ABSTRACT
BackgroundPain is a debilitating symptom of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) that negatively affects patients' lives. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of AS and other inflammatory diseases, showed significant efficacy vs placebo (PBO) in the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 study in patients with AS who were biologic-naive and in the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 study in patients with active AS who had an inadequate response (IR) to biological therapy [1,2]. Improvement in pain outcomes with UPA was also previously demonstrated in the SELECT-AXIS 1 study [3].ObjectivesThe objective of this post-hoc analysis of SELECT-AXIS 2 was to evaluate the efficacy of UPA vs PBO on multiple pain assessments through 14 weeks in patients with IR to a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD-IR).MethodsSELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) enrolled adults with active AS with IR to biological therapy, including patients who discontinued biologics due to lack of efficacy or intolerance [1]. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO for 14 weeks. Pain endpoints evaluated here included the proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% reduction from baseline, minimal clinically important difference (MCID, defined as ≥1 point reduction or ≥15% reduction from baseline), and much better improvement (MBI, defined as ≥2 point reduction and ≥33% reduction from baseline) in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain on a 0–10 numeric rating scale [3,4]. Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 was used.ResultsA total of 211 patients received UPA 15 mg QD and 209 patients received PBO. Higher proportions of patients receiving UPA vs PBO achieved ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain as early as week 2 that were sustained at all time points through 14 weeks (nominal P<0.05;Figure 1a-c). Achievement of ≥70% reductions in PGA of pain and nocturnal back pain were higher at week 4 and sustained thereafter (Figures 1a and 1c), and achievement of ≥70% reduction in total back pain was higher at week 2 and week 8, but not week 4, and sustained thereafter (Figure 1b). Results were similar for the proportion of patients achieving MCID and MBI, with improvements in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain for UPA vs PBO as early as week 1 (MCID) or week 2 (MBI) that were sustained through week 14 (all nominal P<0.001;Table 1).Table 1.Achievement of MCID and MBI in Pain Outcomes at Week 14 (NRI-MI)Responder Rate (95% CI), %Pain OutcomesUPA 15 mgPBONominal P ValuePGA of painMCID81.0 (75.8–86.3)62.7 (56.1–69.2)<0.0001MBI60.7 (54.1–67.3)24.9 (19.0–30.7)<0.0001Total back painMCID80.1 (74.7–85.5)65.1 (58.6–71.5)0.0005MBI58.3 (51.6–64.9)25.4 (19.5–31.3)<0.0001Nocturnal back painMCID82.9 (77.9–88.0)61.3 (54.7–67.9)<0.0001MBI61.6 (55.0–68.2)32.1 (25.7–38.4)<0.0001MBI, much better improvement;MCID, minimal clinically important difference;NRI-MI, non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19;PBO, placebo;PGA, Patient's Global Assessment;UPA, upadacitinib.ConclusionIn patients with active AS who were bDMARD-IR, greater proportions of patients treated with UPA achieved rapid and clinically meaningful reductions in pain vs PBO as early as week 2 that were sustained through 14 weeks across multiple pain assessments.References[1]van der Heijde D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(11):1515-1523.[2]van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2108-2117.[3]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open. 2022;8(1):doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002049.[4]Salaffi F, et al. Eur J Pain. 2004;8(4):283-291.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this p blication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by M. Hovenden and J. Matsuura of ICON plc (Blue Bell, PA, USA) and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsXenofon Baraliakos Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Organon, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Gilead, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, UCB, and MSD, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anna Shmagel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ana Biljan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Victoria Jasion Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter C. Taylor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Fresenius, Nordic Pharma, UCB, and Biogen, Grant/research support from: Galapagos.
