HCQ II - why treat Sjogren's?
Updated: a day ago
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, aka “Plaquenil”) is the primary systemic medication used to treat Sjogren’s. Rheumatologists vary greatly when it comes to HCQ and Sjogren’s. Some prescribe it for most of their Sjogren’s patients. Others almost never use it, telling their patients that it does not work. Still others reserve it for sicker patients, which seems odd considering this core rheumatology principle: early treatment almost always results in better outcomes. The risk of not treating diseases must always be weighed against the risk of taking medications. HCQ is one of the safest rheumatologic treatments. It is routinely used for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and occasionally for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other diseases. A small number of patients do have absolute contraindications.
Despite being common and serious, Sjogren’s research lags decades behind other rheumatic diseases. This means that treatment decisions are backed up by limited data. The clinical experience of rheumatologists with Sjogren’s expertise should not be underestimated. Treatment decisions should be made considering the entire range of treatment goals, including long term outcomes.
Eight treatment goals for Sjogren’s:
1. Relieve symptoms.
Until recently, Sjogren’s treatment has largely focused on managing sicca, even though patients usually name fatigue, pain, brain fog, and flu-like malaise as their top priorities for care. Other common symptoms that impact quality of life include chronic cough, neuropathies, dysautonomias, GI symptoms, headaches, sleep disturbance, and more.
2. Prevent disease flares.
Stabilizing symptoms can prevent patients from spiraling into a lower baseline state.
3. Prevent progression and reduce the accumulation of damage.
Progression includes the accumulation of damage from sicca, organ and nervous system involvement, vasculitis, lymphoma, etc.
4. Prevent complications.
This means stopping complications and damage from happening in the first place.
5. Reduce mortality.
SLE, RA, and Sjogren’s are related diseases that share overlapping features. All are associated with early mortality, caused by both direct (complications) and indirect manifestations (comorbidities). Most Sjogren’s patients live a normal life span, but 10 % die from direct disease complications. (30)
While early mortality is significantly higher in SLE and more thoroughly documented in RA, the premature mortality risk should not be ignored in Sjogren’s. The impact of HCQ on Sjogren’s mortality has not been studied. HCQ reduces mortality in SLE by a remarkable 50 %. (127)
6. Prevent, reduce, and manage comorbidities.
Sjogren’s shares a number of serious comorbidities with other systemic inflammatory diseases. These include cardiovascular disease (strokes and heart attacks), diabetes thromboembolic events (blood clots), osteoporosis and others. HCQ has demonstrates benefits in each of these areas in SLE (126).
7. Improve pregnancy outcomes.
SS-A positive or APA (anti-phospholipid antibody) positive women are at increased risk for pregnancy complications. High risk pregnancy management, often including treatment with HCQ, is indicated in Sjogren’s patients who carry these antibodies.
8. Lower the risk of polyautoimmunity.
At least half of Sjogren’s patients are diagnosed with one or more additional autoimmune diseases. There is some evidence that HCQ lowers the risk of acquiring additional autoimmune diseases. (128)
Multiple studies show that HCQ improves all eight treatment goals for SLE, our closest biologic cousin.
The short answer: find a rheumatologist who is knowledgeable about Sjogren’s.
An up-to-date, engaged rheumatologist will understand the limitations of current studies, and rely on these resources when recommending HCQ for Sjogren’s:
1. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). These draw on the cumulative expertise of Sjogren’s specialists from all over the world. CPGs from multiple countries recommend HCQ treatment for many Sjogren’s patients. (56, 57, 131, 132)
3. Evidence of the beneficial impact of HCQ on comorbidities. HCQ use has been associated with lower diabetes risk and improved bone mineral density in Sjogren’s (133, 134), as well as reduced cardiovascular risks in patients with rheumatic diseases. (135)
4. Their own practice experience. Rheumatologists who treat a large number of Sjogren’s patients can’t help but notice that most appear to benefit from HCQ treatment. Rheumatologists would love to have better studies to confirm their clinical experience.
Given the serious nature of Sjogren’s, why are so many patients left untreated with HCQ or any other systemic medication?
Too many rheumatologists:
1. are disengaged with Sjogren’s, and don’t take the disease seriously.
2.fail to recognize the importance improving of long term outcomes.
3. lack awareness that Sjogren’s shares many serious comorbidities in common with other systemic inflammatory diseases.
4. remain unaware that CPGs exist, or do not use them to guide clinical decision making.
5. are unfamiliar with the limitations of the few Sjogren’s treatment studies.
The rheumatologists who tell patients that “HCQ does not work” often cite a single flawed study (the “JOQUER" trial) that stopped the HCQ treatment arm at 6 months. (136) Six months is not enough time to address any of the eight treatment goals listed above, including symptom relief. Sjogren’s symptoms, complications, and damage tend to develop over long periods of time. This study is often touted for being (the only) large, prospective, well-designed, randomized controlled trial of HCQ in Sjogren's. Yet it does not follow treated vs. untreated patients over a time period that makes sense. It takes 6 months of treatment to achieve steady state blood levels of HCQ. Some patients take longer than 6 months before they notice symptomatic improvement. A "well-designed” study is not helpful when the wrong questions are asked. Sjogren’s patients deserve HCQ studies that follow patients over years, not months!
“Clinical experience mandates HCQ as the DMARD of choice in pSS in the absence of other more potent options: it is generally well tolerated by patients, and has a known, manageable safety profile including proper follow-up by ophthalmologists.”
~ Robert Fox et al (129)
Next up: Practical considerations for HCQ treatment.