89
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Withholding methotrexate after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov19 in patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis in India (MIVAC I and II): results of two, parallel, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is a necessity for an optimal COVID-19 vaccination strategy for vulnerable population groups, including people with autoimmune inflammatory arthritis on immunosuppressants such as methotrexate, which inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, we aimed to assess the effects of withholding methotrexate for 2 weeks after each dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccine (MIVAC I) or only after the second dose of vaccine (MIVAC II) compared with continuation of methotrexate, in terms of post-vaccination antibody titres and disease flare rates.

          Methods

          MIVAC I and II were two parallel, independent, assessor-masked, randomised trials. The trials were done at a single centre (Dr Shenoy's Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence; Kochi, India) in people with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis with stable disease activity, who had been on a fixed dose of methotrexate for the preceding 6 weeks. Those with previous COVID-19 or who were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies were excluded from the trials. People on high-dose corticosteroids and rituximab were also excluded, whereas other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were allowed. In MIVAC I, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to stop methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks after each vaccine dose or to continue methotrexate treatment. In MIVAC II, participants who had continued methotrexate during the first dose of vaccine were randomly assigned (1:1) to withhold methotrexate for 2 weeks after the second dose of vaccine or to continue to take methotrexate. The treating physician was masked to the group assignments. The primary outcome for both MIVAC I and MIVAC II was the titre (absolute value) of anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody measured 4 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. All analyses were done per protocol. The trials were registered with the Clinical Trials Registry- India, number CTRI/2021/07/034639 (MIVAC I) and CTRI/2021/07/035307 (MIVAC II).

          Findings

          Between July 6 and Dec 15, 2021, participants were recruited to the trials. In MIVAC I, 250 participants were randomly assigned and 158 completed the study as per the protocol (80 in the methotrexate hold group and 78 in the control group; 148 [94%] were women and 10 [6%] were men). The median post-vaccination antibody titres in the methotrexate hold group were significantly higher compared with the control group (2484·0 IU/mL, IQR 1050·0–4388·8 vs 1147·5 IU/mL, 433·5–2360·3; p=0·0014). In MIVAC II, 178 participants were randomly assigned and 157 completed the study per protocol (76 in the methotrexate hold group and 81 in the control group; 135 [86%] were women and 22 [14%] were men). The methotrexate hold group had higher post-vaccination antibody titres compared with the control group (2553·5 IU/ml, IQR 1792·5–4823·8 vs 990·5, 356·1–2252·5; p<0·0001). There were no reports of any serious adverse events during the trial period.

          Interpretation

          Withholding methotrexate after both ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine doses and after only the second dose led to higher anti-RBD antibody titres compared with continuation of methotrexate. However, withholding methotrexate only after the second vaccine dose resulted in a similar humoral response to holding methotrexate after both vaccine doses, without an increased risk of arthritis flares. Hence, interruption of methotrexate during the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine appears to be a safe and effective strategy to improve the antibody response in patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis.

          Funding

          Indian Rheumatology Association.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

          Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; p interaction =0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. Funding UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative.

            The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticized for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in 3 phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease--this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis." In the new criteria set, classification as "definite RA" is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0-5), serologic abnormality (score range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (score range 0-1), and symptom duration (2 levels; range 0-1). This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis."
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study.

              To compare the accuracy of existing classification criteria for the diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to construct new criteria from observed data. Data were collected prospectively from consecutive clinic attendees with PsA and other inflammatory arthropathies. Subjects were classified by each of 7 criteria. Sensitivity and specificity were compared using conditional logistic regression analysis. Latent class analysis was used to calculate criteria accuracy in order to confirm the validity of clinical diagnosis as the gold standard definition of "case"-ness. Classification and Regression Trees methodology and logistic regression were used to identify items for new criteria, which were then constructed using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Data were collected on 588 cases and 536 controls with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 384), ankylosing spondylitis (n = 72), undifferentiated arthritis (n = 38), connective tissue disorders (n = 14), and other diseases (n = 28). The specificity of each set of criteria was high. The sensitivity of the Vasey and Espinoza method (0.97) was similar to that of the method of McGonagle et al (0.98) and greater than that of the methods of Bennett (0.44), Moll and Wright (0.91), the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group (0.74), and Gladman et al (0.91). The CASPAR (ClASsification criteria for Psoriatic ARthritis) criteria consisted of established inflammatory articular disease with at least 3 points from the following features: current psoriasis (assigned a score of 2; all other features were assigned a score of 1), a history of psoriasis (unless current psoriasis was present), a family history of psoriasis (unless current psoriasis was present or there was a history of psoriasis), dactylitis, juxtaarticular new bone formation, rheumatoid factor negativity, and nail dystrophy. These criteria were more specific (0.987 versus 0.960) but less sensitive (0.914 versus 0.972) than those of Vasey and Espinoza. The CASPAR criteria are simple and highly specific but less sensitive than the Vasey and Espinoza criteria.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet Rheumatol
                Lancet Rheumatol
                The Lancet. Rheumatology
                Elsevier Ltd.
                2665-9913
                12 September 2022
                November 2022
                12 September 2022
                : 4
                : 11
                : e755-e764
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre for Arthritis and Rheumatism Excellence, Kochi, India
                [b ]Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission, Kochi, India
                [c ]Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology Department, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India
                [d ]King George Medical University, Lucknow, India
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Padmanabha Shenoy, Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission, Kochi 682018, India
                Article
                S2665-9913(22)00228-4
                10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00228-4
                9612848
                36320825
                626ebbce-e9ce-40e8-b512-5ab55fbe6bf4
                © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content287

                Cited by13

                Most referenced authors3,402