ABSTRACT
Background: Targeted Immune-Modulating Therapies (TIMT) and immunomodulators (IMM) for Immune Mediated Inflammatory diseases (IMID) theoretically interfere with humoral responses against COVID19. However, IMID patients and particularly patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment were excluded from phase-3 COVID19 vaccination efficacy trials. Real-world observational data is therefore required to provide more insight into the efficacy of COVID19 vaccination in IMID patients. Method(s): The BELCOMID study is a multidisciplinary, prospective observational cohort study performed at two university hospitals and set up with the intention to explore the interaction between IMIDs, immune-modulating treatment modalities and SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in a real-life patient cohort. Consecutive patients seen between 17/12/2020 and 28/02/2021 during routine follow-up for IMIDs of the gut, joints and skin were invited to participate. Both patient data and serological samples were collected at 3 predefined periods (Figure 1: Before vaccination, after start of the national vaccination campaign before booster vaccination, after booster vaccination). Spike (S) protein antibodies were analysed with the Abbott ArchitectTM assay. R version 4.0.2 was used to perform analyses. Result(s): At inclusion period 2, 2065 patients (Table 1) participated of whom 1547 had received complete baseline vaccination (2 doses mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChadOx1 nCoV-19 or 1 dose JN78436735). S-antibody seroconversion rate was 91.2%. At inclusion period 3, data was available for 1566 patients of whom 74.7% had received 1 booster (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) vaccination leading to a S-antibody seroconversion rate of 98.3%. In 130 patients who had received 2 boosters, S-antibody seroconversion rate was 100%. At period 3, 37 patients had refused all vaccinations. Although 23 of these had experienced confirmed COVID19 since previous inquiry, no S-antibody seroconversion was found in 15 of them. Logistic regression analyses revealed that the odds of no S-antibody seroconversion were significantly higher in IMID patients treated with IMM, combination of IMM+TIMT, systemic steroids and smoking patients at both inclusion periods (Table 2). TIMT monotherapy did not influence seroconversion rates at inclusion period 3 but was associated with higher odds of the lowest S-antibody titre quartile (OR2.32, P<0.001). Among TIMT options, rituximab had higher odds of S-seronegativity. Conclusion(s): S-antibody seroconversion rate in this real-life IMID population was high after baseline vaccination and increased further proportionally with booster vaccination, highlighting the value of repeated vaccination. However, the serologic response may be blunted due to different IMID treatment modalities and smoking.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with immune-mediated infammatory diseases (IMID) are at higher risk for infectious diseases. Despite this increased risk and the available guidelines1,2, we reported a suboptimal vaccination rate of 27 % of IMID patients in 2018. In the meantime, a vaccination module was introduced in the electronic patient medical record (EMR) of our hospital to accurately document and monitor vaccination status of patients. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a new vaccination module in the patient health record on vaccination coverage in a previously included IMID cohort. Methods: Between Aug and Oct 2021, the vaccination status of 1435 (out of the original 1488) IMID patients (45 % male, median age 53.6 years) was collected (790 patients with IBD (infammatory bowel diseases), 607 with rheumatologic infammatory conditions (RHEU)(RA or SpA), and 38 with dermatologic infam-matory conditions(DER)) and was compared to that of 2018. The vaccination status for infuenza (FLU), pneumococci (Pnc), hepatitis B (Hep B) and tetanus (TT) was obtained mainly through the patients' electronic medical records. Missing data were added after contacting patients or their general practitioner. Results: From 2018 to 2021, the overall vaccination coverage (excluding TT) of all IMID patients signifcantly increased from 42 % to 66 % (p<0.001, Figure 1). For patients with RHEU, the vaccination coverage signifcantly increased, namely from 69.0% to 75 % for FLU (p<0.001), from 36 % to 89 % for Pnc (p<0.001), from 57 % to 73 % for Hep B (p<0.001) and from 34 % to 74 % overall (p=0.008) (Figure 1 and Table 1). Similarly, the vaccination coverage in IBD patients increased signifcantly from 76 % to 87 % for FLU (p<0.001), from 73 % to 82 % for Pnc (p<0.001), from 67 % to 79 % for Hep B (p<0.001) and from 47 % to 61 % overall (p<0.001) (Figure 1 and Table 1). For patients with DER, vaccination coverage signifcantly increased from 47 % to 65 % for Hep B (p<0.001) (Table 1). TT vaccination coverage decreased in all 3 IMID groups from 2018 to 2021. Conclusion: The implementation of a vaccination tool integrated in the EMR coincided with a signifcant increase in vaccination rates and also in the total amount of IMID patients that were fully vaccinated according to guidelines. Quite likely, the suboptimal vaccination rate measured in 2018 and the COVID-19 pandemic also raised awareness among patients and healthcare professionals about the importance of following vaccination guidelines.
