (2) AND (3) plus terms from (4) OR(5). Databases searched: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies on postoperative infections, paediatric AIIRD, COVID-19, vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.

RESULTS

From 5641 studies were retrieved, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 194 articles finally included. For tuberculosis, tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. For hepatitis B virus (HBV): risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. Anti-HBcore positive patients are at low risk for reactivation but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and/or HBV-viral load. Risk for Hepatitis C reactivation is existing but low in patients treated with biological DMARDs. For Pneumocystis jirovecii, prophylaxis treatment should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone ≥15-30 mg/day for >2-4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics.

Risk of Tuberculosis Development in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Targeted Therapy: a Prospective Single Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing targeted therapy have a higher risk of developing tuberculosis (TB). This requires diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). We aimed to evaluate whether diagnosis and treatment of LTBI in RA are effective in Korea, and to estimate the risk of TB development by calculating the incidence rate of active TB among RA patients receiving targeted therapy.

METHODS

We analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of RA patients who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor. We selected new starters of targeted therapy and classified them into three groups receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, non-TNF inhibitor, and JAK inhibitor, respectively. We then compared LTBI prevalence, treatments, and active TB incidence during first-line therapy in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 765 RA patients (574 TNF inhibitor users, 132 non-TNF inhibitor users, and 59 JAK inhibitor users) were included in this study. Observation periods were 1,255.2 person-years (PYs), 264.7 PYs, and 53.3 PYs, respectively. All 765 patients underwent LTBI screening, and the positivity rate was 26.5% (n = 203). Of the 203 LTBI-positive patients, 189 (93.1%) received treatment. Only one patient, who was in the TNF inhibitor group, and was negative for the interferon gamma release assay (IGRA), did not receive LTBI treatment and developed active TB during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Although the prevalence of LTBI in RA patients who started targeted therapy was slightly elevated, the Korean guidelines specifying LTBI screening and treatment were effective in preventing latent TB from becoming active.

Conversion and Reversion Rates of Tuberculosis Screening Assays in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases and Negative Baseline Screening Under Long-Term Biologic Treatment

Background:

To determine the conversion and reversion rates of tuberculosis (TB) screening tests (Tuberculin Skin Test-TST, Interferon Gamma Release Assay-IGRA: T-SPOT.TB) during biologic treatment in patients with rheumatic diseases and negative baseline screening.

Methods:

This was a long-term, longitudinal cohort study of 50 patients with rheumatic diseases and negative baseline TB screening (TST: < 5 mm, negative T-SPOT.TB) treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi biologics. Patients were rescreened at a mean time of 1.4 (first rescreening) and 6.9 (second rescreening) years from baseline, with both assays. The conversion (negative to positive) and reversion (positive to negative) rate was calculated for each TB screening test.

Results:

Fifty patients (mean age = 60 years) with various rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis: n = 24, spondyloarthropathies: n = 23, other: n = 3) were enrolled. During the first phase (baseline to first rescreening), all patients were treated with TNFi while during the second phase (first to second rescreening), TNFi (54%) and non-TNFi (46%) were used. Fifteen patients (30%) displayed conversion of at least 1 screening assay during follow-up (10 at the first and 5 at the second rescreening). This conversion rate was higher with TST (n = 11, 22% or 3.47/100 patient-years) compared to T-SPOT.TB (n = 4, 8% or 1.74/100 patient-years). Among the 10 converters at the first rescreening, 5 received isoniazid (INH) preventive therapy and 5 did not; an equal number of patients (3/5, 60%) reverted to negative with or without INH therapy. None of the patients developed active TB during follow-up (6.9 ± 1.0 years).

Conclusions:

Approximately one-third of patients with rheumatic diseases and negative baseline TB screening developed conversion of at least 1 screening test during long-term biologic treatment. This occurred most often with TST and was usually a transient event. These findings do not support routine serial TB retesting in biologic-treated patients with rheumatic diseases in the absence of TB risk factors.

Positive conversion of interferon-γ release assay in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with biologics

The objective of this study is to investigate whether the type of biologics (TNFi or others) or type of rheumatic diseases (RA or AS) influence the conversion rate of initially negative tuberculosis (TB) screening test results. A total of 119 patients with RA or AS who had negative baseline interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) results assessed by QuantiFERON-TB Gold in tube (QTF-GIT) were included. All patients received biologic agents, and rescreening with QTF-GIT was performed after a median of 25.9 months from the baseline test. Clinical characteristics and IFN-γ levels were compared between converters and non-converters. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with positive conversion. IGRA conversion was found in 14 of 119 patients (11.8%). The converters were older (53.4 ± 14.2 vs 44.4 ± 15.5 years, p = 0.040), had higher baseline TB-specific IFN-γ responses (0.105 [0.018-0.205] vs 0.010 [0.000-0.035] IU/ml, p = 0.001) and higher incidence of active TB (14.3% vs 0.0%, p = 0.013). The number of patients with RA or AS was 9 (64.3%) or 5 (35.7%) in converters, and 45 (42.9%) or 60 (57.1%) in non-converters. In terms of use of biologics, TNFi of monoclonal antibody form was less commonly used in the converters (p = 0.024). In the logistic regression analysis, type of disease and type of biologics used were not associated with IGRA conversion, whereas baseline TB-specific IFN-γ response was significantly associated with IGRA conversion (OR 1.083, 95% CI 1.019-1.151, p = 0.011). Serial monitoring of LTBI with IGRA retesting is needed during biologic treatment, regardless of the type of rheumatic diseases or type biologics used.

