ABSTRACT
Background: Concerns have been raised regarding risks of COVID-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated infammatory diseases (IMIDs) treated with immunosuppressants, but data on COVID-19 breakthrough infections in these patients are still scarce. Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the incidence and severity of COVID-19 breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant between fully vaccinated IMID patients with immunosuppressants, and controls (IMID patients without immunosuppressants and healthy controls). The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections. Methods: In this study we pooled data collected from two large ongoing prospective multi-center cohort studies (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and ARC study). Clinical data were collected between February and December 2021, using digital questionnaires, standardized electronic case record forms and medical files. Post-vaccination serum samples were analyzed for anti-RBD antibodies (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC study only). Logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations with the incidence of breakthrough infections. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, obesity and vaccine type. Results: We included 3207 IMID patients with immunosuppressants and 1810 controls (985 IMID patients without immunosuppressants and 825 healthy controls). The incidence of COVID-19 breakthrough infections was comparable between patients with immunosuppressants (5%) and controls (5%). The absence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination was independently associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infections (P 0.044). The proportion of asymptomatic COVID-19 breakthrough cases that were additionally identifed serologically in the ARC cohort was comparable between IMID patients with immunosuppressants and controls;66 (10%) of 695 patients vs. 64 (10%) of 647 controls. Hospitalization was required in 8 (5%) of 149 IMID patients with immunosuppressants and 5 (6%) of 86 controls with a COVID-19 breakthrough infection. Hospitalized cases were generally older, and had more comorbidities compared with non-hospitalized cases (Table 1). Hospitalization rates were signifcantly higher among IMID patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy compared to IMID patients using any other immunosuppres-sant (3 [23%] of 13 patients vs. 5 [4%] of 128 patients, P 0.041;Table 1). Conclusion: The incidence of COVID-19 breakthrough infections in IMID patients with immunosuppressants was comparable to controls, and infections were mostly mild. Anti-CD20 therapy might increase patients' susceptibility to severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections, but traditional risk factors also continue to have a critical contribution to the disease course of COVID-19. Therefore, we argue that most patients with IMIDs should not necessarily be seen as a risk group for severe COVID-19, and that integrating other risk factors should become standard practice when discussing treatment options, COVID-19 vaccination, and adherence to infection prevention measures with patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is widely used in RA but the true balance of beneft and harm is still unknown. Objectives: We studied the effects of prednisolone (5 mg/day, 2 years) in RA patients aged 65+, requiring adjustment of antirheumatic therapy (DAS28≥2.60). Methods: Pragmatic double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial;all co-treatments and changes therein were allowed during the trial except longterm open label GC;Ca/D supplementation was advised in all patients. Minimal exclusion criteria were tailored to seniors. Harm outcome: the number of patients with ≥1 serious adverse event (SAE), or ≥1 'other adverse event of special interest' (other AESI). Other AESI comprised any AE (except worsening of RA) causing study discontinuation, and GC-specifc events (Table 1). Beneft outcomes: improvement in disease activity (DAS28) and joint damage progression (Sharp/van der Heijde). Longitudinal mixed models analyzed the data. Given prior knowledge we report one-sided 95% confdence limit (95%CL) and statistical tests, performed only for the main outcomes. Results: We randomized 451 RA patients in 7 EU countries, 449 received the intervention;of these 63% prednisolone vs 61% placebo patients completed 2 years of follow up. Discontinuations were similar in both groups: for AE (14%) and active disease (4%);the remainder mostly for 'trial fatigue' and covid-related access issues (20%). Mean time on study drug was 19 (SD 8) months. 70% of patients were female, mean age was 72 (max 88) years, RA duration 11 years;67% were RF+, 56% ACPA+, 96% had joint damage on radiographs: mean score 20, median 8. Mean DAS28 was 4.5. Most patients (79%) were on current DMARD treatment, including 14% on biologics;47% had previously used GC, 14% changed DMARD therapy at baseline. Patients had mean 2.1 active comorbidities, and used median 7 drugs. Beneft: Disease activity rapidly declined to stabilize after 1 year (Figure 1), and was lower on prednisolone (adjusted mean difference in DAS28 over 2 years: 0.37, 95%CL 0.23, p<0.0001). The contrast in early (3-month) response was larger in 331 patients adherent to protocol on stable treatment: mean difference in DAS28 0.62 (95%CL 0.44), more responders on prednisolone (Figure 1). Sig-nifcant time-treatment interaction in secondary analyses suggested a decrease in contrast after the frst year, most likely caused by signifcantly more changes in DMARD treatment on placebo. Joint damage progression over 2 years was signifcantly lower on prednisolone: mean 0.6 (SD 1.9) v 1.8 (6.4) score points on placebo, difference 1.2 (95%CL 0.2, p=0.02). Harm: 60% prednisolone vs 49% placebo patients experienced the harm outcome: adjusted RR 1.24, 95%CL 1.04, p=0.02;number needed to harm 9.5 (Table 1). During the study 1 vs 2 patients died, and 3 vs 0 died within 5 months of discontinuation. Per 100 patient-years, AE totaled 278 in prednisolone vs 206 in placebo patients, and the difference was most marked for infections (Table 1);these were mostly mild or moderately severe. Other GC-specifc AESI were rare without relevant differences. Conclusion: Add-on low dose prednisolone has benefcial long-term effects on disease activity and damage progression in senior RA patients on standard treatment. The tradeoff is a 24% increase in patients with mostly mild to moderate AE, suggesting a favorable balance of beneft and harm.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: RT-PCR is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers (HCW). As RT-PCR is not widely available and is time-consuming, it limits decision making on removal from and return to work of possibly contagious HCW. AIM: In this study we evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag rapid test (PanbioCAgRT) in 825 hospital HCW. METHODS AND FINDING: This study consisted of two phases. In the validation phase, we tested hospital HCW with mild symptoms (three days or less) in parallel using the PanbioCAgRT and the RT-qPCR test. The PanbioCAgRT demonstrated 86.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% PPV and 98.5% NPV with regard to RT-qPCR. For HCW with PanbioCAgRT-/RT-qPCR+, the median Ct value was 30.9, whereas for the HCW with PanbioCAgRT+/RT-qPCR+ the median Ct value was 19.3 (P<0.001). In the second phase, we implemented an on-site antigen test-based strategy for symptomatic hospital HCW: HCW that tested positive with the PanbioCAgRT on-site were considered SARS-CoV-2 positive and were sent home. HCW that tested negative with the PanbioCAgRT on-site were allowed to work with PPE pending RT-qPCR test results from the laboratory. Sensitivity of the antigen test-based strategy was 72.5% and NPV was 97%. For HCW with PanbioCAgRT-/RT-qPCR+ median Ct values were 27.8. CONCLUSION: The PanbioCAgRTt validated in this study showed a high sensitivity and specificity in samples obtained from HCW with high viral loads. The antigen-based testing strategy proposed in this study seems to be effective, safe and easy to implement in a wide range of occupational healthcare settings.