A Large Cluster of New Onset Autoimmune Myositis in the Yorkshire Region Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The novel SARS-CoV-2 vaccines partially exploit intrinsic DNA or RNA adjuvanticity, with dysregulation in the metabolism of both these nucleic acids independently linked to triggering experimental autoimmune diseases, including lupus and myositis. METHODS: Herein, we present 15 new onset autoimmune myositis temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA or DNA-based vaccines that occurred between February 2021 and April 2022. Musculoskeletal, pulmonary, cutaneous and cardiac manifestations, laboratory and imaging data were collected. RESULTS: In total, 15 cases of new onset myositis (11 polymyositis/necrotizing/overlap myositis; 4 dermatomyositis) were identified in the Yorkshire region of approximately 5.6 million people, between February 2021 and April 2022 (10 females/5 men; mean age was 66.1 years; range 37-83). New onset disease occurred after first vaccination (5 cases), second vaccination (7 cases) or after the third dose (3 cases), which was often a different vaccine. Of the cases, 6 had systemic complications including skin (3 cases), lung (3 cases), heart (2 cases) and 10/15 had myositis associated autoantibodies. All but 1 case had good therapy responses. Adverse event following immunization (AEFI) could not be explained based on the underlying disease/co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: Compared with our usual regional Rheumatology clinical experience, a surprisingly large number of new onset myositis cases presented during the period of observation. Given that antigen release inevitably follows muscle injury and given the role of nucleic acid adjuvanticity in autoimmunity and muscle disease, further longitudinal studies are required to explore potential links between novel coronavirus vaccines and myositis in comparison with more traditional vaccine methods.

Level of agreement between three-dimensional volumetric ultrasound and real-time conventional ultrasound in the assessment of synovitis, tenosynovitis and erosions in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The aim of the study was to assess agreement between three-dimensional volumetric ultrasound (3D US) performed by inexperienced staff and real-time conventional ultrasound (2D US) performed by experienced rheumatologists in detecting and scoring rheumatoid arthritis (RA) lesions. Thirty-one RA patients underwent examination of seven joints by 2D and 3D US for synovitis and tenosynovitis in B and PD modes and erosions in B mode. A global score for synovitis and global counts for synovitis, tenosynovitis and erosions were also calculated for every patient. Agreement between 2D and 3D US was analysed for counts and scores at the patient level with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and for counts at the joint level with Cohen's kappa coefficient. B-mode synovitis was detected at a median of five joints in each patient, frequently in wrists and hand joints but less frequently in foot joints. PD-mode synovitis, tenosynovitis and erosions were detected less frequently. All ICCs for agreement between 2D and 3D US findings were significant. All kappa coefficients were significant for B- and PD-mode synovitis and for erosions (except PIP3), while those for tenosynovitis were only significant for MCP2 (B and PD modes) and PIP2 (B mode). Although the 3D US volumes were acquired by inexperienced operators, agreement between 2D and 3D US was acceptable in detecting and scoring synovitis. A higher level of agreement was attained for patient-level global scores and counts than for individual joints.

Benefit-risk assessment of leflunomide: an appraisal of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis 10 years after licensing.

Evidence is accumulating for the early sustained usage of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis. Leflunomide was licensed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. Postmarketing surveillance, case reports and observational studies have highlighted less common or unexpected adverse events. Therefore, it is appropriate that we review the benefit-risk profile of leflunomide after 10 years of widespread usage. A wide-based search of relevant literature was performed to formulate this assessment. The improvements in rheumatoid arthritis shown by double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of leflunomide have now been shown to be maintained beyond 4 years in open-label extension studies. Leflunomide is comparable to methotrexate, but better than sulfasalazine at 24 months in only one study. However, tolerance in clinical practice research shows higher than expected withdrawal rates due to both toxicity and lack of efficacy when compared with methotrexate and placebo. Adverse events reported include gastrointestinal upset, hypertension, headache, hepatotoxicity and hair loss, as well as predisposition to infection and peripheral neuropathy. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects for leflunomide is similar to sulfasalazine but higher than those seen with methotrexate. Serious drug-induced hepatotoxicity leading to hospitalization is rare (0.02%), but isolated fatalities from liver failure have been documented. It is considered likely, but not yet proven, that there may be an increased incidence of weight loss and interstitial lung disease with leflunomide. Leflunomide in combination with methotrexate or sulfasalazine is an effective regimen in RCTs utilizing placebo controls, but more research is needed to confirm its effectiveness in combination with other DMARDs, particularly biologicals. The active metabolite of leflunomide is teratogenic in animal studies and is also found in breast milk. Therefore, contraception is advised in both males and females of child-bearing potential. There are genetic, pharmacokinetic and biochemical reasons to explain variation in both patient response and adverse event profile. Hence, blood and blood pressure monitoring are recommended and therapeutic drug monitoring should be considered in clinical nonresponders. Leflunomide is an effective DMARD that sustains a clinical and radiological response comparable to sulfasalazine and methotrexate. However, adverse effects necessitate frequent monitoring. It should be used with caution in those of child-bearing potential and with pre-existing lung and liver disease.

Combination therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: methotrexate and sulfasalazine together or with other DMARDs.

Early aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is associated with improved disease control, slower radiological progression and improved functional outcomes. Tumor necrosis factor blocking therapy is effective but there remain concerns about long-term risks. Combining disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is a widely used therapeutic alternative; however, there is uncertainty surrounding the most effective regimen. A popular combination is methotrexate plus sulfasalazine, but each of these DMARDs can also be used in combination with other DMARDs and in triple therapy regimens. However, wide variations in study size, design, steroid usage and approaches to combination therapy have made it difficult to form firm conclusions regarding their efficacy. Generally, combination therapy is well tolerated and associated with no significant increase in the rate of adverse events compared with monotherapy. Methotrexate-sulfasalazine, methotrexate-chloroquine, methotrexate-cyclosporin, methotrexate-leflunomide, methotrexate-intramuscular-gold and methotrexate-doxycycline are effective combination regimens. Triple DMARD therapy is better than various DMARD monotherapy and dual therapy regimens. Methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may have synergistic anti-inflammatory properties. Clinical trial evidence to support the use of other methotrexate and sulfasalazine combinations is often weak or lacking. Further investigation is required to determine the most effective regimen and approach to combination therapy.