ABSTRACT
BackgroundConsideration is needed when using Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors to treat RA in pts aged ≥65 years or those with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. The JAK1 preferential inhibitor FIL was generally well tolerated in clinical trials[1];safety has not been determined in a real-world setting.ObjectivesTo report baseline characteristics and up to 6-month safety data from the first 480 pts treated with FIL in the FILOSOPHY study (NCT04871919), and in two mutually exclusive subgroups based on age and CV risk.MethodsFILOSOPHY is an ongoing, phase 4, non-interventional, European study of pts with RA who have been prescribed FIL for the first time and in accordance with the product label in daily practice. Baseline characteristics and the incidence of select adverse events (AEs) are assessed in pts aged ≥65 years and/or with ≥1 CV risk factor (Table 1), and in those aged <65 years with no CV risk factors.ResultsAs of the end of June 2022, 480 pts had been treated: 441 received FIL 200 mg and 39 received FIL 100 mg. Of the 480 pts, 148 (30.8%) were aged ≥65 years;332 (69.2%) were aged <65 years. In total, 86 (17.9%) were former smokers, 81 (16.9%) were current smokers and 203 (42.3%) were non-smokers (data were missing for 110 pts [22.9%]). In addition to smoking, the most frequent CV risk factors included a history of hypertension (32.3%), a history of dyslipidemia (10.2%) and a family history of myocardial infarction (8.5%;Table 1).23 pts (4.8%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. Of the 354 pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor, infections affected 64 pts (18.1%), 34 (9.6%) had COVID-19, 2 (0.6%) had herpes zoster, and cardiac disorders (angina pectoris, atrial fibrillation, palpitations and tachycardia) affected 5 pts (1.4%);no cases of malignancies were observed. In the subgroup aged <65 years and with no CV risk factors (n=126), infections occurred in 18 pts (14.3%) (9 [7.1%] had COVID-19;3 [2.4%] had herpes zoster) and malignancies (myeloproliferative neoplasm) affected 1 pt (0.8%);no pts had cardiac disorders. There were no cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in either subgroup.ConclusionIn this interim analysis of FILOSOPHY, no unexpected safety signals emerged at up to 6 months. Although infections and cardiac disorders affected a numerically greater proportion of pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk vs those aged <65 years with no CV risk, longer follow-up on a broader cohort is necessary to further characterize the safety of FIL in different groups of pts with RA.Reference[1]Winthrop K, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:184–92Table 1.Baseline characteristics and CV risk factorsBaseline demographics/CV risk factorsAll FIL-treated pts (N=480)≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor (n=354)<65 years and no CV risk factor (n=126)*Female sex, n (%)351 (73.1)252 (71.2)99 (78.6)Age, years, mean (SD)57.6 (11.5)60.4 (10.8)49.6 (9.6)Rheumatoid factor positive, n (%)†228 (47.5)167 (47.2)61 (48.4)Anti-citrullinated protein antibody positive, n (%)‡243 (50.6)176 (49.7)67 (53. 2)Body mass index, kg/m2, mean (SD)27.6 (5.7) n=43728.0 (5.4) n=33126.3 (6.4) n=106RA disease duration, years, mean (SD)10.4 (9.4) n=47810.5 (9.5) n=35310.0 (8.8) n=125Tender joint count 28, mean (SD)8.6 (6.9) n=4578.7 (7.1) n=3408.3 (6.3) n=117Swollen joint count 28, mean (SD)5.6 (5.2) n=4525.7 (5.4) n=3365.4 (4.4) n=116Former smoker, n (%)§86 (17.9)86 (24.3)0Current smoker, n (%)§81 (16.9)81 (22.9)0Non-smoker, n (%)§203 (42.3)130 (36.7)73 (57.9)Family history of myocardial infarction, n (%)41 (8.5)41 (11.6)0Medical history of: n (%) CV disease33 (6.9)33 (9.3)0 Diabetes35 (7.3)35 (9.9)0 Dyslipidemia49 (10.2)49 (13.8)0 Hypertension155 (32.3)155 (43.8)0 Ischemic CNS vascular disorders11 (2.3)11 (3.1)0 Peripheral vascular disease17 (3.5)17 (4.8)0*Includes 53 pts with missing smoking status data who were aged <65 years with no other CV risk factors.†Missing/unknown in 154 pts;‡Missing in 153 pts;§Smoking status data missing in 110 pts (22.9%).AcknowledgementsWe thank the physicia s and patients who participated in this study. The study was funded by Galapagos NV, Mechelen, Belgium. Publication coordination was provided by Fabien Debailleul, PhD, of Galapagos NV. Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of InterestsPatrick Verschueren Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Roularta, Consultant of: Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Nordic Pharma, Sidekick Health, Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Pfizer, Jérôme Avouac Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Novartis, Pfizer, Karen Bevers Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Sanofi, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Lilly, MSD, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Thomas Debray Consultant of: Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, Francesco De Leonardis Employee of: Galapagos, James Galloway Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Medicago, Novavax, Pfizer, Monia Zignani Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Commercially available ELISA-based antibody tests are used to approximate vaccination success against SARS-CoV-2 in at-risk patients, but it is unclear whether they correlate with neutralization of the Omicron variant. METHODS: 269 serum samples of a cohort of 44 non-immunosuppressed participants and 65 MTX-treated rheumatic patients taken before and after COVID-19 booster vaccinations were measured using COVID-19 antibody testing systems with wild-type and Omicron BA.1 antigens developed by three different manufacturers (surrogate virus neutralization test cPass, and binding antibody tests QuantiVac and SeraSpot), as well as with a pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT). The pVNT was considered the gold standard for determining the presence and level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: All three wild-type ELISAs showed excellent test performance compared with wild-type neutralization in pVNT. However, out of 56 samples without Omicron BA.1 neutralization in pVNT, 71.4% showed positive results in at least one and 28.6% in all three wild-type ELISAs at the manufacturer-defined cut-offs. Omicron ELISAs showed either decreased specificity (57.1% and 55.4% for binding ELISAs) or sensitivity (51.2% in cPass) compared to Omicron neutralization in pVNT. The proportion of any false positive results among all samples decreased from 26.5% before to 3.2% after booster vaccination, however binding antibody test specificities remained below 70%. CONCLUSIONS: We found a poorer test performance of new Omicron antibody test systems compared to wild-type tests in detecting neutralizing antibodies against the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 variants. Decisions for booster vaccination or passive immunization of at-risk patients should not be based solely on antibody test results.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA Viruses , Humans , Neutralization Tests , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, ViralABSTRACT
Background: Several research groups have recently described a reduced vaccination response to COVID-19 vaccination under methotrexate (MTX) (1,2). The increase in humoral immune response when pausing MTX two weeks after vaccination has already been described for infuenza vaccination (3). However, data regarding MTX-hold during COVID-19 vaccination are still lacking. Objectives: To study the effect of MTX and its discontinuation on the humoral immune response after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD). Methods: In this retrospective study, neutralising SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were measured after second vaccination in 64 rheumatic patients on methotrexate therapy, 31 of whom temporarily paused medication without a fxed regimen. The control group consisted of 21 AIRD patients without immunosuppressive medication. Results: MTX patients showed a signifcantly lower mean antibody response compared to AIRD patients without immunosuppressive therapy (71.8 % vs 92.4 %, p<0.001). For patients taking MTX, age correlated negatively with immune response (r=-0.49;p<0.001). All nine patients with antibody levels below the cutoff were older than 60 years. Patients who held MTX during at least one vaccination showed signifcantly higher mean neutralising antibody levels after second vaccination, compared to patients who continued MTX therapy during both vaccinations (83.1 % vs 61.2 %, p=0.001). This effect was particularly pronounced in patients older than 60 years (80.8 % vs 51.9 %, p=0.001). The impact of the time period after vaccination was greater than of the time before vaccination with the critical cut-off being 10 days. Conclusion: MTX reduces the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in an age-dependent manner. Our data further suggest that holding MTX for at least 10 days after vaccination signifcantly improves the antibody response in patients over 60 years of age.