Preventive therapy for tuberculosis in rheumatological patients undergoing therapy with biological drugs

INTRODUCTION

Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) accounts for almost a quarter of the world population, and, in 5-10% of the subjects with impaired immune-response against M. tuberculosis growth, it may progress to active tuberculosis (TB). In this review, we focus on the need to propose a screening for LTBI including preventive therapy offer in rheumatic patients undergoing therapy with biological drugs. Areas covered: We report on evidence that biologics are associated with an increased risk of active TB reactivation. This effect seems to be mainly limited to treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, while non-anti-TNF-targeted biologics are not likely associated to any increased risk. We introduce the concept that the patients' coexisting host-related risk factors, such as comorbidities, are crucial to identify those at higher risk to reactivate TB. We report that preventive TB therapy is well tolerated in patients treated with biological drugs. Expert commentary: Availability of non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, that are not associated with an increased risk of TB reactivation, offers a great opportunity to tailor a therapeutic intervention at low/absent TB risk. After proper LTBI screening investigations, preventive TB therapy has been demonstrated to be effective and well-tolerated to reduce the risk of TB reactivation in rheumatic patients requiring biological drugs.

Detecting latent tuberculosis in compromised patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The detection of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in different categories of compromised patients is reviewed with focus on the role of strategies incorporating immunodiagnostic tests and analysis of epidemiological and clinical risk factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

The development of active tuberculosis (TB) is increased in compromised patients and is closely related to determinants for disease reactivation or newly acquired TB infection. A targeted detection of LTBI in these high-risk groups should be performed especially if preventive treatment is planned. The performance of immunodiagnostic tests is highly variable among different groups of immunocompromised individuals. Findings of cross-sectional studies indicate a better diagnostic accuracy of interferon-γ release assays over the tuberculin skin test. The critical issue is that in low-incidence countries, the positive and negative predictive values of any of immunodiagnostic tests were very poor. A targeted testing process involving analysis of TB risk factors increases the predictive positive values of immunodiagnostic tests and may improve LTBI detection.

SUMMARY

The LTBI detection in immunocompromised patients is a challenge. The development of new immunological biomarkers and integrated clinical and epidemiological strategies are needed to identify LTBI in compromised individuals and to plan preventive chemotherapies in those at risk of developing active TB.

The Significance of Sensitive Interferon Gamma Release Assays for Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Patients Receiving Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Antagonist Therapy

OBJECTIVE

We compared two interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs), QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB, for diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in patients before and while receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonist therapy. This study evaluated the significance of sensitive IGRAs for LTBI screening and monitoring.

METHODS

Before starting TNF-α antagonist therapy, 156 consecutive patients with rheumatic diseases were screened for LTBI using QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB tests. According to our study protocol, QFT-GIT-positive patients received LTBI treatment. Patients positive by any IGRAs were subjected to follow-up IGRA tests after completing LTBI-treatment and/or during TNF-α antagonist therapy.

RESULTS

At the initial LTBI screening, 45 (28.9%) and 70 (44.9%) patients were positive by QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB, respectively. The agreement rate between IGRA results was 78.8% (k = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.43 to 0.68). Of 29 patients who were positive only by T-SPOT.TB in the initial screening, 83% (19/23) were persistently positive by T-SPOT.TB, while QFT-GIT testing showed that 36% (9/25) had conversion during TNF-α antagonist therapy. By the end of the follow-up period (218 to 1,264 days), four patients (4/137, 2.9%) developed active tuberculosis (TB) diseases during receiving TNF-α antagonist therapy. Among them, one was Q-T+, one was Q+T-, and the remaining two were Q-T- at the initial screening (Q, QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube; T, T-SPOT.TB; +, positive; -, negative). Two (2/4, 50%) patients with TB reactivation had at least one prior risk factor consistent with previous TB infection.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the need to capitalize on sensitive IGRAs to monitor for LTBI in at-risk patients for a more sensitive diagnosis in countries with an intermediate TB burden.

QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube assay for screening arthritis patients for latent tuberculosis infection before starting anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment

Background

Patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) treatment are at an increased risk of reactivating a latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). This study evaluated the effectiveness of the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT) assay for diagnosing LTBI in arthritis patients undergoing anti-TNF treatment.

Methods

We enrolled 342 consecutive patients from August 2007 to October 2013: 176 (51.5%) patients with ankylosing spondylitis and 166 (48.5%) with rheumatoid arthritis. Screening tests included tuberculin skin test (TST) and QFT assay. Positive QFT results, regardless of TST results, were considered an indicator for LTBI treatment.

Results

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin scars were found in 236 (69.0%) patients. Of 342 patients, TST and QFT were positive in 122 (35.7%) and 103 (30.1%) patients, respectively, and discordant in 101 (29.5%) patients. During a median follow-up duration of 41.7 months, five patients (1.5%) developed TB in a median of 20.8 months after initiation of anti-TNF treatment (428/100,000 person-years). TB did not occur in 62 TST+/QFT+ patients who received LTBI treatment. Of 41 TST−/QFT+ patients who received LTBI treatment, one (2.4%) developed TB 20.5 months after starting anti-TNF treatment (705/100,000 person-years). Of 60 TST+/QFT− patients who did not receive LTBI treatment, two (3.3%) developed TB 20.8 and 22.0 months after starting anti-TNF treatment (871/100,000 person-years). Of 179 TST−/QFT− patients, two (1.1%) developed TB 7.2 and 22.7 months, respectively, after initiating anti-TNF treatment (341/100,000 person-years). TB incidence rate during the follow-up period did not differ among TST−/QFT+, TST+/QFT−, and TST−/QFT− patients (P = 0.661).

Conclusion

QFT might be used instead of TST for diagnosing LTBI in patients before starting anti-TNF therapy in countries, such as Korea, where the TB prevalence is intermediate and the BCG vaccination is mandatory at birth. In the absence of a true gold standard test for LTBI, however, there is still a risk of TB development during anti-TNF treatment.