IMPAIRED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL E-SURVEY

BackgroundComprehensive and large-scale assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) worldwide is lacking. The second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey assessing several aspects of COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to outline patient experience in various autoimmune diseases (AIDs), with a particular focus on IIMs.ObjectivesTo investigate physical and mental health in a global cohort of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls), using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data obtained from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsDemographics, AID diagnoses, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments, and PROMs were extracted from the COVAD-2 database. The primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Secondary outcomes included PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores. Each outcome was compared between IIMs, non-IIM AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 1582 IIMs, 4700 non-IIM AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls, which accrued as of May 2022, were analysed. Patients with IIMs were older [59±14 (IIMs) vs. 48±14 (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45±14 (NRAIDs) vs. 40±14 (controls) years, p<0.001] and more likely to be Caucasian [82.7% (IIMs) vs. 53.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 62.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 34.5% (controls), p<0.001]. Among IIMs, dermatomyositis (DM) and juvenile DM were the most common (31.4%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (24.9%). Patients with IIMs were more likely to have comorbidities [68.1% (IIMs) vs. 45.7% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45.1% (NRAIDs) vs. 26.3% (controls), p<0.001] including mental disorders [33.4% (IIMs) vs. 28.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 28.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 17.9% (controls), p<0.001].GPH median scores were lower in IIMs compared to NRAIDs or controls [13 (interquartile range 10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (11–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 15 (13–17) NRAIDs vs. 17 (15–18) controls, p<0.001] and PROMIS PF-10a median scores were the lowest in IIMs [34 (25–43) IIMs vs. 40 (34–46) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 47 (40–50) NRAIDs vs. 49 (45–50) controls, p<0.001]. GMH median scores were lower in AIDs including IIMs compared to controls [13 (10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (10–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 13 (11–16) NRAIDs vs. 15 (13–17) controls, p<0.001]. Pain VAS median scores were higher in AIDs compared to controls [3 (1–5) IIMs vs. 4 (2–6) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 2 (0–4) NRAIDs vs. 0 (0–2) controls, p<0.001]. Of note, PROMIS Fatigue-4a median scores were the highest in IIMs [11 (8–14) IIMs vs. 8 (10–14) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 9 (7–13) NRAIDs vs. 7 (4–10) controls, p<0.001].Multivariable regression analysis in IIMs identified older age, male sex, IBM, comorbidities including hypertension and diabetes, active disease, glucocorticoid use, increased pain and fatigue as the independent factors for lower GPH scores, whereas coexistence of interstitial lung disease, mental disorders including anxiety disorder and depression, active disease, increased pain and fatigue were the independent factors for lower GMH scores.ConclusionBoth physical and mental health are significantly impaired in patients with IIMs compared to those with non-IIM AIDs or those without AIDs. Our results call for greater attention to patient-reported experience and comorbidities including mental disorders to provide targeted approaches and optimise global well-being in patients with IIMs.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42:2151–58.AcknowledgementsThe authors a e grateful to all respondents for completing the questionnaire. The authors also thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren's India Foundation, EULAR PARE for their contribution to the dissemination of the survey. Finally, the authors wish to thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsAkira Yoshida: None declared, Yuan Li: None declared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Consultant of: Corbus, Mochida, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Ashima Makol Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: CSL Limited, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Grant/research support from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra Consultant of: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Novartis, Consultant of: 4P-Pharma, AbbVie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi, Topadur, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Hector Chinoy Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Bristol Myers-Squibb, EMD Serono, Kezar, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Corbus, Janssen, Kyverna, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Abbvie, Scipher, Horizontal Therapeutics, Teva, Biogen, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceutical, Nuvig, Capella, CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Mallinckrodt, Janssen, Q32, EMD Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Latika Gupta: None declared.

REDUCED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE USING PROMIS IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COVAD-2 E-SURVEY

