Search

ObjectiveTo provide the initial installment of a living guideline that will provide up-to-date guidance on the pharmacological management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada.MethodsThe Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel composed of rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, and patients. In this first installment of our living guideline, the panel developed a recommendation for the tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) therapy in patients in sustained remission using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, including a health equity framework developed for the Canadian RA population. The recommendation was adapted from a living guideline of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network.ResultsIn people with RA who are in sustained low disease activity or remission for at least 6 months, we suggest offering stepwise reduction in the dose of b/tsDMARD without discontinuation, in the context of a shared decision, provided patients are able to rapidly access rheumatology care and reestablish their medications if needed. In patients where rapid access to care or reestablishing access to medications is challenging, we conditionally recommend against tapering. A patient decision aid was developed to complement the recommendation.ConclusionThis living guideline will provide contemporary RA management recommendations for Canadian practice. New recommendations will be added over time and updated, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and Evidence to Decision summaries available through the CRA website (www.rheum.ca).

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.

Limited data are available on the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases (PAD). Retrospective study of patients with PAD referred for rheumatologic evaluation prior to starting or during immunotherapy between January 2013 and July 2019 from 10 academic sites across Canada. Data were extracted by chart review using a standardized form. Twenty-seven patients with PAD on ICI therapy were identified. The most common PADs were rheumatoid arthritis (30%), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (30%), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD, 15%) and axial spondyloarthritis (11%), and the most frequently observed cancers were lung cancer and melanoma. All patients received anti-PD-1 therapies, and 2 received additional sequential anti-CTLA-4 therapy. PAD exacerbations occurred in 52% over a median (IQR) follow-up of 11.0 (6.0–17.5) months, with 14% being severe, 57% requiring corticosteroids, 50% requiring immunosuppression and 14% requiring ICI discontinuation. Flares were generally more frequent and severe in patients who previously required more intensive immunosuppression (i.e., biologics). Flares occurred despite background immunosuppression at the time of ICI initiation. In patients with preexisting psoriasis, IBD and axial spondyloarthritis, rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAEs), mostly polyarthritis and tenosynovitis, were frequently observed. Tumor progression was not associated with exposure to immunosuppressive drugs before or after ICI initiation and was numerically less frequent in patients with irAEs. PAD exacerbations in the context of ICI treatment are common, although generally mild, and occur despite background immunosuppression. Exacerbations are more frequent and severe in patients on more intensive immunosuppressive therapies pre-immunotherapy.

This Policy Brief draws on the public IGF participation lists from 2006 to 2019 in which we analysed how individual participants chose to identify their stakeholder categories. We subsequently analyse the data to address the following questions: 1. How have stakeholders identified themselves in comparison to their allocation in the internet governance stakeholder framework, and where do the discrepancies lie? 2. Have individuals maintained their roles during different editions of the IGF? 3. Have stakeholders moved between stakeholder groups? Addressing these questions will give us the means to open up a space for critical reflection on the multistakeholder model at the IGF.

