OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious diseases specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

We appreciate the comment by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues describing COVID‐19 vaccine response and the frequency of disease worsening in patients receiving tofacitinib. The ACR COVID‐19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force was aware of the 2 studies cited and appreciate their summary of the results. We would point out that in the rheumatoid arthritis study by Winthrop et al (1), patients receiving tofacitinib in Study A had a lower likelihood of a satisfactory response to pneumococcal vaccination (45.1%) compared to placebo‐treated patients (68.4%), a difference of 23.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] −36.6, −9.6%). The differences were numerically even larger for patients receiving concomitant tofacitinib and methotrexate (31.6% of patients with a satisfactory response, difference of −30.2% [95% CI] −47.3, −11.4%) compared to methotrexate monotherapy. Our challenge was in considering the appropriateness of extrapolating results from vaccine studies of influenza, pneumococcal, and tetanus toxoid vaccines to make inferences regarding the anticipated response to vaccination against SARS–CoV‐2, a novel antigen to which most individuals have not previously been exposed. | | The Task Force recognized that infection rates, and perhaps response to vaccinations against those infections, might be heterogeneous according to pathogen. For example, JAK inhibitors approximately double the incidence of herpes zoster compared to biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, yet they do not meaningfully increase rates of other infections (e.g., pneumonia) (1, 2, 3). We noted that in the Oral Strategy study, adalimumab‐treated patients receiving vaccination with the live herpes zoster vaccine had lower incidence rates of herpes zoster (0.0 per 100 patient‐years) compared to non‐vaccinated patients (incidence rate 2.1 per 100 patient‐years) (4). In contrast, and recognizing that numbers were small, tofacitinib‐treated patients had similar rates of herpes zoster regardless of vaccination (incidence rate 3.0 per 100 patient‐years in vaccinated versus 2.2 per 100 patient‐years in unvaccinated patients). | | We also appreciate the data provided by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues regarding the rate of disease worsening in patients whose treatment with tofacitinib was briefly interrupted. At ~ 2 weeks, the mean worsening in the 4‐variable DAS28 of 0.7 units was of smaller magnitude than typically considered the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the DAS28 (i.e., >1.2 units) (5). The MCID for defining disease worsening using the CDAI in patients who had moderate disease activity at the start of treatment is undefined, although a 1‐unit change in each of the 4 CDAI components (tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient global, and physician global) is often considered to be the measurement error for each of these (6). Taken together, the mean amount of disease worsening associated with brief interruptions in therapy seems small and likely not of clinical importance for most patients, especially in light of the guidance recommending that JAK inhibitors be withheld for 1 week at the time of each vaccine administration, rather than for 2 consecutive weeks. | | Ultimately, we await prospective data regarding the influence of JAK inhibitors and other immunomodulatory therapies used at the time of COVID‐19 vaccination on immunogenicity and correlates of serologic protection. Since the ACR COVID‐19 Vaccine Guidance is a living document, our plan is to rapidly update it and incorporate new evidence as it accumulates.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 1 to 9 point numerical rating scale using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, with refinement and iteration over two sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, seventy-four draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology healthcare providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

The whole-genome sequences of 24 isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae with elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) to azithromycin (≥2.0 microg/mL) were analyzed against a modified sequence derived from the whole-genome sequence of N. gonorrhoeae FA1090 to determine, by signal ratio, the number of mutant copies of the 23S rRNA gene and the copy number effect on 50S ribosome-mediated azithromycin resistance. Isolates that were predicted to contain four mutated copies were accurately identified compared with the results of direct sequencing. Fewer than four mutated copies gave less accurate results but were consistent with elevated MICs.

Strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae with mosaic penA genes bearing novel point mutations in penA have been isolated from ceftriaxone treatment failures. Such isolates exhibit significantly higher MIC values to third generation cephalosporins. Here we report the in vitro isolation two mutants with elevated MICs to cephalosporins. The first possesses a point mutation in the transpeptidase region of the mosaic penA gene, and the second contains an insertion mutation in pilQ.

Zoonotic disease surveillance is typically initiated after an animal pathogen has caused disease in humans. Early detection of potentially high-risk pathogens within animal hosts may facilitate medical interventions to cope with an emerging disease. To effectively spillover to a novel host, a pathogen may undergo genetic changes resulting in varying transmission potential in the new host and potentially to humans. Rabies virus (RABV) is one model pathogen to consider for studying the dynamics of emerging infectious diseases under both laboratory and field conditions. The evolutionary history of RABV is characterized by regularly documented spillover infections and a series of notable host shifts. Within this context, enhanced field surveillance to improve detection of spillover infections will require validated techniques to non-invasively differentiate infected from non-infected individuals. In this study, we evaluate the use of infrared thermography to detect thermal changes associated with experimental RABV infection in big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) in a captive colony. Our results indicated that 62% of rabid bats had detectable facial temperature decreases (-4.6 degrees C, SD +/- 2.5) compared with pre-inoculation baseline values. These data suggest potential utility for discriminating rabid bats in natural field settings. In addition, focusing upon RABV circulating in the United States between 2008 and 2011, we confirmed spillover events of bat RABV among carnivores and identified cross-species transmission events caused by four lineages of RABV associated with insectivorous bats. Additionally, our analysis of RABV glycoprotein sequences identified substitutions in antigenic sites that may affect neutralizing activity associated with monoclonal antibodies proposed for use in human post-exposure prophylaxis. This study provides a glimpse into RABV pathobiology and spillover dynamics among and between bats and a variety of mesocarnivores.