BackgroundThe second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey designed to evaluate several facets covering COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a variety of autoimmune diseases (AIDs), including systemic sclerosis (SSc). Detailed assessment of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and its drivers in patients with SSc is lacking.ObjectivesTo assess physical and mental health in a global cohort of SSc patients in comparison with non-SSc autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsThe COVAD-2 database was used to extract demographics, AID diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, current therapies, and PROMs. PROMIS global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH) scores, PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were compared between SSc, non-SSc AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Outcomes were also compared between diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) vs limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc). Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing GPH and GMH scores in SSc.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 276 SSc, 6006 non-SSc AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls as of May 2022 were included in the analysis. Respondents with SSc were older [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 55 (14) vs. 51 (15) vs. 45 (14) vs. 40 (14) years old, mean (SD), p < 0.001]. Among patients with SSc, 129 (47%) had dcSSc and 147 (53%) had lcSSc. SSc patients reported a significantly higher prevalence of ILD [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 30.4% vs. 5.5% vs. 1.5% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001], and treatment with MMF [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 26.4% vs. 9.5% vs. 1.1% vs. 0%, p < 0.001].Patients with SSc had lower GPH and PROMIS PF-10a scores [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 13 (11–15) vs. 13 (11–15) vs. 15 (13–17) vs. 17 (15–18), median (IQR), p < 0.001;39 (33–46) vs. 39 (32–45) vs. 47 (40–50) vs. 49 (45–50), p < 0.001, respectively] and higher Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores compared to those with NRAIDs or controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 3 (2–5) vs. 3 (1–6) vs. 2 (0–4) vs. 0 (0–2), p < 0.001;11 (8–14) vs. 11 (8–14) vs. 9 (7–13) vs. 7 (4–10), p < 0.001, respectively]. Patients with AIDs including SSc had lower GMH scores compared to controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 12.5 (10–15) vs. 13 (10–15) vs. 13 (11–16) vs. 15 (13–17), p < 0.001].Among SSc patients, GPH, GMH, and PROMIS PF-10a scores were lower in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [dcSSc vs. lcSSc: 12 (10–14) vs. 14 (11–15), p < 0.001;12 (10-14) vs. 13 (10-15), p<0.001;38 (30–43) vs. 41 (34–47), p < 0.001, respectively]. Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were higher in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [4 (2–6) vs. 3 (1–5), p < 0.001;12 (8–15) vs. 9 (8–13), p < 0.001, respectively].The independent factors for lower GPH scores in SSc were older age, Asian ethnicity, glucocorticoid use, and higher pain and fatigue scales, while mental health disorders and higher pain and fatigue scales were independently associated with lower GMH scores.ConclusionIn a global cohort, patient-reported physical and mental health were significantly worse in patients with SSc in comparison to those with non-SSc AIDs and without AIDs. Our findings support the critical need for more attention to patient's subjective experiences including pain and fatigue to improve the HRQOL in patients with SSc.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42: 2151–58.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsKeina Yomono: None declared, Yuan Li: None dec ared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Akira Yoshida: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova Speakers bureau: Pfizer and AstraZeneca, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Ashima Makol: None declared, Dey Dzifa: None declared, Carlos Enrique Toro Gutierrez: None declared, Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Aarat Patel: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Latika Gupta: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, MBL, Mochida, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Consultant of: Astra Zeneka, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corbus, GSK, Horizon, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Vikas Agarwal: None declared.

SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS AND COVID-19 VACCINE-ASSOCIATED DELAYED ADVERSE EVENTS: INSIGHTS FROM THE COVAD-2 STUDY

BackgroundWe have previously reported short term safety of the COVID-19 vaccination in patients with Systemic sclerosis (SSc) but delayed adverse events (ADEs) (occurring >7 days post-vaccination) are poorly characterized in this rare yet vulnerable disease group.ObjectivesWe analyzed delayed COVID-19 vaccine-related ADEs among patients with SSc, other systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HC) using data from the ongoing 2nd global COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD-2) study [1].MethodsThe COVAD-2 study was a cross-sectional, patient self-reporting e-survey utilizing an extensively validated, pilot tested questionnaire, translated into 19 languages, circulated by a group of 157 physicians across 106 countries from February to June 2022.We captured data on demographics, SSc/SAID disease characteristics (including skin subset, treatment history and self-reported disease activity), autoimmune and non-autoimmune comorbidities, COVID-19 infection history and course, and vaccination details including delayed ADEs as defined by the CDC.Delayed ADEs were categorized into local injection site pain/soreness;minor and major systemic ADEs, and hospitalizations. We descriptively analyzed the risk factors for overall and specific ADEs in SSc and SAIDs, and further triangulated clinically significant variables in binominal logistic regression analysis with adjustment for age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidity, and immunosuppressive therapy to analyze the survey responses.ResultsFrom among 17 612 respondents, 10 041 patients (median age 51 (18-58) years, 73.4% females, 44.9% Caucasians) vaccinated against COVID-19 at least once (excluding incomplete responses and trial participants) were included for analysis. Of these, 2.6 % (n=258) had SSc, 63.7% other SAIDs, and 33.7% were HCs. BNT162b2 Pfizer (69.4%) was the most administered vaccine, followed by MRNA-1273 Moderna (32.25%) and ChadOx1 nCOV-19 Oxford/AstraZeneca (12.4%) vaccines.Among the patients with SSc, 18.9% reported minor while 8.5% experienced major delayed ADEs, and 4.6% reported hospitalization. These values were comparable to those of the ADEs reported in other SAIDs and HCs. Patients with SSc reported higher frequency of difficulty in breathing than HCs [OR=2.3 (1.0-5.1), p=0.042].Individuals receiving Oxford/AstraZeneca reported more minor ADEs [OR=2.5 (1.0-6.0), p=0.045];whereas patients receiving Moderna were less likely to develop myalgia and body ache [OR=0.1 (0.02-1.0), p=0.047 and OR=0.2 (0.05-1.0), p=0.044 respectively].Patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc experienced minor ADEs and specifically fatigue more frequently [OR=2.1 (1.1-4.4), p=0.036, and OR=3.9 (1.3-11.7), p=0.015] than those with limited cutaneous SSc. Self-reported active disease pre-vaccination did not confer any increased risk of vaccine ADEs in the adjusted analysis. Unlike our previous observations in myositis, autoimmune and non-autoimmune comorbidities did not affect the risk of delayed ADEs in SSc. SSc patients with concomitant myositis reported myalgia [OR=3.4 (1.1-10.7), p=0.035] more frequently, while those with thyroid disorders were more prone to report a higher frequency of joint pain [OR=5.5 (1.5-20.2), p=0.009] and dizziness [OR=5.9 (1.3-27.6), p=0.024] than patients with SSc alone. Patients with SSc-interstitial lung disease did not report increased frequency of ADEs.ConclusionA diagnosis of SSc did not confer a higher risk of delayed post COVID-19 vaccine-related ADEs than other SAIDs and HCs. Diffuse cutaneous phenotype and certain co-existing autoimmune conditions including myositis and thyroid disease can increase the risk of minor ADEs. These patients may benefit from pre-vaccination counselling, close monitoring, and early initiation of appropriate care in the post COVID-19 vaccination period.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, Ravichandran N, Lilleker JB, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int 2022 Dec;42(12):2151-2158AcknowledgementsCOVAD Study Team.Disclosure of InterestsBo dana Doskaliuk: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis,Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre, Consultant of: Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly,NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and.Pierre Fabre, Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Consultant of: 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Grant/research support from: 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Bristol Myers-Squibb, EMD Serono, Kezar, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Janssen, Kyverna, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Abbvie, Scipher, Horizontal Therapeutics, Teva, Biogen, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceutical, Nuvig, Capella, CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Q32, EMD Serono, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Ashima Makol: None declared, Latika Gupta: None declared, Vikas Agarwal: None declared.