Background Video review processes for evaluation and coaching are often incorporated into medical education as a means to accurately capture physician-patient interactions. Compared to direct observation they offer the advantage of overcoming many logistical challenges. However, the suitability and viability of using video-based peer consultations for professional development requires further investigation. This study aims to explore the acceptability and feasibility of video-based peer feedback to support professional development and quality improvement in patient care. Methods Five rheumatologists each provided four videos of patient consultations. Peers evaluated the videos using five-point scales, providing annotations in the video recordings, and offering recommendations. The rheumatologists reviewed the videos of their own four patient interactions along with the feedback. They were asked to document if they would make practice changes based on the feedback. Focus groups were conducted and analysed to explore the effectiveness of video-based peer feedback in assisting physicians to improve clinical practice. Results Participants felt the video-based feedback provided accurate and detailed information in a more convenient, less intrusive manner than direct observation. Observations made through video review enabled participants to evaluate more detailed information than a chart review alone. Participants believed that reviewing recorded consultations allowed them to reflect on their practice and gain insight into alternative communication methods. Conclusions Video-based peer feedback and self-review of clinical performance is an acceptable and pragmatic approach to support professional development and improve clinical care among peer clinicians. Further investigation into the effectiveness of this approach is needed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic melanoma and are increasingly used in many other advanced stage malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors enhance the endogenous anti-tumor response by inhibiting key regulatory pathways, facilitating robust anti-tumor responses, but often inducing a host of autoimmune toxicities which span multiple organ systems and are referred to as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Here, we answer common questions rheumatologists may encounter in the management of these patients, including those with pre-existing autoimmune and rheumatic disease. Rheumatic irAEs including inflammatory arthritis, myositis, vasculitis, and sarcoidosis represent unique challenges for oncologists and rheumatologists in both the recognition and management of these entities. There are increasing numbers of case series and retrospective cohort studies describing the clinical and serological presentations and outcomes of patients who have developed rheumatic irAE. While in many ways similar to well established rheumatic diseases, the rheumatic irAE also appear to be different clinically, serologically, and in their response to treatment. There is also a growing body of literature on the use of ICI in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. While previously excluded from ICI clinical trials, the current literature would suggest that having a pre-existing autoimmune disease should not be an absolute contraindication to ICI therapy. Prompt diagnosis and treatment initiation is essential to improve patient outcomes and optimize cancer therapy. Guidelines have been developed to guide treating rheumatologists and oncologists; however, important questions remain unanswered with the majority of guidelines based on expert consensus.

Background Immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a systemic lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by elevated serum IgG4 levels and tumefactive lesions that can involve nearly every organ system. Involvement of the prostate is rare but has been reported in limited cases. Case presentation A 28-year-old man of Asian descent with a history of sinusitis and priapism presented to hospital with rigors and voiding symptoms. He was diagnosed with IgG4-RD one month prior to presentation, following pathological analysis of a submandibular mass that demonstrated chronic sclerosing sialadenitis. On presentation, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and prostate serum antigen levels were all within normal limits. Examination was notable for a large, firm prostate, and a foley catheter was inserted. Contrast CT of the abdomen was unremarkable. Further workup revealed elevated serum IgG4 levels (9.22 g/L) and he was subsequently started on prednisone 35 mg daily. Imaging to screen for systemic IgG4-RD involvement demonstrated paravertebral soft tissue involvement and he was given rituximab 1000 mg IV × 2 doses. MRI revealed diffuse prostatitis. Five days after starting prednisone and one day after his first dose of rituximab, he successfully passed trial of void and was discharged home. Conclusions IgG4-related prostatitis is a rare and underrecognized manifestation of IgG4-RD. Our case highlights the need to consider IgG4-related prostatitis as an etiology of urinary obstruction in young individuals. Resolution of symptoms following treatment with steroids may be diagnostic of IgG4-related prostatitis, and may potentially avoid the need for invasive diagnostic procedures such as prostate biopsy.

