ABSTRACT
BackgroundVaccination against SARS-CoV2 had a critical role in the fight against COVID19 pandemic.A weaker humoral response to COVID19 vaccine has been found in rheumatic patients treated with Rituximab (RTX) or Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF)[1]. Despite the evidence that anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines can elicit a T-cell response [2], some data show that even the cellular immunity could be impaired in rheumatic patients [3] but COVID19 serology is the only parameter that is feasible to measure in daily practice.Tixagevimab+cilgavimab are two human-derived monoclonal antibodies administered parenterally and authorized by regulatory agencies in February 2022 for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID19 from different virus variants in fragile patients.ObjectivesTo demonstrate safety and effectiveness of tixagevimab+cilgavimab.MethodsPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases undergoing immunosuppressive treatment with RTX or MMF during the vaccination campaign were enrolled between April and June 2022. All patients must have anti-spike antibody levels below the protective threshold (defined by anti-spike IgG titre <250 BAU/ml) after receiving at least 2 vaccine doses.Patients were monitored with a questionnaire every month about COVID19 symptoms (including respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, anosmia and ageusia, skin rash and potential contact with COVID19+ subjects) and were checked for anti-spike and anti-nucleocapside antibodies titres every 2 months for a total of a 6 month follow-up. MMF dose was reduced at 1 g/die at the time of vaccine administration.ResultsFifteen patients were enrolled: 9 participants had a connective tissue disease (CTD;1 dermatomyositis, 3 anti-syntethase syndrome, 4 systemic sclerosis, 1 systemic lupus erythematosus) and 6 had vasculitis (all granulomatosis with polyangiitis). 12 of them received RTX in the preceding 12 months and 3 were taking MMF.About safety, the therapy was very well tolerated and only 4 patients (26%) reported a non-severe adverse event in the 2 weeks following drug administration (2 myalgia, 1 headache, 1 fatigue), none of them requiring hospitalization nor pharmacologic treatment.Regarding effectiveness, 3/15 patients contracted SARS-Cov2 infection (20%) with mild symptoms and no need for hospitalization nor oxygen therapy. Only 1 of them received an antiviral drug (nirmatrelvir+ritonavir). All infected patients had a CTD diagnosis. No significant correlation was observed between the type of rheumatic disease and the risk of infection or response to tixagevimab+cilgavimab.ConclusionNone of our patients developed severe adverse events after tixagevimab+cilgavimab administration and, among the 3 SARS-CoV2 infected patients, none required hospitalization nor oxygen therapy.We conclude that in our experience tixagevimab+cilgavimab is a safe and useful complementary immunization strategy to vaccination for COVID19 prophylaxis.These data will be implemented in a larger study, comprehending various immunocompromised patients from several departments.References[1] Furer et al., Ann Rheum Dis, 2021[2] Mangalakumari et al., Nat Rev Immunol, 2020[3] Picchianti-Diamanti et al., Front Immunol, 2021Charateristic of the cohortIdentificativeAgeDiagnosisRTX/MMFSARS-CoV2 InfectionHospitalizationAntiviral drugs180SScMMF-//270ASSDRTX+nono370ASSDRTX+noyes452GPARTX-//551GPARTX-//649SSc+SSjRTX-//768SScMMF-//847LESRTX-//964ASSDRTX-//1068GPARTX-//1123GPARTX-//1258DMRTX+nono1361SScMMF-//1475GPARTX-//1569GPARTX-//Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Background: Rituximab (RTX) achieved high remission-induction and sustained maintenance rates for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) [1], [2]. However, RTX is an expensive medication, which may potentially lead to serious side effects. Defning the best dose regimen for maintenance in AAV is still an unmet need. Objectives: The aim of the present study is to compare the effects of ultra-low dose RTX (500 mg or 1000 mg once per year) to standard low dose RTX (500 or 1000 mg twice per year) as remission-maintenance therapy in AAV patients. Methods: We included consecutive AAV patients (classifed as GPA and MPA [3]) referring to four different Rheumatology centers in Italy. We assessed all AAV patients who successfully achieved disease remission (BVASv3=0) with conventional RTX or cyclophosphamide regimens and have been subsequently treated with RTX for maintenance of remission. All included patients received at least three maintenance infusions with either 1000 mg or 500 mg, twice per year (standard low dose) or once per year (ultra-low dose). After a period of 18 months, we assessed the remission rate, damage (VDI), glucocorticoids intake, ANCA status, B-cells depletion and serum IgG levels. Results: From January 2011 to December 2021, 83 AAV patients (mean age 51±16, 49.4% female, 95.2% ANCA positive, 65.8% anti PR3, 34.2% anti MPO), 61 classifed as GPA and 22 MPA, achieved complete disease remission with conventional RTX induction regimen. After 7 [6-9] months, 29.9% patients started maintenance treatment with ultra-low dose RTX (once per year), while 70.1% patients with standard low dose (twice per year), for 18 months. No signifcant differences at baseline were noted between patients receiving ultra-low dose when compared to those treated with conventional low-dose. At the end of observation period, a disease fare was observed in 22.7% of the low-dose group, and 21.2% in those treated with the standard dose (p=0.881). Relapse-free survival was comparable between the two group (log-rank p=0.818, Figure 1). When comparing AAV patients treated with ultra-low dose regimen to those treated with low-dose, no differences were noted in negative ANCA rate (72.2% vs 67.1%, p=0.262), ANCA titer (0 [0-7.8] vs 0 [0-50] UI/mL, p=0.232), B-cells depletion rate (70.6% vs 75%, p=0.725), mean serum IgG (811 [146-922] vs 680 [429-861] mg/dL, p=0.367), mean daily glucocorticoid dosage (2.5 [0-5] vs 3.75 [0-5] mg/d, p=0.647), VDI (4 [1-5] vs 2 [1-4], p=0.098), hypogammaglobulinaemia rate (31.8% vs 36.5%, p=0.697) and deaths (4.5% vs 5.8%, p=0.831). Although not signifcant, patients treated with ultra-low dose had lower severe infection rate (10.5% vs 26.8%, p=0.154). Notably, in the all cohort 5 deaths were related to COVID19 pneumonia. Conclusion: Reduced exposure to RTX was not associated with an impaired efficacy of maintenance therapy in patients with AAV. Remission maintenance with ultra-low dose RTX is a safe and more cost-effective option.