COVID-19 VACCINE SAFETY DURING PREGNANCY AND BREASTFEEDING IN WOMEN WITH AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES: RESULTS FROM THE COVAD STUDY

Background:COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID) is often attributed to the fear of adverse events (AE) and disease flares (DF). No data are available regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety in this population.Objectives:We aimed at describing delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related AE (minor and major), DF, and related AID treatment modifications from the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study.Methods:Among complete responses from 9201 participants as of June 21, 2022, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Six subgroups were identified upon diagnosis of AID vs healthy controls (HC) and their pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of any dose of vaccine (Figure 1).Figure 1.Flowchart of the study. AID: autoimmune diseases;HC: healthy controls;rAID: rheumatic AID;nrAID: non-rheumatic AID.[Figure omitted. See PDF]ResultsForty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding AID patients were identified and their vaccination rates (at least one dose) was 100% and 96.2%, respectively (Table 1). Overall AE, minor AE, and major AE were reported significantly more frequently by pregnant than non-pregnant patients (45% vs. 26%, p=0.01;40% vs. 25.9%, p=0.03;17.5% vs. 4.6%, p<0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC. Post-vaccination DF were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18% of age- and disease-matched control patients (n=2315). All DF in pregnant/breastfeeding patients were managed with glucocorticoids and a fifth of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressive treatment.Table 1.Characteristics of female subjects according to groups. Percentages in parenthesis. *Pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of the survey and/or at the time of at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Chi squared test: ~ p=0.01;° p=0.03;§ p<0.01.Total Women (n=6787)Group A Non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding with AID (n=4862)Group B Pregnant with AID* (n=40)Group C Breastfeeding with AID* (n=52)Group D Non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding HC (n=1749)Group E Pregnant HC* (n=31)Group F Breastfeeding HC* (n=53)Age (median, IQR)47, 35-5850, 38-6134, 31-35.2533, 30-3539, 29-4934, 30-36.533, 30-36Caucasian3225 (47.5)2634 (54.1)12 (30)22 (42.3)538 (30.8)7 (22.6)12 (22.6)No comorbidities3027 (44.6)1815 (37.3)19 (47.5)36 (69.2)1102 (63)17 (54.8)38 (71.7)Number of vaccinated women, n (%)6632 (97.7)4753 (97.8)40 (100)50 (96.2)1710 (97.8)30 (96.8)49 (92.5)≥3 doses4850 (71.5%)3583 (73.7%)26 (65%)33 (63.5%)1155 (66%)23 (74.2%)30 (56.6%)No AE4950 (74.6)3517 (74)~22 (55)~36 (72)1312 (76.7)22 (73.3)36 (73.5)Injection site (arm) pain and soreness630 (9.5)471 (9.9)7 (17.5)7 (14)138 (8.1)2 (6.7)5 (10.2)Minor AE1614 (24.3)1232 (25.9)°16 (40)°12 (24)338 (19.8)7 (23.3)10 (20.4)Major AE285 (4.3)196 (4.6)§7 (17.5)§1 (2)77 (4.5)1 (3.3)3 (6.1)Hospitalization74 (1.1)51 (1.1)2 (5)0 (0)20 (1.2)0 (0)1 (2)ConclusionThis study provides the first insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the antenatal period in women with AID. While AEs were more commonly reported by pregnant patients with AID, these were no higher than among pregnant healthy controls without AID. These observations are reassuring, likely to strengthen physician-patient communication and overcome hesitancy as the benefits for the mother and fetus by passive immunization are likely to overweigh the potential risks of AE and DF.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, et al;COVAD Study Group. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int 2022;42:2151-2158.AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to all respondents, to all patients support groups, and to all COVAD Study Group collaborators from 106 Countries.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Autoimmune multimorbidity and higher fatigue VAS in women with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Results from the international COVAD patient-reported e-survey

