Development of a COVID-19 Vaccine Readiness Kit for Veterans With Rheumatologic Diseases on Immunomodulators

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharat Kumar ◽  
Benjamin Fick ◽  
Lisa Seeman ◽  
Lori Levins ◽  
Benjamin Davis ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Ozge Yilmaz Topal ◽  
Volkan Kose ◽  
Banu Acar ◽  
Umut Selda Bayrakci ◽  
Derya Ozyoruk ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Biological drugs are currently used for the treatment of chronic inflammatory, autoimmune, and neoplastic diseases. With their expanding indication spectrum and increasing use, hypersensitivity reactions to these drugs are also becoming more frequent. The present study aimed to report the incidence and the features of such reactions in pediatric patients using biologicals for the treatment of various diseases. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The medical records of pediatric patients treated with biological agents between October 1, 2011 and August 31, 2019 were reviewed and adverse reactions were evaluated retrospectively. <b><i>Results:</i></b> During the study period, 211 patients (116 boys, 55%) used 21 different biological drugs for the treatment of various diseases. Their median age at the time of the first treatment was 139.9 (IQR: 92.2–187.8) months. Hematologic-oncologic diseases were the most common indication for biological therapy (97/211; 46.0%), followed by rheumatologic diseases (82/211; 38.9%). Of the 211 patients, 14 (6.64%) experienced reactions to biological drugs. The most common culprit agent was rituximab (57.1%). Most of the patients (85.7%) had a history of reactions either during the infusion or within 1 h after taking the drug. Five patients underwent desensitization to the culprit drug, while 7 other patients continued treatment with a reduced dose/infusion rate or premedication. Also 1 patient continued to take the drug without any additional treatment. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> It was reported that 6.64% of the patients who received biologic drug therapy for various reasons in our hospital had hypersensitivity. The most common culprit agent was rituximab, and most of the reactions were immediate reactions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1449.2-1450
Author(s):  
A. Sarapulova ◽  
O. Teplyakova

Background:2020 year has become a landmark for the medical care system around the world. A huge number of patients and doctors were involved in the fight against an unknown and rapidly spreading infection, while many patients with chronic diseases or those who were just planning to see a doctor were left without this opportunity. The consequence was the active development of the online format of patient-doctor communication.Objectives:To determine the value of conducting schools for patients with rheumatologic diseases or related complaints in a pandemic.Methods:On the basis of the Clinical Rheumatology Center of the Medical Association “New Hospital”, online schools were organized for patients with rheumatological diseases and complaints. In just 3 months, 6 schools were held, in which 299 people took part. At the end of each session, patients were asked to answer questions about the level of satisfaction and the value of the information received. The survey was conducted in Google form.Results:about 80% of the responders lived in the region where the schools were held, 20% were from other regions of Russia or other countries. One third of patients (33.9%) were 31-40 years old, a quarter (25%) were 51-60 years old, and every fifth (19.6) was from 61 to 70 years old. The overwhelming majority (61.1%) learned about the training from employees’ announcements or on the website of a medical organization. Interestingly, almost a third of the participants (31.9%) listened to the lecture to “prevent problems in the future” or “for general development,” the rest either get sick themselves or have relatives with these problems. The significance and usefulness of the school on a scale from 0 to 10 points was assessed by 75% participants at 10 points, another 21% from 7 to 9 points, and for 1 participant - by 3 and 4 points. When answering the question: “Will something change in the understanding of your disease or further managing after today’s lesson?” most of the listeners answered that “they are planning to change their lifestyle” (55.4%), a little less - “understands that you need to come to an in-person appointment” (27.4%), “listened due to problems with relatives” (30.4%) and “understands that it is necessary to adjust the treatment” (23.2%). 87.5% of the responders rated the degree of interest with which the teacher led the school at 10 points; all 100% of participants expressed a desire to attend the following events. When comparing the school with television programs or other similar events, 83.9% of people noted a higher level of information importance and 87.5% of accessibility of its presentation. All responders with a high probability were ready to recommend schools to another people (85.7% for 10 points), trust the doctor conducting such schools (94.6% for 10 points) and would turn to this doctor if possible (87.5% for 10 points). Also, all participants actively answered the question about the desired topic of future schools.Conclusion:the conducted evaluation of the online format of schools for patients with rheumatic diseases or complaints has confirmed the high satisfaction of patients with this form of communication, the presence of a certain “request” for such format, clarity and accessibility of the transmitted information. The most important result of the training can be considered the readiness of patients to change their lifestyle and the understanding that it is necessary to observe or consult a doctor.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


Radiographics ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 2026-2048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihra S. Taljanovic ◽  
David M. Melville ◽  
Lana H. Gimber ◽  
Luke R. Scalcione ◽  
Margaret D. Miller ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.210257
Author(s):  
Amir M. Mohareb ◽  
Naomi J. Patel ◽  
Xiaoqing Fu ◽  
Arthur Y. Kim ◽  
Zachary S. Wallace ◽  
...  