Background: There are regional disparities in the distribution of Canadian rheumatologists. The objective of this study was to identify factors impacting rheumatology residents’ postgraduate practice decisions to inform Canadian Rheumatology Association workforce recommendations.Methods: An online survey was developed, and invitations were sent to all current Canadian rheumatology residents in 2019 (n = 67). Differences between subgroups of respondents were examined using the Pearson χ2 test.Results: A total of 34 of 67 residents completed the survey. Seventy-three percent of residents planned to practice in the same province as their rheumatology training. The majority of residents (80%) ranked proximity to friends and family as the most important factor in planning. Half of participants had exposure to alternative modes of care delivery (e.g. telehealth) during their rheumatology training with fifteen completing a community rheumatology elective (44%).Conclusions: The majority of rheumatology residents report plans to practice in the same province as they trained, and close to home. Gaps in training include limited exposure to community electives in smaller centers, and training in telehealth and travelling clinics for underserviced populations. Our findings highlight the need for strategies to increase exposure of rheumatology trainees to underserved areas to help address the maldistribution of rheumatologists., Contexte : Au Canada, il existe des disparités régionales dans la répartition des rhumatologues. La présente étude recense les facteurs qui influencent les choix des résidents en rhumatologie concernant leur lieu d’exercice futur afin de guider les recommandations de Société canadienne de rhumatologie relatives aux effectifs.Méthodes : Après l’élaboration d’un sondage en ligne, une invitation a été envoyée à tous les résidents en rhumatologie au Canada en 2019 (n = 67). Les différences entre les groupes ont été examinées à l’aide du test Pearson χ2.Résultats : Trente-quatre des 67 résidents contactés ont répondu au sondage. Soixante-treize pour cent des répondants prévoyaient d’exercer dans la province où ils avaient fait leur formation en rhumatologie. La majorité des résidents (80 %) ont classé la proximité des amis et de la famille comme le facteur le plus important dans leur choix de lieu d’exercice. La moitié des participants s’étaient familiarisés avec d’autres modes de prestation de soins (par exemple, la télésanté) pendant leur formation en rhumatologie et 15 d’entre eux (44 %) avaient fait un stage en rhumatologie communautaire.Conclusions : La majorité des résidents en rhumatologie déclarent avoir l’intention d’exercer près de chez eux, dans la province où ils ont fait leurs études. Les lacunes dans la formation comportent l’exposition limitée à des stages dans les petits centres en milieu communautaire, en télésanté et dans les cliniques mobiles ciblant les populations mal desservies. Nos conclusions soulignent le besoin de stratégies visant à augmenter l’exposition des résidents en rhumatologie à des zones mal desservies afin de remédier à la mauvaise répartition géographique des rhumatologues.

Objective Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This post hoc analysis evaluated tofacitinib persistence in patients with RA in long‐term extension (LTE) studies up to 9.5 years. Methods Data were pooled from two LTE studies: ORAL Sequel (NCT00413699) and Study A3921041 (NCT00661661). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), as monotherapy or with background conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs. Kaplan‐Meier estimates for tofacitinib drug survival and reasons for discontinuation were evaluated. Baseline factors were analyzed as predictors of persistence. Results In 4967 tofacitinib‐treated patients entering LTE studies, mean (maximum) treatment duration was 3.5 (9.4) years. Median drug survival (95% confidence interval) was 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) years. Estimated 2‐ and 5‐year drug survival rates were 75.5% and 49.4%, respectively. Median drug survival was similar between the tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID groups, and slightly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy versus combination therapy. Overall, 50.7% of patients discontinued tofacitinib; of these, 47.2% were due to adverse events and 7.1% for lack/loss of efficacy. An increased risk of discontinuation was associated with baseline diabetes, hypertension, negative anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti‐CCP), negative rheumatoid factor (RF), and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi‐IR). Conclusion Median drug survival of tofacitinib‐treated patients participating in LTE studies was approximately 5 years and was similar for tofacitinib dosed at 5 and 10 mg BID. Reduced drug survival was associated with negative anti‐CCP/RF status, TNFi‐IR, and certain comorbidities. These data support tofacitinib use for long‐term management of RA.

The use of immunosuppressive therapies for immune-mediated disease (IMD) is associated with an elevated risk of infections and related comorbidities. While many infectious diseases can generally be prevented by vaccines, immunization rates in this specific patient population remain suboptimal, due in part to uncertainty about their efficacy or safety under these clinical situations. To address this concern, a multidisciplinary group of Canadian physicians with expertise in dermatology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases and rheumatology developed evidence-based clinical guidelines on vaccinations featuring 13 statements that are aimed at reducing the risk of preventable infections in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive agents.