ABSTRACT
It was suggested that all SARS-CoV2 infections lead to development of specific IgG antibodies that remain detectable in time. Targeted Immune-Modulating Therapies (TIMT) for treatment of Immune Mediated Inflammatory diseases (IMID) could interfere with humoral immune response against COVID-19. To investigate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV2 IgG in relation to previous exposure to COVID-19 and ongoing IMID treatment a cross-disciplinary, prospective observational cohort was set up at two Belgian university hospitals. Between 17/12/2020 and 28/02/2021, patients with IMIDs of the skin (psoriasis (PsO), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), atopic dermatitis (AD)), gut or joints were asked to participate. Patients under conventional systemic treatment or TIMT were included. An electronic survey (REDCap®) and blood samples were obtained (SARS-CoV-2IgG Abbott–Architect kit®). Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS26. 2166 IMID patients consented to take part. 1913 completed the survey: 218 dermatology patients (77% PsO, 12% HS, 11% AD), 415 rheumatology and 1217 IBD patients. 372 patients (19.5%) reported having experienced symptoms suggestive of COVID-19: fatigue (61.3%) and headache (48.1%) were most frequent. 96 patients (5.04%) had a positive SARS-CoV2 PCR test on nasal or throat swab: in 45.8% anti-SARS-CoV2 IgG seroconversion was confirmed. There was no significant difference in seroconversion rate between the 2 treatment groups (P=0.192). Of the seroconverted group, 75.0% were treated with TIMT. Prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms and number of confirmed COVID-19 cases remain low in this IMID cohort, regardless of treatment modality. There was no significant difference in SARS- CoV2 IgG seroconversion rate between TIMT and conventional systemic treatment in patients with positive PCR.
ABSTRACT
Background: Immunomodulators (IMM) and Targeted Immune-Modulating Therapies (TIMT) such as anti-TNF, anti-interleukins and Janus Kinase inhibitors, for treatment of Immune Mediated Inflammatory diseases (IMID) could theoretically interfere with the cytokine storm and humoral immune response against COVID19 infection and vaccination. We investigate seroprevalence and evolution of SARS-CoV2 antibodies in relation to previous vaccination and/or exposure to COVID19 and ongoing IMID-treatment in a Belgian, reallife population of IMID patients. Methods: A cross-disciplinary, prospective, observational cohort study was set up at two university hospitals. All patients with IMIDs of the gut (Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis), joints (rheumatoid, psoriatic or spondyloarthritis) and skin (psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, atopic dermatitis) visiting the respective clinics were asked to participate. Patients had to fill out an electronic survey (REDCap®, based on WHO-ISARIC) and blood samples were drawn for serology testing (anti-Spike(S) and antiviral Nucleocapsid(N) protein antibody IgG, Abbott). Results at baseline, prior to the national vaccination program and at 6 months follow-up are presented. R version 4.0.2 was used for statistical analyses. Results: At baseline 2165 IMID patients consented to take part. In 3.2% SARS-CoV2 anti-N seroconversion was confirmed. Of the anti-N seroconverted patients 72.9% reported a positive PCR test prior to inclusion. At 6-months follow-up, data of 1853 IMID patients was collected. Of these, 81.7% were fully and 14.4% partially vaccinated. Seroconversion for anti-N antibodies was confirmed in 2.5% of all participants and seroconversion for anti-S antibodies in 90.8%. In 5.1% (61/1483) of fully vaccinated IMID patients no seroconversion in anti-N nor anti-S antibodies was found. Chi Square analyses show, at 6-months follow-up, no significant association between anti-S seroconversion rate and treatment with systemic steroids (RiskRatio 1.22, 95%CI 0.38-3.9, P=0.99), TIMT (RiskRatio 0.57, 95% CI 0.3-1.1, P=0.12), IMM (RiskRatio 1.65, 95% CI 0.85- 3.19, P=0.19) or combination treatment IMM/TIMT (RiskRatio 1.60, 95% CI 0.75-3.4, P=0.32). Appearance of COVID19 symptoms followed the epidemiological curve in Belgium (Fig1). Conclusion: In this real-life IMID cohort, the number of COVID19 cases confirmed by PCR prior to vaccination was low. Seroconversion rate for anti-N antibodies was lower at 6-months follow-up, suggesting decrease in antibody titre over time. Full COVID19 vaccination led to a high anti-S antibody seroconversion rate. Nonetheless, 5.1% of fully vaccinated patients showed no antibody seroconversion. So far, no significant association between anti-S antibody seroconversion and IMID treatment was noted.