A randomized, phase II study of sequential belimumab and rituximab in primary Sjögren's syndrome.

BACKGROUNDPrimary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) is characterized by B cell hyperactivity and elevated B-lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS). Anti-BLyS treatment (e.g., belimumab) increases peripheral memory B cells; decreases naive, activated, and plasma B cell subsets; and increases stringency on B cell selection during reconstitution. Anti-CD20 therapeutics (e.g., rituximab) bind and deplete CD20-expressing B cells in circulation but are less effective in depleting tissue-resident CD20+ B cells. Combined, these 2 mechanisms may achieve synergistic effects.METHODSThis 68-week, phase II, double-blind study (GSK study 201842) randomized 86 adult patients with active pSS to 1 of 4 arms: placebo, s.c. belimumab, i.v. rituximab, or sequential belimumab + rituximab.RESULTSOverall, 60 patients completed treatment and follow-up until week 68. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and drug-related AEs was similar across groups. Infections/infestations were the most common AEs, and no serious infections of special interest occurred. Near-complete depletion of minor salivary gland CD20+ B cells and a greater and more sustained depletion of peripheral CD19+ B cells were observed with belimumab + rituximab versus monotherapies. With belimumab + rituximab, reconstitution of peripheral B cells occurred, but it was delayed compared with rituximab. At week 68, mean (± standard error) total EULAR Sjögren's syndrome disease activity index scores decreased from 11.0 (1.17) at baseline to 5.0 (1.27) for belimumab + rituximab and 10.4 (1.36) to 8.6 (1.57) for placebo.CONCLUSIONThe safety profile of belimumab + rituximab in pSS was consistent with the monotherapies. Belimumab + rituximab induced enhanced salivary gland B cell depletion relative to the monotherapies, potentially leading to improved clinical outcomes.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT02631538.FUNDINGFunding was provided by GSK.

Assessment of immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity contrast reactions by skin tests and provocation tests: A review.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic and nonallergic hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media are classified as immediate or non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHR and NIHR), respectively. Skin tests and provocation tests are recommended for the evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast agents; however provocations are not common in clinical practice. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was conducted to investigate studies comprising both skin tests and provocation tests that evaluated hypersensitivity reactions to ICM. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were identified that reported on skin tests, followed by provocations. In the case of IHR to ICM, 65/69 (94%) patients with a positive skin test for the culprit media tolerated a challenge with a skin-test-negative alternative ICM. In IHR to ICM with a negative skin test for the culprit media, provocations were positive in 3.2%-9.1% patients. In the case of a NIHR to ICM with a positive skin test, provocation with a skin-test-negative agent was tolerated in 75/105 (71%) of cases. In NIHR with a negative skin test for the culprit agent, re-exposure to the culprit or an alternative was positive in 0%-34.6% patients. Provocations with the same ICM in skin test positive patients with IHR or NIHR were positive for a majority of the patients, although such provocation tests were rarely performed. Data on hypersensitivity reactions, skin tests and provocations with gadolinium-based contrast media were limited; however, they exhibited a pattern similar to that observed in ICM. CONCLUSION: In both ICM and gadolinium-based contrast media, the risk of an immediate repeat reaction is low when skin tests are negative. In contrast, a provocation with a skin-test-positive contrast medium showed a high risk of an immediate repeat hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, a thorough medical history is necessary, followed by skin tests. A provocation is recommended, for diagnostic work-up, when the diagnosis is uncertain.

How does SARS-CoV-2 targets the elderly patients? A review on potential mechanisms increasing disease severity.

IMPORTANCE: Among COVID-19 cases, especially the (frail) elderly show a high number of severe infections, hospital admissions, complications, and death. The highest mortality is found between 80 and 89 years old. Why do these patients have a higher risk of severe COVID-19? In this narrative review we address potential mechanisms regarding viral transmission, physical reserve and the immune system, increasing the severity of this infection in elderly patients. OBSERVATIONS: First, the spread of COVID-19 may be enhanced in elderly patients. Viral shedding may be increased, and early identification may be complicated due to atypical disease presentation and limited testing capacity. Applying hygiene and quarantine measures, especially in patients with cognitive disorders including dementia, can be challenging. Additionally, elderly patients have a decreased cardiorespiratory reserve and are more likely to have co-morbidity including atherosclerosis, rendering them more susceptible to complications. The aging innate and adaptive immune system is weakened, while there is a pro-inflammatory tendency. The effects of SARS-CoV-2 on the immune system on cytokine production and T-cells, further seem to aggravate this pro-inflammatory tendency, especially in patients with cardiovascular comorbidity, increasing disease severity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The combination of all factors mentioned above contribute to the disease severity of COVID-19 in the older patient. While larger studies of COVID-19 in elderly patients are needed, understanding the factors increasing disease severity may improve care and preventative measures to protect the elderly patient at risk for (severe) COVID-19 in the future.