Background:Patients with immune-mediated diseases on immunosuppressive therapies have more infectious episodes than healthy individuals, yet vaccination practices by physicians for this patient population remain suboptimal.Objectives:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive therapies and provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations.Methods:A literature search for vaccination safety and efficacy in patients on immunosuppressive therapies (2009-2017) was conducted. Results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.Results:Several immunosuppressive therapies attenuate vaccine response. Thus, vaccines should be administered before treatment whenever feasible. Inactivated vaccines can be administered without treatment discontinuation. Similarly, evidence suggests that the live zoster vaccine is safe and effective while on select immunosuppressive therapy, although use of the subunit vaccine is preferred. Caution regarding other live vaccines is warranted. Drug pharmacokinetics, duration of vaccine-induced viremia, and immune response kinetics should be considered to determine appropriate timing of vaccination and treatment (re)initiation. Infants exposed to immunosuppressive therapies through breastmilk can usually be immunized according to local guidelines. Intrauterine exposure to immunosuppressive agents is not a contraindication for inactivated vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines scheduled for infants and children ⩾12 months of age, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, can be safely administered as sufficient time has elapsed for drug clearance.Conclusions:Immunosuppressive agents may attenuate vaccine responses, but protective benefit is generally maintained. While these recommendations are evidence based, they do not replace clinical judgment, and decisions regarding vaccination must carefully assess the risks, benefits, and circumstances of individual patients.

Introduction This study was conducted to observe patterns of use of the interleukin-6 receptor-alpha inhibitor tocilizumab in routine clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods This was a 12-month noninterventional, observational study in adult patients with RA who initiated tocilizumab in routine practice in Canada according to the local product monograph. The primary end point was the proportion of patients receiving tocilizumab at 6 months. Secondary end points were treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety of tocilizumab over 12 months. Results Of 200 patients who initiated tocilizumab (91.0% at 8 mg/kg), 67 (33.5%) received tocilizumab monotherapy and 133 (66.5%) received tocilizumab combined with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Kaplan–Meier analysis estimated that 85% (95% CI 74–92%) of monotherapy and 89% (95% CI 82–93%) of combination therapy patients continued to receive tocilizumab at 6 months (log-rank p = 0.0888). During the observation period, 12 (17.9%) monotherapy and 27 (20.3%) combination therapy patients withdrew from the study. At month 12, 58.5% in the monotherapy group and 59.3% in the combination therapy group achieved Disease Activity Score at 28 joints remission (≤ 2.6), 25.6% and 24.7% achieved Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (≤ 3.3), and 18.2% and 22.3% achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (≤ 2.8), respectively. Rates of serious adverse events and serious infections were found in 29.6/100 patient-years (PY) and 3.1/100 PY, respectively, for monotherapy and 19.2/100 PY and 4.8/100 PY, respectively, for combination therapy. Conclusions Patients initiating tocilizumab in routine practice had comparable effectiveness and safety outcomes regardless of whether they received tocilizumab as monotherapy or as combination therapy with csDMARDs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01613378 Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche) Canada. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-018-0130-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The prevalence of health scams in Canada is increasing, facilitated by the rise of the Internet. However, little is known about the nature of this phenomena. This study sought to methodically identify and categorise Internet-based Health Scams (IHS) currently active in Canada, creating an initial taxonomy based on systematic Internet searches. A five-step Delphi approach, comprised of a multidisciplinary panel of health professionals from the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada, was used to establish consensus. The resulting taxonomy is the first to characterise the nature of IHS in North America. Five core areas of activity were identified: body image products, medical products, alternative health services, healthy lifestyle products, and diagnostic testing services. IHS purveyors relied on social expectations and psychological persuasion techniques to target consumers. Persuasion techniques included social engagement, claims of miraculous effects, scarcity, and the use of pseudoscientific language. These techniques exploited personality traits of sensation seeking, needing self-control, openness to taking risks, and the preference for uniqueness. The data gathered from the taxonomy allowed the Delphi panel to develop and pilot a simple risk-of-deception tool. This tool is intended to help healthcare professionals educate the public about IHS. It is suggested that, where relevant, healthcare professionals include a general discussion of IHS risks and marketing techniques with clients as a part of health promotion activities.