ABSTRACT
Background: The spread of COVID-19 pandemic raised the need to perform an additional vaccine dose to overcome the diffusion of the infection and possible life-threatening disease complications. Certain population subsets seem to be at increased risk of developing such complications, such as elderly and/or immu-nocompromised patients. Objectives: To assess the persistence of immunity following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine and the magnitude of the humoral response after the booster dose in a cohort of patients affected by giant cell arteritis (GCA). Methods: Patients with GCA regularly followed at the Rheumatology Department of the University of Pavia, Italy, who received a booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 Pfizer/BioNtech or mRNA-1273 Moderna) between October 1st and December 31st, 2021 were included. Humoral response was assessed by measuring SARS-CoV-2 Trimeric S (TSAbs) and Neutralizing (NAbs) antibodies, with a cut-off of 33.8 Binding Antibody Units (BAU)/mL and 1:10 dilution, respectively. Blood samples from each patient were drawn at least 4 months after the second and three weeks after the third vaccine dose. Results: Forty-two patients who received the booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine were enrolled. Thirty (71.4%) were females, mean age 73.2±4.7 years, disease duration 58±38 months, 19 (45.2%) had large-vessel vasculitis. Thirty-two (76.2%) were on glucocorticoids (GCs) at a mean dose of 4.9±7.8 mg/day prednisone equivalent, with 7 (16.7%) receiving ≥7.5 mg/day. Eighteen (42.9%) were on methotrexate (MTX) (mean dose 14.2±3.5 mg/week) and 8 (19.0%) were treated with subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ) 162 mg/week. SARS-CoV-2 serology was tested prior to the third vaccine dose at an average of 5.4±0.4 months from the former vaccination scheduled: 37 (88.1%) retained TSAbs and 30 (71.4%) NAbs. The median TSAb titre was 134 BAU/mL (IQR 97-292). Four out of 5 patients (80.0%) without TSAbs and 7 out of 12 (58.3%) without NAbs were on both GCs and MTX. Moreover, those on GCs plus MTX had lower pre-third dose TSAb titres as compared to other treatment subgroups (Figure 1A). GC doses ≥7.5 mg/day prednisone equivalents seemed to blunt NAb levels along time: 28.6% patients on GCs ≥7.5 mg/day prednisone equivalents had negative NAbs before the third dose vs. 80.0% of those taking <7.5 mg/day (p=0.007) as well as lower NAb titres (Figure 1B). Data regarding antibody response after the booster dose were available for 35 patients (83.3%). Blood collection occurred at a median of 25 days (IQR 24-32) after the third vaccine dose. All patients developed TSAbs, even those who did not respond to the previous shots. The median TSAb titre rose to 2080 BAU/mL (IQR 2080-2080) (p<0.001), while the median NAb titre increased from 1:10 to 1:320 (p<0.001). One patient (2.9%) treated with prednisone 8.75 mg/day plus MTX 12.5 mg/week did not develop NAbs. NAb levels were lower in patients taking MTX as compared to those who did not (Figure 1C,D), whereas treatment with TCZ or GCs, along with the GC dose, did not affect the magnitude of the antibody response. There were no serious adverse events from the vaccine. However, 3 patients (8.6%) experienced a disease relapse 24±5 days after the booster dose. Conclusion: In our cohort, most patients who seroconverted after the second dose of vaccine retained the humoral immunity, with excellent serocon-version rates following the booster dose. However, GCs, especially at doses ≥7.5 mg/day prednisone equivalents, may contribute to the waning of NAb titres. On the other hand, immunosuppressants like MTX, especially when combined with GCs, might impair the magnitude of the humoral response to the booster dose.
