Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on DMARDs: as determined by antibody and T cell responses.

OBJECTIVES: To assess antibody and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: This prospective study recruited 100 patients with RA on a variety of DMARDs for antibody and T cell analysis, pre-vaccination and 4 weeks post-vaccination. Positive antibody response was defined as sera IgG binding to ≥1 antigen. Those that remained seronegative after first vaccination were retested 4 weeks after second vaccination; and if still seronegative after vaccination three. A T cell response was defined an ELISpot count of ≥7 interferon (IFN)γ-positive cells when exposed to spike antigens. Type I IFN activity was determined using the luminex multiplex assay IFN score. RESULTS: After vaccine one, in patients without prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 37/83 (45%) developed vaccine-specific antibody responses, 44/83 (53%) vaccine-specific T cell responses and 64/83 (77%) developed either antibody or T cell responses. Reduced seroconversion was seen with abatacept, rituximab (RTX) and those on concomitant methotrexate (MTX) compared to 100% for healthy controls (p<0.001). Better seroconversion occurred with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) versus RTX (p=0.012) and with age ≤50 (p=0.012). Pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 exposure was associated with higher quantitative seroconversion (≥3 antibodies) (p<0.001). In the subgroup of non-seroconverters, a second vaccination produced seroconversion in 54% (19/35), and after a third in 20% (2/10). IFN score analysis showed no change post-vaccine. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA on DMARDs have reduced vaccine responses, particularly on certain DMARDs, with improvement on subsequent vaccinations but with approximately 10% still seronegative after three doses.

EULAR points to consider for conducting clinical trials and observational studies in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing interest, there is no guidance or consensus on how to conduct clinical trials and observational studies in populations at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: An European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) task force formulated four research questions to be addressed by systematic literature review (SLR). The SLR results informed consensus statements. One overarching principle, 10 points to consider (PTC) and a research agenda were proposed. Task force members rated their level of agreement (1-10) for each PTC. RESULTS: Epidemiological and demographic characteristics should be measured in all clinical trials and studies in at-risk individuals. Different at-risk populations, identified according to clinical presentation, were defined: asymptomatic, musculoskeletal symptoms without arthritis and early clinical arthritis. Study end-points should include the development of subclinical inflammation on imaging, clinical arthritis, RA and subsequent achievement of arthritis remission. Risk factors should be assessed at baseline and re-evaluated where appropriate; they include genetic markers and autoantibody profiling and additionally clinical symptoms and subclinical inflammation on imaging in those with symptoms and/or clinical arthritis. Trials should address the effect of the intervention on risk factors, as well as progression to clinical arthritis or RA. In patients with early clinical arthritis, pharmacological intervention has the potential to prevent RA development. Participants' knowledge of their RA risk may inform their decision to participate; information should be provided using an individually tailored approach. CONCLUSION: These consensus statements provide data-driven guidance for rheumatologists, health professionals and investigators conducting clinical trials and observational studies in individuals at risk of RA.