Background/Purpose: Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) are a group of rare systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) with considerable heterogeneity. Little is reported about gender difference in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of those with IIMs, which have a significant impact on health-related quality of life. We aimed to investigate the gender difference in PROs and treatment regimens of IIM patients utilizing data obtained in the COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD) study, a large-scale, international self-reported e-survey assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with various AIRDs including IIMs. Method(s): The COVAD study was launched in April 2021 and continued until December 31, 2021. The survey data regarding demographics, AIRD diagnosis, autoimmune multimorbidity (defined as three or more AIRD diagnoses for each patient), disease activity, current corticosteroid or immunosuppressant use, and PROs including fatigue and pain VAS, PROMIS Short Form -Physical Function 10a (PROMIS PF-10a), general health status, and ability to carry out routine activities were extracted from the COVAD database. Each PRO, disease activity, and treatments were compared between women and men. Patients with inclusion body myositis (IBM) were analyzed separately due to significant difference in treatment regimens and outcomes compared to other IIM subtypes. Factors affecting each PRO were determined by multivariable analysis. Result(s): 1197 complete responses from IIM patients as of August 2021 were analyzed. 845 (70.6%) patients were women. Women were younger (58 [48-68] vs. 69 [58-75] years old, median [interquartile range (IQR)], P0.001), and more likely to suffer from autoimmune multimorbidity compared to men (11.1% vs. 3.1%, P 0.001;Table 1). In patients with non-IBM IIMs, disease activity and corticosteroid use were comparable in both genders, while the distribution of immunosuppressant use was different (P = 0.002), with more hydroxychloroquine use in women (18.3% vs. 6.9%). The median fatigue VAS was significantly higher in women than in men (5 [IQR 3-7] vs. 4 [IQR 2-6], P = 0.004), whereas gender difference in the other PROs was not statistically significant (Table 2). In patients with IBM, on the other hand, no significant gender differences in PROs and treatment regimens were observed. The multivariable analysis in non-IBM IIMs revealed women, living in high-income countries, overlap myositis, and autoimmune multimorbidity as independent factors for higher fatigue VAS. Conclusion(s): Women with IIMs frequently suffer from autoimmune multimorbidity, and also experience more fatigue compared to men, calling for greater attention and further research on targeted treatment approaches. (Table Presented).

COVID19 vaccination-related short-term adverse events in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and autoimmune multimorbidity: Results from the COVAD survey

Background: COVID-19 vaccines are safe & effective, though patients with rheumatic diseases like idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIMs), and those with multiple comorbidities continue to be hesitant. Adverse events after vaccination are not extensively studied in those with multiple coexisting autoimmune diseases. Patients with IIM often have multiple autoimmune rheumatic and autoimmune non-rheumatic comorbidities (IIM-AIDs), with potentially increased risk of AEs. The COVAD study aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs till 7 days post-vaccination in IIM-AIDs compared to IIMs and healthy controls (HCs) group. Method(s): T he C OVAD s tudy g roup c omprised > 110 c ollaborators across 94 countries. The study was conducted from March-December 2021. A survey monkey platform-based self-reported online survey captured data related to COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs in IIMs, AIDs, and HCs. We compared COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs among IIM-AID patients and IIM alone and HCs, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, vaccine type, immunosuppression, and numbers of AIDs, using binary logistic regression. Statistically significant results following multivariate regression are reported. Result(s): Among 6099 participants, 1387 (22.7%) IIM, 4712 (77.2%) HC, 66.3% females, were included from 18 882 respondents: 573 (41.0%) people with IIM-AIDs;814 (59.0%) with IIM without other AIDs;and 4712 HCs. People with IIM were older [median 54 (45-66) IIM-AIDs, 64 (50-73) IIM, 34 (26-47) HC years, P < 0.001]. BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (37.5%) and ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (Oxford) (11.1%) were the most common vaccines. When compared to IIM alone, IIM-AID patients reported higher overall AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.1)], minor AE [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.1)] &major AE [OR 3 (1.5-5.8)]. IIM-AIDs patients also reported higher body ache, nausea, headache, & fatigue (OR ranging 1.3-2.3). After adjusting for the number of AIDs, the major AEs equalized but overall AEs, & minor AEs, such as fatigue remained higher. When compared to HCs, IIM-AIDs patients reported similar overall AEs, minor AEs but higher major AEs [OR 2 (1.2-3.3)] nausea/ vomiting [OR 1.4 (1.01-2)], headache [OR 1.2 (1.01-1.6)], and fatigue [OR 1.3 (1.03-1.6)]. Dermatomyositis with AIDs (n = 183) reported higher major AEs [OR 4.3 (1.5-12)] compared to DM alone (n = 293). Active IIM with AIDs (n = 482) reported higher overall AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.2)], minor AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.2)] and major AEs [OR 2.6 (1.2-5.2)] compared to active IIM alone (n = 643). Conclusion(s): COVID-19 vaccination is safe with minimal to no risks of short-term AEs in patients with IIM without other concomitant autoimmune diseases. The presence of autoimmune multimorbidity conferred higher self-reported short-term risks of overall, major, and minor COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs 7 days post-vaccination, particularly in those with active IIM.

