ABSTRACT
BackgroundGCA is a critically ischemic large vessel vasculitis, varying in extent, severity and outcomes, hence requires disease stratification using clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters, for targeted management. Although DMARDs are used, the effectiveness in real life, such adjuvants remain un-elucidated. We performed a prospective, multi centre cohort study of new GCA stratified into remitting, relapsing, refractory, ischemic disease.ObjectivesWe assessed prognostic factors and compared critical outcomes such as remission with glucocorticoid (GC) monotherapy versus GC plus DMARDs in the first 12 months.MethodsHAS GCA study (1) recruited consecutive patients with new onset GCA from 7 centres (UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands). diagnosis was confirmed used a modified GiACTA criteria at 6 months follow up. All underwent ultrasound (bilateral common, parietal, frontal temporal arteries, and axillary arteries) using accepted standard cut-off values [2]. GCA patients had US at baseline,1,3,6,12 months and halo count (HC) and Halo score (Temporal TAHS, axillary AAHS, total THS) assessed [3]. The primary outcome- remission at 12 months (absence of signs/symptoms, CRP<5 mg/dl, prednisolone < 5 mg daily). Results are reported as descriptive statistics.Results229 participants included in the study (GCA- 84 (36.68 %) (Figure 1). Study recruited during Covid pandemic,73 completed,11 lost to follow-up (died -7, withdrawn-4). The deceased/withdrawn patients (compared to completers) were older (80 v74 yrs, p=0.018), preponderantly male (73% v 36%, p=0.043) with visual symptoms (91% v 49%, p=0.010) partial/total sight loss (55% v 21%, p=0.024), lower CRP (21 v 68, p=0.061) and ESR (42 v 62, p= 0.317).Of 73 completers 36 required early DMARDs (<12 weeks) for refractory/relapsing/ischemic/GC related AEs. This group had more LV involvement (50% v 11%, p=0.0003), Remission attained at 12 months 32/36 (89%) in DMARD group was comparable to the remitting GC monotherapy group 33/37 (89%) with comparable cumulative GC doses (Figure 1, Table 1).At 12-months follow up, median TAHS, AAHS and THS reduced from 13 to 3, 12 to 9 and 21.5 to 12, respectively.ConclusionOur study suggests, elderly males with visual symptoms, sight loss, lower CRP are a high-risk group with increased mortality within GCA. Difficult to treat disease is seen in half of all patients especially with LV involvement. This group responds well to early DMARD use achieving remission comparable to the remitting group at 12 months. Current therapies fail to achieve remission in 9.5 % of cases. HS and HC show significant improvement mirroring clinical outcomes during first 12 months of therapy.References[1]Sebastian A et al. BMC Rheum. 2020[2]Schafer VS et al. Rheumatology 2017[3]van der Geest KSM et al. ARD 2020Table 1.comparison between the DMARD-used group and only GC group in all the GCA completed the 12 months follow upPatients' characteristicsGCA with completed follow-up (n=73)GCA treated with DMARD=36GCA not treated with DMARD=37Age, median (range) years73.5 (60-89)76 (60-89)Sex, Females, n (%)23 (64)24 (65)US halo score (HS)/IMT median (range)Temporal artery HS11 (0-23)13 (1-22)Axillary artery HS12 (0-21)12 (0-18)Axillary artery IMT (mm)0.77 (0.33-2.6)0.82 (0.39-1.21)Total HS22.5 (2-41)21 (5-40)Clinical features, n (%)Temporal headache25(69)30 (81)Scalp tenderness17 (47)19 (51)Jaw & Tongue claudication22 (61)24 (65)Polymyalgic symptoms21 (58)13 (35)Constitutional symptoms21 (58)18 (49)Any visual disturbance15 (42)21 (57)Partial or complete vision loss8 (22)7 (19)History of PMR6 (17)3 (8)Exam findings, n (%)Temporal artery abnormality24 (67)30 (81)AION/ CRAO8 (22)6 (16)Ocular nerve palsy1 (3)3 (8)Lab markers at baseline, median (range)CRP mg/dL,72.2 (6.4-292)59 (6-206)ESR mm/hr67 (9-130)57 (2-120)GC treatment, median (range)GC starting dose, (baseline)45 (0-60)50 (0-60)GC dose at 12m,5 (0-25)2.5 (0-10)Cumulative GC dose at 12m4627.5 (2600-10260.5)4622.5 (944-10737.5)Remission with prednisolone dose ≤5 mg at 12m, n (%)32 (89)33 (89)Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsBhaskar Dasgupta Consultant of: Roche, Chugai, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Roche, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline, Kornelis van der Geest Speakers bureau: Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Alessandro Tomelleri: None declared, Pierluigi Macchioni: None declared, Giulia Klinowski: None declared, Carlo Salvarani: None declared, Abdul Kayani: None declared, Mohammad Tariq: None declared, Diana Prieto-Peña: None declared, Edoardo Conticini: None declared, Muhammad Khurshid: None declared, Sue Inness: None declared, Jo Jackson: None declared, Alwin Sebastian: None declared.