BackgroundRheumatic and musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are observed in about 10% of patients with cancer receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Given the recent emergence of these events and the lack of guidance for rheumatologists addressing them, a European League Against Rheumatism task force was convened to harmonise expert opinion regarding their identification and management.MethodsFirst, the group formulated research questions for a systematic literature review. Then, based on literature and using a consensus procedure, 4 overarching principles and 10 points to consider were developed.ResultsThe overarching principles defined the role of rheumatologists in the management of irAEs, highlighting the shared decision-making process between patients, oncologists and rheumatologists. The points to consider inform rheumatologists on the wide spectrum of musculoskeletal irAEs, not fulfilling usual classification criteria of rheumatic diseases, and their differential diagnoses. Early referral and facilitated access to rheumatologist are recommended, to document the target organ inflammation. Regarding therapeutic, three treatment escalations were defined: (1) local/systemic glucocorticoids if symptoms are not controlled by symptomatic treatment, then tapered to the lowest efficient dose, (2) conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in case of inadequate response to glucocorticoids or for steroid sparing and (3) biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, for severe or refractory irAEs. A warning has been made on severe myositis, a life-threatening situation, requiring high dose of glucocorticoids and close monitoring. For patients with pre-existing rheumatic disease, baseline immunosuppressive regimen should be kept at the lowest efficient dose before starting immunotherapies.ConclusionThese statements provide guidance on diagnosis and management of rheumatic irAEs and aim to support future international collaborations.

Limited data are available on the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases (PAD).Retrospective study of patients with PAD referred for rheumatologic evaluation prior to starting or during immunotherapy between January 2013 and July 2019 from 10 academic sites across Canada. Data were extracted by chart review using a standardized form.Twenty-seven patients with PAD on ICI therapy were identified. The most common PADs were rheumatoid arthritis (30%), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (30%), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD, 15%) and axial spondyloarthritis (11%), and the most frequently observed cancers were lung cancer and melanoma. All patients received anti-PD-1 therapies, and 2 received additional sequential anti-CTLA-4 therapy. PAD exacerbations occurred in 52% over a median (IQR) follow-up of 11.0 (6.0-17.5) months, with 14% being severe, 57% requiring corticosteroids, 50% requiring immunosuppression and 14% requiring ICI discontinuation. Flares were generally more frequent and severe in patients who previously required more intensive immunosuppression (i.e., biologics). Flares occurred despite background immunosuppression at the time of ICI initiation. In patients with preexisting psoriasis, IBD and axial spondyloarthritis, rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAEs), mostly polyarthritis and tenosynovitis, were frequently observed. Tumor progression was not associated with exposure to immunosuppressive drugs before or after ICI initiation and was numerically less frequent in patients with irAEs.PAD exacerbations in the context of ICI treatment are common, although generally mild, and occur despite background immunosuppression. Exacerbations are more frequent and severe in patients on more intensive immunosuppressive therapies pre-immunotherapy.

Objective Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized cancer therapy, their use is associated with immune toxicities referred to as immune-related adverse events (irAE). Here we describe the clinical presentation and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events (Rh-irAE) in a national multi-center cohort. Methods All patients presenting with Rh-irAE at 9 academic sites across Canada between January 2013 and January 2019 were identified and included in this retrospective cohort study. Standardized data were extracted by chart review. Results 117 patients who developed 136 Rh-irAE were identified. The most frequent Rh-irAE was symmetric polyarthritis (n = 45). Other Rh-irAE included non-inflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms (n = 18), polymyalgia rheumatica (n = 17) and myositis (n = 9). Prednisone was the most commonly used treatment (n = 76) with a mean maximum dose of 60 ± 74 mg/d and duration of treatment of 8.4 ± 11 months. Forty-two patients required conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) and two required biologic DMARD to control the Rh-irAE. ICI was discontinued due to the Rh-irAE in 22 patients. There were no deaths related to Rh-irAE. Treatment of the Rh-irAE did not appear to negatively impact the tumor response to immunotherapy with 23 patients experiencing tumor progression prior to treatment of the Rh-irAE and 13 following treatment. Conclusion In this largest multi-center cohort of Rh-irAE described to date, symmetric polyarthritis was the most common Rh-irAE. There was considerable heterogeneity of treatment, although this did not appear to negatively impact the anti-tumor response. This study can inform the development of evidence-based recommendations to optimize Rh-irAE and cancer outcomes in patients treated with ICI.