Vaccine hesitancy among patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and rheumatic diseases patients in 2021-2022: Covad survey

Background: Patients with comorbidities and active rheumatic disease have increased morbidity and hospitalization following SARS-CoV- 2 infection. While vaccination has decreased this, many unknown factors still influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The data on predictors of vaccine hesitancy is regional and scarce. We aimed to analyze the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy in 2022 and compare them with those in 2021 through multicentre international e-surveys (The COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases Studies -COVAD study 1 and 2). Method(s): COVAD 1 and 2 are multi-centre international e-survey with 152 collaborators in 106 countries including patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM), autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), other autoimmune diseases (AIDs), and healthy controls (HCs) conducted in March-December 2021 and February-June 2022 (ongoing), respectively. Descriptive and multivariable regression adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, and stratified by country of residence was performed. Result(s): Among the 18 882 (2021) and 7666 complete responses (2022), and 3109 (16.5%) and 387 (5.1%) did not receive any COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy has decreased [OR 0.26 (0.24-0.3), P < 0.001]. Among the 387 vaccine non-recipients in 2022, numbers were as follows: IIM 69 (17%), AIRDs 179 (46%), other AIDs 80 (20.6%), and HC 59 (15%). The reasons for vaccine hesitancy in 2022 included: doctor advising against it 47 (12%), do not believe in the science behind the vaccine 79 (21%), long-term safety concerns 152 (39%), awaiting more safety data 105 (27%), and not recommended due to recent infection 30 (7%). Compared to AIRDs and HCs, IIM patients were more disbelievers of the science behind the vaccine [OR 1.8 (1.08-3.2), P = 0.023 AIRDs, OR 4 (1.9-8.1), P < 0.001 HC], had more long-term safety concerns [OR 1.9 (1.2-2.9), P = 0.001 AIRDs, OR 5.4 (3-9.6), P < 0.001 HC] and had more doctors recommending against the vaccine [OR 12.9 (2.8-59), P < 0.001 HC]. Vaccine non-recipients had higher pain visual analog score (VAS) (P < 0.001), lower fatigue VAS (P = 0.003), lower PROMIS10a physical health (P < 0.001), and mental health scores (P = 0.015). The factors predicting vaccine hesitancy in regression were lower PROMIS10a global physical health score [OR 0.9 (0.8-0.97), P = 0.014] and Caucasian ethnicity [OR 4.2 (1.7-10.3), P = 0.001]. Compared to 2021, doctor's advising against vaccination [OR 2.5 (1.8-3.6), P < 0.001] and long-term safety concerns [OR 3.6 (2.9-4.6), P < 0.001] were more frequent causes of vaccine hesitancy overall whereas vaccine non-availability [OR 0.05 (0.02-0.11), P < 0.001] and have scheduled the vaccination but not received [OR 0.1 (0.06-0.3), P < 0.001] were less frequent causes in 2022. Conclusion(s): Overall, the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has decreased. Long-term safety concerns and the need for more safety data are now the major reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Caucasian ethnicity and lower physical health scores are predictors of vaccine hesitancy. The increase in physicians recommending against vaccination calls for more physician awareness to mitigate vaccine hesitancy.

COVID-19 VACCINATION-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS among AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE PATIENTS: RESULTS from the COVID-19 VACCINATION in AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY

Background: COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective in the healthy population at large. However, signifcant gaps remain in the evidence of their safety in patients with systemic autoimmune and infammatory disorders (SAIDs). Patients and rheumatologists have expressed concerns regarding vaccination triggered allergic reactions, thrombogenic events, and other adverse events (ADEs) contributing to vaccine hesitancy (1) Objectives: This study aimed to assess and compare short term COVID-19 vaccination associated ADEs in patients with SAIDs and healthy controls (HC) seven days post-vaccination, as well as between patients with SAIDs receiving different vaccines. Methods: We developed an comprehensive, patient self-reporting electronic-survey to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. ADEs were categorized as injection site pain, minor ADEs, major ADEs, and hospitalizations. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type (data as median, IQR). Results: 10900 respondents [42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 5,867 patients (54%) with SAIDs were compared with 5033 HCs. All respondents included in the fnal analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfzer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). Baseline demographics differed by an older SAID population (mean age 42 vs. 33 years) and a greater female predominance (M:F= 1:4.7 vs. 1:1.8) compared to HCs. 79% had minor and only 3% had major vaccine ADEs requiring urgent medical attention overall. In adjusted analysis, among minor ADEs, abdominal pain [mul-tivariate OR 1. 6 (1.14-2.3)], dizziness [multivariate OR 1. 3 (1.2-1.5)], and headache [multivariate OR 1.67 (1.3-2.2)], were more frequent in SAIDs than HCs. Overall major ADEs [multivariate OR 1. 9 (1.6-2.2)], and throat closure [multivar-iate OR 5.7 (2.9-11.3)] were more frequent in SAIDs though absolute risk was small (0-4%) and rates of hospitalization were similarly small in both groups, with a small absolute risk (0-4%). Specific minor ADEs frequencies were different among different vaccine types, however, major ADEs and hospitalizations overall were rare (0-4%) and comparable across vaccine types in patients with SAIDs (Figure 1). Conclusion: Vaccination against COVID-19 is relatively safe and tolerable in patients with SAIDs. Certain minor vaccine ADEs are more frequent in SAIDs than HCs in this study, though are not severe and do not require urgent medical attention. SAIDs were at a higher risk of major ADEs than HCs, though absolute risk was small, and did not lead to increased hospitalizations. There are small differences in minor ADEs between vaccine types in patients with SAIDs.