Objective Hepatitis B virus (HBV) can reactivate among rheumatology patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib. HBV screening is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Canadian Rheumatology Association but is not explicitly recommended by the American College of Rheumatology. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to characterize HBV screening practices for adult rheumatology patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib before December 31, 2018, in the Greater Boston area. We classified appropriate HBV screening patterns prior to tocilizumab or tofacitinib (i.e., HBV surface antigen [HBsAg], total core antibody [anti- HBcAb], and surface antibody [HBsAb]) as: complete (all 3 tested), partial (any 1 or 2 tests), or none. We determined the frequency of inappropriate HBV testing (HBeAg, anti-HBcAb IgM, or HBV DNA without a positive HBsAg or total anti-HBcAb) and used multivariable regression to assess factors associated with complete HBV screening. Results Among 678 subjects initiating tocilizumab, 194 (29%) completed appropriate HBV screening, 307 (45%) had partial screening, and 177 (26%) had none. Among 391 subjects initiating tofacitinib, 94 (24%) completed appropriate HBV screening, 195 (50%) had partial screening, and 102 (26%) had none. Inappropriate testing was performed in 22% of subjects. Race was associated with complete HBV screening (white versus non-white, OR 0.74; 95%CI: 0.57-0.95) while prior immunosuppression was not (csDMARDs, OR 1.05, 95%CI: 0.72-1.55; bDMARDs, OR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.48- 1.12). Conclusion Patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib are infrequently screened for HBV despite recommendations from AASLD and CDC.


Author(s):  
Kittiwan Sumethkul ◽  
Indhira Urailert ◽  
Tassanee Kitumnuaypong ◽  
Sungchai Angthararak ◽  
Sukhum Silpa-archa

1997 ◽  
pp. 449-479
Author(s):  
Leif B. Sorensen ◽  
Joy M. Blair

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 323-323
Author(s):  
Madlen Jentzsch ◽  
Marius Bill ◽  
Juliane Grimm ◽  
Dominic Brauer ◽  
Julia Schulz ◽  
...  

Introduction: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) developing secondary after other hematologic diseases, or therapy related after cytotoxic treatment for solid tumors or rheumatologic diseases (s/tAML) is clinically, genetically & prognostically distinct from de novo diseases. Data indicate that s/tAML patients (pts) have inferior outcome compared to de novo cases after chemotherapy & therefore often require consolidation therapy using allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Leukemic stem cells (LSC) initiate & maintain AML. They are also believed to exist within the CD34+/CD38- &/or high GPR56 expressing bone marrow (BM) population, which have been shown to impact adversely on outcome. The prognostic impact of LSC markers in de novovs s/tAML after HSCT with non-myeloablative conditioning intensity - where the therapeutic approach also relies on immunological graft-versus-leukemia effects - is unknown. Methods: We analyzed 379 AML pts who received an allogeneic peripheral blood HSCT in complete remission (CR, 82%) or CR with incomplete peripheral recovery (CRi, 18%) between 1999 & 2018 after non-myeloablative (3x30 mg/m2 Fludarabine & 2 Gy total body irradiation) conditioning. At diagnosis, cytogenetic & flow cytometric analyses were performed centrally. For pts with pre-treatment BM available the mutation status of CEBPA, NPM1 & presence of FLT3-ITD by fragment analyses as well as expression levels of GPR56 by qPCR were assessed. Using a next-generation targeted amplicon sequencing approach we analyzed a panel comprising 54 recurrently mutated (mut) genes in myeloid malignancies on the MiSeq platform (Illumina). Median follow up after HSCT was 3.7 years. Results: 229 pts (60%) had de novo & 150 pts (40%) had AML secondary to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS, n=82), myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN, n=22) or MDS/MPN (n=10), or therapy related after Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=9), solid tumors (n=25) or rheumatologic diseases (n=2). At diagnosis, s/tAML pts had lower white blood counts (P=.03), lower blasts in BM (P&lt;.001) or blood (P=.007) & a higher BM CD34+/CD38- cell burden (P=.01) & GPR56 expression (P=.04). They also had worse European LeukemiaNet risk (P=.007), were less likely to have a normal karyotype by trend (P=.06), to have a core binding factor AML (P=.02), to be NPM1mut (P=.003), DNMT3Amut (P=.03) & to harbor a FLT3-ITD (P=.002) but more likely to be JAK2mut (P&lt;.001). Comparing pts with s/tAML vsde novo AML, there was no significant different cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, P=.85) or overall survival (OS, P=.29). Next, we evaluated the prognostic impact of the LSC-associated populations in pts with de novo or s/tAML separately. In pts with de novo AML, we observed a significantly higher CIR & shorter OS for pts harboring a high CD34+/CD38- cell burden (high vs low, 6% cut, P=.006 [Fig. 1A] & P=.003) & a higher CIR but not significantly different OS for pts with a low GPR56 expression (high vs low, median cut, P=.03 [Fig. 1B] & P=.95). Combining both parameters, we observed a stepwise higher CIR & shorter OS for pts with low expression of both variables vs pts with a low CD34+/CD38- cell burden but high GPR56 expression vs pts with a high CD34+/CD38-cell burden (P=.003 [Fig. 1C] & P=.05). In contrast, in pts with s/tAML, there was no prognostic significance of the CD34+/CD38- cell burden (CIR P=.38 [Fig. 1D] & OS P=.95), the GPR56 expression (CIR P=.64 [Fig. 1E] & OS P=.82) & both markers combined (CIR P=.57 [Fig. 1F] & OS P=.98). Also in multivariate analyses, the combination of both markers significantly impacted CIR (Hazard ratio 2.49, P&lt;.001 after adjustment for donor type) & was the only significant factor for OS (Odds Ratio 0.68, P=.04) in de novo AML but not in s/tAML. Conclusion: While there was no significantly different CIR or OS in s/tAML compared to de novo AML pts undergoing non-myeloablative HSCT we observed a significant impact on outcome for the known LSC-associated prognosticators CD34+/CD38- cell burden & GPR56 expression levels at diagnosis only in de novo AML pts. Different underlying disease biology & possibly different LSC-associated populations may be relevant for disease reoccurrence in s/tAML. Figure Disclosures Jentzsch: Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Niederwieser:Daichii: Speakers Bureau; Cellectis: Consultancy. Platzbecker:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Schwind:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document