ABSTRACT
Background: Since the COVID-19 vaccination campaign was launched all over Europe, there has been general agreement on how benefts of SARS-CoV2 vaccines outweigh the risks in patients with rare connective tissue diseases (rCTDs). Yet, there is still limited evidence regarding safety and efficacy of such vaccines in these patients, especially in the long-term. For this reason, in the framework of ERN-ReCONNET, an observational long-term study (VACCINATE) was designed in order to explore the long-term outcome of COVID-19 vaccination in rCTDs patients. The consent form was developed thanks to the involvement of the ERN ReCONNET ePAG Advocates (European Patients Advocacy Group). Objectives: To evaluate the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination in rCTDs patients and the potential impact on disease activity. Primary endpoints were the prevalence of adverse events (AEs) and of disease exacerbations post-vaccination. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 (adapted from https://bright-oncollaboration.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SO2-D2.1.2-V1.2-COVID-19- AESI-update-23Dec2020-review-fnal.pdf) Methods: The frst ad-interim analysis of the VACCINATE study involved 9 ERN-ReCONNET Network centres. Patients over 18 years of age with a known rCTD and who received vaccine against COVID-19 were eligible for recruitment. Demographic data and diagnoses were collected at the time of enrolment, while the appearance of AEs and potential disease exacerbations were monitored after one week from each vaccination dose, and then after 4, 12 and 24 weeks from the second dose. A disease exacerbation was defned as at least one of the following: new manifestations attributable to disease activity, hospital-ization, increase in PGA from previous evaluation, addition of corticosteroids or immunosuppressants. Results: A cohort of 300 patients (261 females, mean age 52, range 18-85) was recruited. Systemic lupus erythematosus (44%) and systemic sclerosis (16%) were the most frequent diagnoses, followed by Sjogren's syndrome (SS,12%), idiopathic infammatory myositis (IMM,10%), undifferentiated connective tissue disease (UCTD,8%), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD,4%), Ehlers-Dan-los's syndrome (EDS,4%), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS,2%). AEs appearing 7 days after the frst and second doses were reported in 93 (31%) and 96 (32%) patients respectively, mainly represented by fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, fever and myalgia. Otitis, urticaria, Herpes Simplex-related rash, stomatitis, migraine with aura, vertigo, tinnitus and sleepiness were reported with very low frequency. Less than 2% of patients experienced AEs within 24 weeks from the second dose. No SAEs or AEs of special interest were observed in the study period. There were 25 disease exacerbations (8%), 7 of which severe. The highest number of exacerbations was observed after 4 weeks from the second dose (12 within week 4, 6 within week 12 and 7 within week 24). Disease exacerbation was most frequent in patients with EDS (33%) and MCTD (25%). Conclusion: This preliminary analysis shows that COVID-19 vaccination is safe in rCTDs patients. AEs appear most often early after vaccination and are usually mild. Disease exacerbations are not frequent, but can be potentially severe and tend to occur most frequently within the frst month after vaccination. Exacerbations can also occur 3-6 months after vaccination, although a causal relationship with the vaccination remains to be established. Our present data underline the importance of long-term observational studies.
ABSTRACT
In order to address the main challenges related to the rare diseases (RDs) the European Commission launched the European Reference Networks (ERNs), virtual networks involving healthcare providers (HCPs) across Europe. The mission of the ERNs is to tackle low prevalence and RDs that require highly specialised treatment and a concentration of knowledge and resources. In fact, ERNs offer the potential to give patients and healthcare professionals across the EU access to the best expertise and timely exchange of lifesaving knowledge, trying to make the knowledge travelling more than patients. For this reason, ERNs were established as concrete European infrastructures, and this is particularly crucial in the framework of rare and complex diseases in which no country alone has the whole knowledge and capacity to treat all types of patients. It has been five years since their kick-off launch in Vilnius in 2017. The 24 ERNs have been intensively working on different transversal areas, including patient management, education, clinical practice guidelines, patients' care pathways and many other fundamental topics. The present work is therefore aimed not only at reporting a summary of the main activities and milestones reached so far, but also at celebrating the first 5 years of the ERN on Rare and Complex Connective Tissue and Musculo-skeletal Diseases (ReCONNET), in which the members of the network built together one of the 24 infrastructures that are hopefully going to change the scenario of rare diseases across the EU.