DIGITALLY ENHANCED TREAT-TO-TARGET and SHARED DECISION-MAKING APPROACH with A DIGITAL HEALTH APPLICATION: INTERIM RESULTS from A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background: Digital health applications (DHA) became indispensable patient companions accelerated by the current COVID pandemic [1]. In 2020, for the frst time worldwide, a regulatory framework to reimburse DHA was established in Germany. To get listed as a DHA, preliminary evidence needs to be generated-next to fulflling highest standards in quality and safety. The DHA ABATON RA consists of two parts;1) digital shared-decision-making (SDM) including choosing an appropriate electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) instrument and the respective ePRO target for the next visit, 2) remote patient monitoring and ePRO tracking by the patient. Hereby, ABATON RA supports a digitally guided Treat-to-Target (T2T) approach. Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate a potentially benefcial effect for the patient by using ABATON RA. Methods: Three-armed, partially blinded multicenter trial (RCT) including RA patients who regularly use a smartphone. Patients attend 3 visits, 3 months apart (T0, T3, T6), with one follow-up visit (T9). Intervention group (IG): Patients use ABATON RA. Via SDM patients and rheumatologists choose a specifc ePRO and respective treatment target for the next visit in three months, e.g. RAID ≤4. Control group (CG): Standard of care treatment (no DHA). Placebo group (PG): Usage of a placebo version of ABATON RA providing only Regensburger Insomnie Skala (RIS) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) as ePROs. No SDM is conducted and ePRO results are not presented to HCP. Results: This interim analysis evaluated the frst 38 patients that completed T3. IG: 13 patients (Av. age 55.9, 61.5% females);PG: 12 (Av. age 50.7, 66.7% females);CG: 13 (Av. age 56.1, 76.9% females). We observe a signifcant improvement in the mean over time in a pairwise comparison within the intervention group for the following: Pt-GA mean difference of 2.98 (p = 0.025, partial η2 = 0.353), pain mean difference of 1.46 (p = 0.049, partial η2 = 0.286) whereas all pairwise comparisons for the two parameters were non-signifcant in PG and CG. The patient reactions assessment (PRA) score, measuring patient perceived quality of the patient-provider relationship, increased by a mean of 4.15 points in IG, compared to a slight decrease of 1.92 for PG and 2.77 for CG. Conclusion: These preliminary fndings show benefcial differences among the groups in favor of IG: 1) for quality of life and 2) the physician-patient-relationship. A digitally enhanced therapy is non-inferior to the gold-standard of exclusive in-person treatment. Patients seem willing and able to get involved in an enhanced treat-to-target and shared decision-making approach.

HIGH FATIGUE SCORES in PATIENTS with IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: A MULTIGROUP COMPARATIVE STUDY from the COVAD E-SURVEY

Background: Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a rare, multisystem, heterogeneous diseases, and contribute to high psychological burden. The patients' perception of physical health, deteriorating independence and social and environmental relationships may not always be a direct function of disease activity. To face with these aspects, several worldwide specialized organization have recommended the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) both in clinical trials and observational studies to highlight patient's perception of the disease (1). Unfortunately, data on fatigue scores in IIM is limited. Objectives: We compared fatigue VAS scores in patients with IIM, autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) and triangulated them with PROMIS physical function in a large international cohort made up of answers from the e-survey regarding the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods: Data of 16327 respondents was extracted from the COVAD database on August 31th 2021. VAS fatigue scores were compared between AID, HC and IIM using univariate followed by multivariate analysis after adjusting for baseline differences. We further performed a propensity score matched analysis on 1827 subjects after adjusting for age, gender and ethnicity. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables, and Bonferroni's correction was applied for the post hoc analyses considering IIMs as a reference group. Results: We analyzed answers from 6988 patients, with a mean age of 43.8 years (SD 16.2). The overall percentage of female was 72% and the population ethnicity was mainly composed of White (55.1%), followed by Asian (24.6%), and Hispanic (13.8%). The overall fatigue VAS was 3.6 mm (SD 2.7). IIMs VAS was 4.8 mm (SD 2.6), AIDs 4.5 mm (SD 2.6), and HC 2.8 mm (SD 2.6) (P <0,001). VAS fatigue scores of IIMs were comparable with AIDs (P 0.084), albeit signifcantly higher than the HCs (P <0,001). Notably, fatigue VAS was lower in IIMs than AIDs in two distinct subsets: inactive disease as defned by the patient's perception and the 'excellent' general health condition group, where IIMs had worse scores (P <0,05). Interestingly, fatigue VAS was comparable in active disease defned by physician assessment, patient perception, based on general functional status, or when defned by steroid dose being prescribed. Notably, after propensity matched analysis of patients adjusting for gender, age and ethnicity (1.827 answers, I.e. 609 subjects per group, P =1) the differences disappeared and IIMs and AIDs had comparable fatigue levels across all levels of disease activity, although the fatigue discrepancies with HCs were substantially confrmed. After application of a multivariate linear regression analysis we found that lower fatigue VAS scores were related to HC (P <0,001), male gender (P <0,001), Asian and Hispanic ethnicities (P <0,001 and 0,003). Conclusion: Our study confrms that there is a higher prevalence of fatigue in all the AIDs patients, with comparable VAS scores between IIMs and other AIDs. We can also read our data commenting that females and/or Caucasians patients suffer a higher impact of this manifestation of chronic autoimmune diseases upon their lives. This is why these subjects, to our judgement, should be carefully evaluated during outpatients visits and to whom we should spend some extra time to discuss health related issues and how to improve them.