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are at an increased risk of infection relative to the general population. We aimed to describe the frequency and risk factors for serious infections in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE treated with rituximab, belimumab, and standard of care therapies in a large national observational cohort. Method(s): The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR) is a UK-based prospective register of patients with SLE. Patients were recruited by their treating physician as part of their scheduled care from 64 centres across the UK by use of a standardised case report form. Inclusion criteria for the BILAG-BR included age older than 5 years, ability to provide informed consent, a diagnosis of SLE, and starting a new biological therapy within the last 12 months or a new standard of care drug within the last month. The primary outcome for this study was the rate of serious infections within the first 12 months of therapy. Serious infections were defined as those requiring intravenous antibiotic treatment, hospital admission, or resulting in morbidity or death. Infection and mortality data were collected from study centres and further mortality data were collected from the UK Office for National Statistics. The relationship between serious infection and drug type was analysed using a multiple-failure Cox proportional hazards model. Finding(s): Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 23, 2021, 1383 individuals were recruited to the BILAG-BR. 335 patients were excluded from this analysis. The remaining 1048 participants contributed 1002.7 person-years of follow-up and included 746 (71%) participants on rituximab, 119 (11%) participants on belimumab, and 183 (17%) participants on standard of care. The median age of the cohort was 39 years (IQR 30-50), 942 (90%) of 1048 patients were women and 106 (10%) were men. Of the patients with available ethnicity data, 514 (56%) of 911 were White, 169 (19%) were Asian, 161 (18%) were Black, and 67 (7%) were of multiple-mixed or other ethnic backgrounds. 118 serious infections occurred in 76 individuals during the 12-month study period, which included 92 serious infections in 58 individuals on rituximab, eight serious infections in five individuals receiving belimumab, and 18 serious infections in 13 individuals on standard of care. The overall crude incidence rate of serious infection was 117.7 (95% CI 98.3-141.0) per 1000 person-years. Compared with standard of care, the serious infection risk was similar in the rituximab (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.68 [0.60-4.68]) and belimumab groups (1.01 [0.21-4.80]). Across the whole cohort in multivariate analysis, serious infection risk was associated with prednisolone dose (>10 mg;2.38 [95%CI 1.47-3.84]), hypogammaglobulinaemia (<6 g/L;2.16 [1.38-3.37]), and multimorbidity (1.45 [1.17-1.80]). Additional concomitant immunosuppressive use appeared to be associated with a reduced risk (0.60 [0.41-0.90]). We found no significant safety signals regarding atypical infections. Six infection-related deaths occurred at a median of 121 days (IQR 60-151) days from cohort entry. Interpretation(s): In patients with moderate-to-severe SLE, rituximab, belimumab, and standard immunosuppressive therapy have similar serious infection risks. Key risk factors for serious infections included multimorbidity, hypogammaglobulinaemia, and increased glucocorticoid doses. When considering the risk of serious infection, we propose that immunosupppressives, rituximab, and belimumab should be prioritised as mainstay therapies to optimise SLE management and support proactive minimisation of glucocorticoid use. Funding(s): None.Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license
ABSTRACT
Background: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is elevated in patients with active polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and is associated with disease activity, relapse and severity. Clinical trials with IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) inhibitors in PMR showed higher remission rates and reduced glucocorticoid (GC) use vs GC alone.1-4 Objectives: The SAPHYR study (NCT03600818) assessed the efficacy and safety of sarilumab (SAR), a fully human anti IL-6Rα monoclonal antibody, with a 14 week (wk) GC taper in patients with steroid resistant active PMR who fared on ≥7.5 mg/day prednisone or equivalent. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to 52 wks of treatment with SAR 200 mg every 2 wks (Q2W) + 14 wk GC tapered regimen (SAR arm) OR placebo Q2W + 52 wk GC tapered regimen (comparator arm). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving sustained remission at wk 52, defned as disease remission by wk 12, absence of disease fare, CRP normalization from wks 12 to 52 and adherence to the per protocol GC taper from wks 12 to 52. Results: The study was terminated early due to protracted recruitment timelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in 118 of the intended 280 patients recruited between Oct 2018 and Jul 2020, and 117 were treated (SAR n=59, comparator n=58). The demographics were balanced;patients were primarily female, Caucasian, and a median age of ~70 years (Table 1). Overall, 78 patients completed the treatment (SAR n=42;comparator n=36). Primary reasons for treatment discontinuation were adverse events (AEs;SAR n=7, comparator n=4) and lack of efficacy (SAR n=4, comparator n=9). Sustained remission rate was signifcantly higher in the SAR arm vs the comparator arm (28.3% vs 10.3%;P=0.0193). Results of a sensitivity analysis excluding CRP from the sustained remission defnition was consistent with the primary analysis (31.7% vs 13.8%;P=0.0280). All sustained remission components favored SAR (Figure 1). Patients in the SAR arm were 44% less likely to have a fare after achieving clinical remission vs the comparator arm (16.7% vs 29.3%;HR 0.56;95% CI 0.35-0.90;P=0.0158). The comparator arm required more additional GCs vs the SAR arm, mainly due to PMR fare (median difference in actual and expected cumulative dose 199.5 mg vs 0.0 mg;P=0.0189). The cumulative GC toxicity index scores numerically favored SAR but the difference was not statistically signifcant. PMR activity scores improved in the SAR arm vs the comparator arm (LS mean-15.57 vs-10.27, nominal P=0.0002). Patient reported outcomes (eg, physical and mental health component scores, disability index, etc) favored SAR (Figure 1). Incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the SAR arm vs the comparator arm (94.9% vs 84.5%) and included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the SAR arm, and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm. Conversely, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the comparator arm vs the SAR arm (20.7% vs 13.6%). No deaths were reported. Conclusion: SAR + 14 wk GC taper demonstrated signifcant efficacy vs the comparator arm in steroid refractory PMR patients, including clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life. Safety was consistent with the known safety profile of SAR.
ABSTRACT
Background/AimsShielding measures were implemented within the United Kingdom inan attempt to slow the rate of COVID-19 infections, with shieldingletters being sent to extremely vulnerable patients. This includedrheumatology patients on immunosuppressive therapies sufficient toincrease their risk of infection. MethodsThis was a retrospective audit assessing the number of rheumatologypatients within the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (MSETrust) and Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Trust (BHRTrust) who were sent shielding letters. We audited how effective thesemeasures were in preventing COVID-19 infection during the shieldingperiod (up to 1st July 2020). Risk criteria from NHS Digital and theBritish Society for Rheumatology (BSR) were used by individualdepartments within these Trusts to identify the relevant patients. Weaudited from case records demographic details, rheumatologicaldiagnoses, therapies and associated co-morbidities in these patients.ResultsA total of 5, 876 high risk patients within these Trusts were identifiedand sent shielding letters: 4, 914 within the MSE Trust and 962 patientswithin the BHR Trust. As seen in Table 1, of these 5, 876 patients, 28(0.48%) were hospitalised with positive tests for COVID-19: 23 of the4, 914 (0.47%) in MSE Trust and 5 of the 962 (0.52%) in BHR Trust.Of the 28 COVID-19 admissions, 10 died (36%). The number ofrheumatology patients that developed COVID-19 as a proportion of allpatients admitted across these two Trusts was 0.76% (28 out of3, 695).ConclusionThis audit supports the idea that shielding is an effective tool inprotecting these vulnerable patients. Most of our patients admittedwere elderly, had multiple co-morbidities and generally conformedwith the known risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness. This supportsGovernment guidelines and BSR risk scoring and is particularlyimportant as it is becoming increasingly apparent that COVID-19 willbe prevalent for a long time to come. In line with the recent EULARCOVID-19 registry report, only one of the hospitalised patients fromthese Trusts was on anti-TNF therapy, suggesting that these therapieswere in fact protective. It raises the open question: whetherimmunosuppression may have a protective effect in someRheumatology patients.