Inflammatory myopathy occurring shortly after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination: two case reports.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination remains the cornerstone approach to exiting the current global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The novel messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines offer a high level of protection and are widely used throughout the world. With more people receiving the vaccines, better understanding of their relative safety can be reached. In this report, we describe two patients who developed inflammatory myopathy within 48 hours of receiving the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine. CASE PRESENTATION: Patient A, a 55-year-old South East Asian woman, presented with a 6-week history of pruritic facial and torso rash and a 1-week history of worsening proximal myopathy. Her rash first developed 2 days after receiving the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Patient B, a 72-year-old Caucasian woman, presented with a 2-week history of proximal myopathy a day after receiving the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Both patients had elevated creatine kinase on admission. Patient A tested positive for anti-Mi-2a antibody and anti-Ro-52 antibody, while Patient B was positive for anti-fibrillarin antibody. Magnetic resonance imaging subsequently confirmed generalized acute muscle inflammation and subcutaneous inflammation consistent with inflammatory myositis. Both patients did not have a previous history or family history of autoimmune disease. Patients A and B were diagnosed with dermatomyositis and inflammatory myositis, respectively. They were initially treated with pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone followed by oral prednisolone. However, as their conditions were resistant to corticosteroids, both eventually received and responded well to intravenous immunoglobulin therapy. CONCLUSION: There are previously reported cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-induced and other vaccine-related inflammatory myopathies. However, the precise mechanisms are not elucidated. Without more evidence and convincing pathophysiology, it is not possible to conclude that our patients developed inflammatory myopathy because of the vaccine. However, the timing of the disease onset and the lack of previous history raise an important question of this novel messenger ribonucleic acid therapy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the gonadotoxic effects of cyclophosphamide and benefits of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) in women of child-bearing age with autoimmune rheumatic disease.

Objectives: To systematically review risk of sustained amenorrhea with intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide in autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD), and evaluate efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) to reduce this risk.Methods: Systematic search for papers reporting incidence of sustained amenorrhea ≥12 months in ARD following: IV cyclophosphamide; or GnRHa and IV cyclophosphamide compared to IV cyclophosphamide alone.Results: From 31 articles and 1388 patients (mean age 27.7 years) sustained amenorrhea occurred in 273 patients (19.7%). Of 56 patients (mean age range 23.9-25.6 years) receiving GnRHa and IV cyclophosphamide, and 37 controls (mean age range 25-30.1 years) given IV cyclophosphamide only, sustained amenorrhea occurred in 2/56 (3.6%) patients treated with GnRHa, compared to 15/37 (40.5%) controls. Pooled odds ratio of sustained amenorrhea with GnRHa and cyclophosphamide versus cyclophosphamide alone was 0.054 (95% CI 0.0115-0.2576 p < 0.001), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 2.7 (95% CI 1.955-4.388) and absolute risk reduction of 36.95% (95% CI 35.6-38.4%).Conclusion: Sustained amenorrhea with IV cyclophosphamide was observed in patients with ARD, especially with increasing age and cumulative doses >5 g. GnRHa reduced this risk and should be considered with IV cyclophosphamide in women of childbearing age with ARD.

Is dialysis a viable option for the older patient? Outcomes for patients starting dialysis aged 80 years or older.

BACKGROUND: Maximum conservative management (MCM) has been proposed as an alternative care pathway for the increasing number of elderly patients with progressive chronic kidney disease. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients aged ≥80 years of age, starting dialysis between 2000 and 2009 in a centre with an established MCM programme. Demographic data, baseline biochemical markers and survival were collected. RESULTS: 93 consecutive patients were studied; median age 83 years (IQR 81-86). 67 male, 32% diabetic. Median survival 46.5 months (range 0-107), with 1- and 5-year survival 78.5 and 38.3%, respectively. Factors predicting poorer survival were Caucasoid ethnicity (p = 0.04) and serum albumin ≤30 g/l (p = 0.01) at dialysis initiation. Duration of nephrology care prior to dialysis initiation did not effect survival. CONCLUSION: The very elderly electing dialysis were found to have good survival. Further patient characterisation is required to improve decision-making between dialysis and MCM for elderly patients with progressive chronic kidney disease.