COVID-19 SEVERITY and VACCINE BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS in IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES, OTHER SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE and INFLAMMATORY DISEASES, and HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS: RESULTS from the COVID-19 VACCINATION in AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY

Background: Signifcant gaps are present in the evidence of the spectrum and severity of COVID-19 infection in idiopathic infammatory myopathies (IIM). IIM patients typically require immunosuppressive therapy, may have multiple disease sequelae, and frequent comorbidities, and thus may be more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection and complications (1). The possibility of attenuated immunogenicity and reduced efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines due to concomitant immunosuppressive medication is a major concern in these patients, and there is little data available on COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections (BI) in IIM (2). Objectives: This study aimed to compare disease spectrum and severity and COVID-19 BI in patients with IIM, other systemic autoimmune and infammatory diseases (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs). Methods: We developed an extensive self-reporting electronic-survey (COVAD survey) featuring 36 questions to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the COVAD survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. BI was defned as COVID-19 infection occurring more than 2 weeks after receiving 1st or 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type. Results: 10900 respondents [mean age 42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 1,227 (11.2%) had IIM, 4,640 (42.6%) had other SAIDs, and 5,033 (46.2%) were HC. All respondents included in the fnal analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfzer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). IIM patients were older, had a higher Caucasian representation and higher Pfzer uptake than other SAIDs, and HC. A higher proportion of IIM patients received immu-nosuppressants than other SAIDs. IIMs were at a lower risk of symptomatic pre-vaccination COVID-19 infection compared to SAIDs [multivariate OR 0.6 (0.4-0.8)] and HCs [multivariate OR 0.39 (0.28-0.54)], yet at a higher risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to SAIDs [univariate OR 2.3 (1.2-3.5)] and HCs [multivariate OR 2.5 (1.1-5.8)]. BIs were very uncommon in IIM patients, with only 17 (1.4%) reporting BI. IIM patients were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 prior to vaccination than ≤2 weeks of vaccination [univariate OR 8 (4.1-15)] or BI [univariate OR 4.6 (2.7-8.0)]. BIs were equally severe compared to when they occurred prior to vaccination in IIMs, and were comparable between IIM, SAIDs, and HC (Figure 1), though BI disease duration was shorter in IIMs than SAIDs (7 vs 11 days, p 0.027). 13/17 IIM patients with BI were on immunosuppressants. Conclusion: IIM patients experienced COVID-19 infection less frequently prior to vaccination but were at a higher risk of hospitalization and requirement for oxygen therapy compared with patients with HC. Breakthrough COVID-19 infections were rare (1.4%) in vaccinated IIM patients, and were similar to HC and SAIDs, except for shorter disease duration in IIM.

IMPAIRED PROMIS PHYSICAL FUNCTION in IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHY PATIENTS: RESULTS from the MULTICENTER COVAD PATIENT REPORTED E-SURVEY

Background: Evaluation of physical function is fundamental in the management of idiopathic infammatory myopathies (IIMs). Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a National Institute of Health initiative established in 2004 to develop patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with improved validity and efficacy. PROMIS Physical Function (PF) short forms have been validated for use in IIMs [1]. Objectives: To investigate the physical function status of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) utilizing PROMIS PF data obtained in the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, a large-scale, international self-reported e-survey assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in AID patients [2]. Methods: The survey data regarding demographics, IIM and AID diagnosis, disease activity, and PROMIS PF short form-10a scores were extracted from the COVAD study database. The disease activity (active vs inactive) of each patient was assessed in 3 different ways: (1) physician's assessment (active if there was an increased immunosuppression), (2) patient's assessment (active vs inactive as per patient), and (3) current steroid use. These 3 defnitions of disease activity were applied independently to each patient. PROMIS PF-10a scores were compared between each disease category (IIMs vs non-IIM AIDs vs HCs), stratifed by disease activity based on the 3 defnitions stated above, employing negative binominal regression model. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and ethnicity was performed clustering countries, and the predicted PROMIS PF-10a score was calculated based on the regression result. Factors affecting PROMIS PF-10a scores other than disease activity were identifed by another multivariable regression analysis in the patients with inactive disease (IIMs or non-IIM AIDs). Results: 1057 IIM patients, 3635 non-IIM AID patients, and 3981 HCs responded to the COVAD survey until August 2021. The median age of the respondents was 43 [IQR 30-56] years old, and 74.8% were female. Among IIM patients, dermatomyositis was the most prevalent diagnosis (34.8%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (23.6%), polymyositis (PM) (16.2%), anti-syn-thetase syndrome (11.8%), overlap myositis (7.9%), and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) (4.6%). The predicted mean of PROMIS PF-10a scores was signifcantly lower in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs (36.3 [95% (CI) 35.5-37.1] vs 41.3 [95% CI 40.2-42.5] vs 46.2 [95% CI 45.8-46.6], P < 0.001), irrespective of disease activity or the defnitions of disease activity used (physician's assessment, patient's assessment, or steroid use) (Figure 1). The largest difference between active IIMs and non-IIM AIDs was observed when the disease activity was defned by patient's assessment (35.0 [95% CI 34.1-35.9] vs 40.1 [95% CI 38.7-41.5]). Considering the subgroups of IIMs, the scores were signifcantly lower in IBM in comparison with non-IBM IIMs (P < 0.001). The independent factors associated with low PROMIS PF-10a scores in the patients with inactive disease were older age, female gender, and the disease category being IBM, PM, or IMNM. Conclusion: Physical function is signifcantly impaired in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs, even in patients with inactive disease. The elderly, women, and IBM groups are the worst affected, suggesting that developing targeted strategies to minimize functional disability in certain groups may improve patient reported physical function and disease outcomes.