OBJECTIVE Obesity is implicated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development, severity, outcomes, and treatment response. We estimated the independent effects of overweight and obesity on ability to achieve sustained remission (sREM) in the 3 years following RA diagnosis. METHODS Data were from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a multicenter observational trial of early RA patients treated by rheumatologists using guideline-based care. sREM was defined as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)

Isolated pulmonary capillaritis (IPC) is a rare autoimmune cause of diffuse alveolar haemorrhage (DAH), diagnosed by histopathological evidence of lung capillaritis in the absence of system...

Summary: Data suggest that interleukin (IL)-6 blockade could reduce mortality in severe COVID-19, yet IL-6 is only modestly elevated in most patients. Chen et al. describe the role of soluble interleukin-6 receptor (sIL-6R) in IL-6 trans-signaling and how understanding the IL-6:sIL-6R axis might help define and treat COVID-19 cytokine storm syndrome.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer therapy by blocking inhibitory pathways of the immune system to fight cancer cells. Their use is often limited by the development of autoimmune toxicities, which can affect multiple organ systems and are referred to as immune-related adverse events (irAE). Among these are rheumatologic irAE, including inflammatory arthritis, myositis, vasculitis, and others. Rheumatologic irAE seem to be different from irAE in other organs and from traditional autoimmune diseases in that they can occur early or have delayed onset, and can persist chronically, even after cancer therapy is terminated. Because immune checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly used for many types of cancer, it is important for oncologists and rheumatologists to recognize and manage toxicities early. In this review, we discuss currently approved immune checkpoint inhibitors and their mechanisms of action and systemic toxicities, with a focus on the management and effect on further cancer therapy of rheumatic irAE.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. However, enhanced immune activation from ICI has been associated with immune-related adverse events (irAE), including autoimmune rheumatologic diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, spondyloarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica-like syndrome and inflammatory myositis, among many others. This emerging field represents a challenge given that experience with these conditions is limited and evidence-based recommendations do not yet exist. Objectives The Canadian Research Group of Rheumatology in Immuno-Oncology (CanRIO) is an emerging network of rheumatologists interested in rheumatic irAE (rh-irAE). CanRIO undertook a needs assessment survey to understand the need for education and recommendations for the management of rh-irAE in the rheumatology community in Canada. The primary objective was to recognize the knowledge gaps, if any, and understand current patterns of practice in this newly emerging area. Methods A 25-item electronic survey was developed by the CanRIO investigators. The survey, which was available in both French and English, was distributed via electronic mail to 574 members of the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA). Responses were collected over a period of 14 days. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results Of the 574 CRA members who were invited to participate, 83 responded (response rate of 14.5%). Half of the respondents were adult rheumatologists from academic centres and 25% from the community. Over 25% of the respondents were not familiar with ICI and irAE. Half of the respondents had not seen or managed patients with irAE, and among the remaining, the majority had seen less than 5 patients with irAE. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common rh-irAE encountered. Other rh-irAE included sicca, myositis, sarcoid and vasculitis. Prednisone and methotrexate were the most common treatment strategies. Almost half of the respondents (43.6%) had been asked for advice from oncologists regarding discontinuation of ICI for irAE, and of these, almost half (48.7%) reported that they were either ‘slightly confident’ or ‘not confident at all’ in providing advice. Over half of the respondents had not yet been asked to provide advice concerning ICI for patients with pre-existing auto-immune diseases. The vast majority (87.2%) agreed that there was a need for clinical practice guidelines for the management of rh-irAE. Conclusion The survey highlighted the important knowledge gaps in the emerging field of rh-irAE. Given the increasing use of ICI in a growing number of cancer types and stages, referrals for rh-irAE are likely to increase. There is strong rationale to develop educational programs and clinical practice guidelines to support Canadian rheumatologists who will be increasingly responsible for managing rh-irAE. Reference [1] Ye, Carrie; Jamal, Shahin; Hudson, Marie. CRAJ 2018. Volume 28, Number 3, pages 24-25. “Rheumatic Immune-related Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer: Coming Soon to a Clinic Near You!” Disclosure of Interests Ahmad Abdullah: None declared, Nancy Maltez: None declared, Marie Hudson Grant/research support from: Unrestricted research funds from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aurore Fifi-Mah Grant/research support from: Roche, Abbvie, Janssen, BMS, Speakers bureau: Roche, Abbvie, Janssen, BMS, Pfizer, Shahin Jamal Consultant for: Consultant for Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Merck, UCB