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Les formes sévères de COVID-19 comportent à une hyperinflammation systémique intense ;ce qui a justifié des essais thérapeutiques avec des immunomodulateurs régulièrement utilisés chez les patients atteints de maladies systémiques auto-immunes ou inflammatoires Depuis février 2021 où les premières recommandations EULAR sur l’utilisation de thérapeutiques immunomodulatrices dans le COVID-19 ont été publiées [1], de nouveaux essais thérapeutiques ont été réalisés ce qui rend nécessaire une mise à jour ces recommandations. Matériels et méthodes Selon les procédures standardisées de l’EULAR [2], les résultats d’une revue de la littérature systémique réalisée jusqu’au 15 décembre 2020 puis mise à jour jusqu’au 14 juillet 2021 incluant tous types d’études ont été présentés à un groupe de travail multidisciplinaire composé d’experts internationaux comprenant des rhumatologues, des immunologistes translationnels, des hématologues, des pédiatres, des patients et des professionnels de la santé. La mise à jour des recommandations a été discutée et votée par l’ensemble du panel d’experts sur la base des résultats présentés, principalement des essais randomisés contrôlés (ECT) sur différents traitements immunomodulateurs. Résultats La mise à jour comprend deux principes généraux et dix recommandations. Les recommandations concernent uniquement la prise en charge des patients présentant des formes de COVID-19 modérées à sévères ou critiques, faute de preuves suffisantes avec très peu d’ECT concernant les patients asymptomatiques et ceux avec des formes légères de la maladie. Les molécules suivantes ont montré une efficacité dans le traitement de formes modérées à sévères ou critiques du COVID-19. L’association de glucocorticoïdes et de tocilizumab est bénéfique dans les cas de COVID-19 nécessitant une oxygénothérapie et dans les cas critiques de COVID-19. L’utilisation d’inhibiteurs de Janus kinase (baricitinib et tofacitinib) et peut-être d’Ac anti-GM-CSF est prometteuse dans les mêmes populations. Les anticorps monoclonaux anti-SARS-CoV-2 et l’utilisation de plasma convalescent pourraient trouver une application dans les phases précoces de la maladie et dans certains sous-groupes de patients immunodéprimés. D’autres immunomodulateurs comme l’hydroxychloroquine, la colchicine ou l’anakinra n’ont pas démontré leur efficacité sur la mortalité et ou sur l’aggravation clinique (évolution vers une détresse respiratoire), quel que soit le stade de la maladie. Conclusion Un nombre grandissant d’ECT soutiennent l’efficacité de l’association de glucocorticoïdes et d’autres agents immunomodulateurs tels que le tocilizumab dans le traitement de formes modérée à sévère et critique du COVID-19. De plus, certaines études en cours pourraient confirmer l’efficacité potentielle d’autres approches thérapeutiques comme les inhibiteurs de JAK ou les Ac anti-GM-CSF. L’implication des rhumatologues, en tant qu’experts des maladies inflammatoires et auto-immunes systémiques et des traitements immunomodulateurs est nécessaire dans le design des nouveaux essais cliniques et dans l’élaboration de nouvelles recommandations pour la prise en charge du COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Les patients atteints de maladies musculosquelettiques inflammatoires/auto-immunes (I-RMD) n’ont pas été inclus dans les études de tolérance des vaccins contre le SARS-CoV-2 et sont souvent inquiets quant à la tolérance de la vaccination. Notre objectif est d’étudier la tolérance des vaccins contre le SARS-CoV-2 chez les patients atteints de maladies musculosquelettiques inflammatoires/auto-immunes (I-RMD). Patients et méthodes Pour cela, nous avons créé avec l’EULAR un registre international de cas rapportés par les médecins rhumatologues et internistes de patients atteints d’I-RMD et de RMD non inflammatoire (NI-RMD) vaccinés contre le SARS-CoV-2. Du 5 février 2021 au 27 juillet 2021, nous avons recueilli des données sur la démographie, la vaccination, le diagnostic de RMD, l’activité de la maladie, les traitements immunomodulateurs/immunosuppresseurs, les poussées, les événements indésirables (EI) et les infections COVID-19 chez les patients vaccinés. Les données ont été analysées de manière descriptive. Résultats L’étude a inclus 5121 participants de 30 pays, la majorité de France (40 %), Italie (16 %) et Portugal (14 %), 90 % avec des I-RMD (n=4604, 68 % de femmes, âge moyen 60,5 ans) et 10 % avec des NI-RMD (n=517), 77 % de femmes, âge moyen 71,4 ans. La polyarthrite rhumatoïde (33 %), les connectivites (18 %), les spondyloarthrites (11 %), le rhumatisme psoriaqique (10 %) et les vascularites (12 %) étaient les diagnostics les plus fréquents ;54 % des patients ont reçu des traitements de fond synthétiques conventionnels (csDMARD), 42 % des DMARD biologiques ou ciblés et 35 % des immunosuppresseurs. La plupart des patients ont reçu le vaccin Pfizer/BioNTech (70 %), 17 % AstraZeneca/Oxford et 8 % Moderna. Une infection COVID post-vaccination a été signalée dans 0,7 à 1,1 % des cas, selon le statut vaccinal (entièrement/partiellement vacciné) et le groupe RMD. Des poussées d’I-RMD ont été signalées dans 4,4 % des cas (0,6 % de poussées sévères), dont 1,5 % ont entraîné des changements de médicaments. Des EI ont été signalés dans 37 % des cas (37 % I-RMD, 40 % NI-RMD), des EI sévères dans 0,4 % des cas, très divers et avec une fréquence comparable et même inférieure à celle observée chez les patients atteints de NI-RMD (1,1 %). Discussion La tolérance au vaccin n’était pas différente entre les groupes I-RMD et NI-RMD. Dans les essais cliniques de vaccins à ARN contre le SRAS-CoV-2 dans la population générale, les taux d’EI graves étaient très semblables à ceux de notre étude, allant de 0,4 % à 0,6 % dans le groupe vacciné et de 0,5 % à 0,6 % dans le groupe témoin, ce qui suggère que ces EI graves ne sont pas nécessairement liés au vaccin. Conclusion Il s’agit de la plus grande étude de la tolérance des vaccins anti-SRAS-CoV-2 chez près de 5000 patients atteints de maladies inflammatoires/auto-immunes rhumatologiques. Le profil de sécurité des vaccins contre le SRAS-CoV-2 chez les patients atteints d’I-RMD était rassurant, et comparable à celui des patients atteints de NI-RMD. La majorité des patients ont bien toléré leur vaccination, avec de rares poussée d’I-RMD et de très rares EI sévères probablement non liés à la vaccination. Ces résultats devraient rassurer les rhumatologues et les personnes vaccinées, et favoriser la confiance dans la sécurité du vaccin COVID-19 chez les patients atteints de I-RMD.