ONE YEAR of DIGITAL HEALTH APPLICATIONS (DIGA) in GERMANY-RHEUMATOLOGISTS' PERSPECTIVES

Background: Based on given legislation (ŞŞ 33a and 139e SGB V, Social Code Book V) the German approach to digital health applications (Digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen, DiGA) allows reimbursed prescription of approved therapeutic software products (listed in the DIGA directory https://diga.bfarm.de/de/verzeichnis) for patients since October 6th, 2020. Objectives: To evaluate the level of knowledge on DiGA among members of the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) after one year of DiGA under the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic using the DiGA Toolbox of the 'health innovation hub' (hih), a think tank and sparrings partner of the German Federal Ministry of Health. Methods: Anonymous cross-sectional online survey using LimeSurvey (https://limesurvey.org). The survey was promoted by newsletters sent out to DGRh newsletter recipients and Twitter posts. Ethical approval was obtained. Results: 75 valid participants reported that they care more than 80% of their working time for patients with rheumatic diseases. Most were working in outpatient clinics (54%) and older than 40 years of age (84%). Gender distribution was balanced (50%). 70% were aware of the possibility to prescribe DiGA. Most were informed on this for the frst time via trade press (63%), and only 8% via the professional society. 46% expect information on DiGA from professional societies and the medical chambers (36%) but rarely from the manufacturer (10%) and the responsible ministry (4%). Respondents would like to be informed about DIGA via continuing education events (face-to-face 76%, online 84%), trade press (86%), and manufacturers test accounts (64%). Only 7% have already prescribed a DiGA, 46% planned to do so, and 47% did not intend DiGA prescriptions. Relevant aspects for prescription are given in Figure 1. 86% believe that using DiGA/medical apps would at least partially be feasible and understandable to their patients. 83% thought that data collected by the patients using DiGA or other digital solutions could at least partially influence health care positively. 51% appreciated to get DiGA data directly into their patient documentation system resp. clinical electronic health record (EHR) and 29% into patients' owned EHR. Conclusion: DiGA awareness was high whereas prescription rate was low. Mostly, physician-desired aspects for DiGA prescriptions were proven efficacy and efficiency for physicians and patients, risk of adverse effects and health care costs were less important. Evaluation of patients' barriers and needs are warranted. Our results will contribute to the implementation and dissemination of DIGA.

[Digitalization in rheumatological practice]. / Digitalisierung in der Rheumapraxis.

Digitalization in medicine is of major interest since the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. This article tries to present the induced changes and technical solutions with respect to the different parts in the patient journey. Symptom checkers, new health applications, digital appointment management etc. are described. Apart from the technical and digital possibilities, the changes in the quality of communication additionally have to be mentioned. There is an urgent need for further technical standardization including the interfaces. In many cases further studies must confirm the equivalence of digital applications in comparison to analogue techniques.

Digital rheumatology in the era of COVID-19: Results of a national patient and physician survey

Background: Digital health applications (DHAs) are gaining influence and promise great potential for the monitoring and management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Objectives: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RMD patients' and rheumatologists' usage, preferences, and perception of digital health applications (DHAs) in Germany. Methods: A web-based national survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology and the German League against Rheumatism. The prospective survey was distributed via social media, QR-code, and email. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to show correlations. Results: We analysed the responses of 299 patients and 129 rheumatologists. Most patients (74%) and rheumatologists (76%) believed that DHAs are useful in the management of RMDs and felt confident in their own usage thereof (90%;86%). 38% of patients and 71% of rheumatologists reported that their attitude had changed positively towards DHAs and that their usage had increased due to COVID-19 (29%;48%). The majority in both groups agreed on implementing virtual visits for follow-up appointments in stable disease conditions. The most reported advantages of DHAs were usage independent of time and place (76.6%;77.5%). The main barriers were a lack of information on suitable, available DHAs (58.5%;41.9%), poor usability (42.1% of patients) and a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHAs (23.2% of rheumatologists) (Table 1). Only a minority (<10% in both groups) believed that digitalisation has a negative impact on the patient-doctor relationship. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic instigated an increase in patients' and rheumatologists' acceptance and usage of DHAs, possibly introducing a permanent paradigm shift in the management of RMDs. (Table Presented).

[Telemedicine in rheumatology]. / Telemedizin in der Rheumatologie.

Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, in recent months we have experienced deep changes in our daily and professional lives. In the context of pandemic containment, routine rheumatological procedures have changed in many areas. To guarantee sufficient protection against the infection for patients and staff, telemedicine (especially telephone and video consultation) has increasingly been used. Due to the Digital Healthcare Act (DiGAV), whereby patients will have a legal claim to specific digital health applications in Germany, medical apps and wearables will offer new opportunities for telemedical monitoring. This article provides an overview of telemedical care options in the field of rheumatology. Furthermore, opportunities and limitations of telemedicine in rheumatology are reviewed.