Background Rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are increasingly recognized musculoskeletal manifestations in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint targeted immunotherapy (1). Since they represent a spectrum of new clinical entities and a robust evidence base is lacking, a task force was convened to harmonize expert consensus regarding their identification and management due to the lack of dedicated clinical trials. Objectives To develop EULAR recommendations for the diagnosis and the management of rheumatic irAEs due to cancer immunotherapy, based on literature and expert opinion. Methods Recommendations were developed according to the 2014 EULAR Standard Operating Procedures. The task force consisted of 19 clinical experts from Europe and North America (14 rheumatologists, 2 internists and 3 oncologists), 1 clinical epidemiologist, 1 allied health professional and 2 patient representatives. During the first meeting, the group defined the focus of the task force, the target population, and formulated research questions. A systematic literature research was performed by one fellow (MK) with the help of a librarian. Based on available evidence and using a consensus procedure, recommendations were developed during a second meeting. The level of agreement was determined by an anonymous voting process. Results 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations were developed. The overarching principles define the role of rheumatologists and highlight the shared decision-making process between patients, oncologists and rheumatologists. One recommendation addresses the referral process, two address the diagnosis, and five address the therapeutic strategy of cancer patients experiencing rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and systemic signs or symptoms while receiving immunotherapy. An additional recommendation was included to address pre-existing rheumatic conditions and the last focuses on the diagnostic approach before immunotherapy. Conclusion These recommendations provide the basis of a EULAR consensus on the diagnosis and the management of rheumatic irAEs. Reference [1] Calabrese LH, Calabrese C, Cappelli LC. Rheumatic immune-related adverse events from cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2018 Oct;14(10):569-579. Disclosure of Interests Marie Kostine: None declared, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer Inc, Consultant for: AbbVie, A2Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Pfizer Inc, and UCB, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: BMS, Consultant for: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Karen Visser: None declared, Jan Leipe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer; Scientific Support: Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Hospira, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant for: Abbvie, Actelion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen International, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, GSK, Hospira, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, MSD, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Hexal Sandoz, Sanofi, Roche, UCB, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Actelion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen International, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, GSK, Hospira, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, MSD, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Hexal Sandoz, Sanofi, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Actelion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen International, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, GSK, Hospira, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, MSD, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Hexal Sandoz, Sanofi, Roche, UCB, Ernest Choy Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bio-Cancer, Chugai Pharma, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Novimmune, Pfizer, Roche, and Union Chimique Belge, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chelsea Therapeutics, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmacuetical, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospita, ISIS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MedImmune, Merrimack Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Napp, Novimmune, Novartis, ObsEva, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, R-Pharm, SynAct Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, Tonix and Union Chimique Belge, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Union Chimique Belge, Karolina Benesova Grant/research support from: Scientific Projects (IIT) I’m involved in as an investigator have been supported, but not initiated or designed by Abbvie and Novartis, Consultant for: Advisory board member on early disease detection for Novartis, Timothy R. Radstake: None declared, Andrew Cope: None declared, Oliver Lambotte: None declared, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant for: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB Pharma, Consultant for: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, Pfizer, Yves Allenbach: None declared, Marianne Visser: None declared, Cindy Rusthoven: None declared, Lone Thomasen: None declared, Shahin Jamal Consultant for: Consultant for Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Merck, UCB, Aurelien Marabelle: None declared, James Larkin: None declared, John Haanen Consultant for: Amgen, Merck, MSD, Helsinn, Tesaro and Hexaland, Leonard Calabrese Consultant for: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Genentech and Astra-Zeneca., Xavier Mariette Grant/research support from: Servier, Consultant for: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Thierry Schaeverbeke: None declared