ABSTRACT
Background: The consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak are unprecedented and have been felt by everyone around the world, including people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). With the development of vaccines, the future is becoming brighter. Vaccines are a key pillar of public health and have been proven to prevent many serious diseases. However, vaccination also raises questions, especially for patients with inflammatory RMDs and/or treated with drugs that influence their immune system. Objectives: Our aim was to collect safety data among RMD patients receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: The EULAR COVID-19 Vaccination (COVAX) Registry is an observational registry launched on 5 February 2021. Data are entered voluntarily by clinicians or associated healthcare staff;patients are eligible for inclusion if they have an RMD and have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Descriptive statistics are presented. Results: As of 27 April 2021, 1519 patients were reported to the registry. The majority were female (68%) and above the age of 60 (57%). Mean age was 63 years (SD 16), ranging from 15 to 97 years. A total of 28 countries contributed to the registry, with France (60%) and Italy (13%) as the highest contributors. The majority (91%) had inflammatory RMDs. Inflammatory joint diseases accounted for 51% of cases, connective tissue diseases 19%, vasculitis 16%, other immune mediated inflammatory diseases 4%, and non-inflammatory/mechanical RMDs 9%. The most frequent individual diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (30%), axial spondyloarthritis (8%), psoriatic arthritis (8%), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, 7%) and polymyalgia rheumatica (6%). At the time of vaccination, 45% were taking conventional synthetic DMARDs, 36% biological DMARDs, 31% systemic glucocorticoids, 6% other immunosuppressants (azathioprine;mycophenolate;cyclosporine;cyclophosphamide;tacrolimus), and 3% targeted synthetic DMARDs. The most frequent individual DMARDs were methotrexate (29%), TNF-inhibitors (18%), antimalarials (10%) and rituximab (6%). The vaccines administered were: 78% Pfizer, 16% AstraZeneca, 5% Moderna and 1% other/unknown;66% of cases received two doses and 34% one dose. Mean time from 1st and 2nd dose to case report was 41 days (SD 26) and 26 days (SD 23), respectively. COVID-19 diagnosis after vaccination was reported in 1% (18/1519) of cases. Mean time from first vaccination until COVID-19 diagnosis was 24 days (SD 17). Disease flares were reported by 5% (73/1375) of patients with inflammatory RMDs, with 1.2% (17/1375) classified as severe flares. Mean time from closest vaccination date to inflammatory RMD flare was 5 days (SD 5). The most common flare types were arthritis (35/1375=2.5%), arthralgia (29/1375=2.1%), cutaneous flare (11/1375=0.8%) and increase in fatigue (11/1375=0.8%). Potential vaccine side effects were reported by 31% of patients (467/1519). The majority were typical early adverse events within 7 days of vaccination, namely pain at the site of injection (281/1519=19%), fatigue (171/1519=11%) and headache (103/1519=7%). Organ/system adverse events were reported by 2% (33/1519) but only 0.1% (2/1519) reported severe adverse events, namely a case of hemiparesis in a patient with systemic sclerosis/ SLE overlap syndrome (ongoing at the time of reporting), and a case of giant cell arteritis in a patient with osteoarthritis (recovered/resolved without sequelae). Conclusion: The safety profiles for COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients was reassuring. Most adverse events were the same as in the general population, they were non-serious and involved short term local and systemic symptoms. The overwhelming majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of inflammatory RMD flare (5%;1.2% severe) and very rare reports of severe adverse events (0.1%). These initial findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients, and promote confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety in RMD patients, namely those with inflammatory RMDs and/or taking treatments that influence their immune system.