Latent and active tuberculosis development in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: A single-center prospective study

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in recent years. However, data from clinical trials and actual clinical practice have shown that biologics currently in use may constitute a risk factor for reactivation of tuberculosis (TB) in patients with latent TB infection. Therefore, screening for latent and active TB infection is mandatory before initiating biologic therapy in patients with RA. This prospective study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients with RA receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at Bach Mai Hospital, Vietnam, between 2017 and 2022, and to identify factors affecting the occurrence of active and latent TB infection among these patients. Over a 12-month follow-up period, latent TB infection was confirmed in 20% of the total 180 included patients, while 3 (1.7%) patients developed active TB (one case of pulmonary, pleural, and gluteal TB each). History of TB risk factor exposure and lack of education were significantly associated with the occurrence of active and latent TB infection, with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of 1.98 (1.78; 2.2) and 1.45 (1.31; 1.6), respectively. Follow-up duration and number of X-ray, computed tomography, bronchoscopy, and sputum acid-fast bacteria examinations were identified as factors that can aid in the early diagnosis of latent TB, with odds ratios (95% CIs) of 1.00 (1; 1.01), 1.02 (1; 1.05), 1.12 (1.11; 1.2), 1.11 (1.09; 1.2), and 1.13 (1.09; 1.17), respectively. Our study showed that, in countries with high TB burden like Vietnam, latent TB infection has high prevalence among patients with RA. We also provide useful information for the screening, monitoring, and treatment of latent and active TB infection in patients with RA.

The role of modeling studies in asthma management and clinical decision-making: a Delphi survey of physician knowledge and perceptions

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the knowledge and perceptions of physicians on the role of modeling studies in asthma, using a modified Delphi procedure.

METHODS

Group opinions among a panel of respiratory experts were obtained using two online questionnaires and a virtual scientific workshop. A consensus was pre-defined as agreement by >75% of participants.

RESULTS

From 26 experts who agreed to participate, 22 completed both surveys. At the end of the process, the panel rated their own understanding of modeling as good (77%) but that among physicians in general as poor (77%). Participants agreed that data from modeling studies should be used, at least sometimes, to inform treatment guidelines (91%) and could be useful for guiding clinical decisions (100%). Perceived barriers to using modeling studies were 'A lack of understanding' (81%) and 'A lack of standardized methodology' (82%). Based on data from two modeling studies, no consensus was reached on physicians recommending regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus as-needed therapy for patients with mild asthma, whereas 77% agreed that they would recommend regular ICS over maintenance and reliever therapy for ≥80% of their patients with moderate asthma. No consensus was reached on the value of modeling data in relation to empirical data.

CONCLUSION

There is overall support among respiratory experts for the usefulness of modeling data to guide asthma treatment guidelines and clinical decision making. More publications on modeling data using robust models and accessible terminology will aid the understanding of physicians in general and help clarify the evidence-based value of modeling studies.

Consensus on mild asthma management: results of a modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

In order to understand the role of regular controller inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus as-needed ICS-formoterol in managing mild asthma, we performed a modified Delphi procedure.

METHODS

Opinions from 16 respiratory experts to three surveys and during a virtual scientific workshop helped to develop final consensus statements (pre-defined as 70% agreement).

RESULTS

Thirteen participants completed all rounds (response rate 81%). At the end of the procedure, there was final consensus on: regular daily ICS being the recommended treatment approach in mild persistent asthma, with better symptom control and robust long-term clinical data compared with as-needed ICS-formoterol (85%); to avoid noncompliance, frequently seen in mild asthma patients, regular ICS dosing should be accompanied by ongoing education on treatment adherence (100%); treatment aims should be targeting asthma control (92%) and reduction of exacerbation risk (85%). No consensus was reached on whether GINA or national guidelines most influence prescribing decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to encourage patients to be adherent and to target both asthma control and exacerbation risk reduction. There is robust clinical evidence to support proactive regular dosing with ICS controller therapy plus as-needed short-acting beta-agonists for the management of patients with mild asthma.

ABBREVIATIONS.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2022.2034850 .