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
Background: The best way to manage disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) undergoing the Coronavirus disease (Covid)-19 vaccination and the recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination are still a matter of debate, due to the difficulties in balancing the vaccination efficacy and safety. Objectives: To assess the impact of different strategies of antirheumatic treatment management on disease activity around the time of vaccination for Coronavirus disease (Covid)-19 in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: We prospectively evaluated patients with PsA in remission or low-disease activity candidate to receive Covid-19 vaccination with mRNA vaccines. Methotrexate (MTX) and lefunomide were withheld 7 days after each dose, whilst biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), were either continued (46.8% of the patients) or withheld (53.2%) from the day of the frst dose until 7 days after the second dose. Patients were reassessed after 3 months from enrollment or in case of disease fare. Results: After the second dose of Covid-19 vaccination 7 patients (5.6%) (6 females) had an articular disease fare each (mean involved joints: 1.29), one patient presented a concomitant worsening of psoriasis, and four patients had an isolated worsening of their psoriasis. All patients received additional treatments with oral GC (n=2) or non-steroidal anti-infammatory drugs (n=5). Two fares lasted more than one week and required a modifcation of the ongoing bDMARD. Articular fare incidence (6.8% vs 3%, p=0.259), involved joints (1.4 vs 1.5, p=0.846), disease fare severity, and changes in antirheumatic therapies (1 vs 1, p=0.928) did not differ signifcantly between the two different bDMARD management strategy groups (continued vs temporary withheld). There was no signifcant difference in disease activity score for psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA) and C-reactive protein (CRP) after vaccination, but patients who fared up had a higher mean basal DAPSA (7.3 vs 4.1, p=0.046). On binomial logistic regression analysis, we did not fnd any signifcant association with gender, age, basal CRP, basal DAPSA, active psoriasis, conventional synthetic DMARDs, or bDMARDs and disease fare. Conclusion: Our fndings suggest that a temporary short halt of bDMARDs could be a viable option in patients with well-controlled PsA undergoing Covid-19 vaccination without increasing the risk of fares, which could be useful to increase T cell response and antibody titres after Covid-19 vaccination.
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
Background: The outcomes of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis (IA), such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have dramatically improved over the past 20 years. Earlier identification of IA and prompter treatment institution have been key advancements, promoted by the constitution of Early Arthritis Clinics (EAC) and the development of more sensitive classification criteria for RA. The outbreak of new COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly become a global health emergency and has forced a rearrangement in the management of other non-COVID-19 diseases. The impact of the lock-down of the healthcare systems on chronic inflammatory diseases such as RA is expected to be significant but is at present unknown. Objectives: To assess the effects of the lock-down imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic on the referral and clinical presentation of patients with new-onset RA. Methods: Data were retrieved from the Pavia EAC inception cohort, established in 2005 for the early identification of patients with new-onset IA. Referral criteria to the EAC include: ≥3 swollen joints (SJ) and/or <3 SJ and positive squeeze test and/or <3 SJ and morning stiffness ≥30 min. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients are assessed at baseline and regularly over follow-up. At 31 Dec 2020, the Pavia EAC collects information on 2.508 patients. For this study, baseline characteristics of the patients referred in the semester following the COVID-19 lock-down (Jul-Dec 2020) were compared with: (i) patients referred in the semester immediately preceding the lock-down (Jul-Dec 2019);(ii) patients referred in the semester following the publication of the 2010 RA classification criteria (Jan-Jun 2011);(iii) patients referred in the semester preceding the publication of the 2010 criteria (Jul-Dec 2009). Results: In the semester following the lock-down imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a decrease in the referral of patients with new-onset suspected IA compared with previous periods (n=71 vs n=91 in the semester before the lock-down, n=96 in the first semester of 2011, n=101 in the second semester of 2009). Furthermore, fewer of the referred patients fulfilled RA criteria at presentation (36.6% vs 44.3%, 46.5% and 42.9% in the other semesters). Among patients with RA, more were autoantibody-positive (72% vs 50%, 49.1% and 52.2%). There was a trend for increased diagnostic delay in the overall cohort of RA after the COVID-19 lock-down (Figure 1A). The delay was particularly longer in autoantibody-positive patients, returning to the values seen before the introduction of the 2010 RA criteria (Figure 1B). In contrast, the few autoantibody-negative patients were referred earlier (Figure 1C). Disease activity at presentation was significantly higher in RA patients presenting after the lock-down compared with the progressive trend for reduction observed over the previous years, irrespective of the autoantibody status (Figure 1D-F). Such increase was determined by an inversion of the trend towards lower levels of objective parameters of inflammation, such as the swollen joint count (Figure 1G-I) and acute phase reactants, and a further increase in the secular trend towards worsening of patient-derived measures, such as the tender joint count and patient global assessment (Figure 1J-L). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic is posing unprecedented challenges in the management of patients suffering from chronic diseases. RA has returned to be diagnosed outside the window of opportunity, with a significantly higher inflammatory burden at presentation. The many benefits of early diagnosis, which have dramatically changed the outcomes of autoantibody-positive RA, are at risk of vanishing in short times. Equally important, autoantibody-negative RA is at risk of further under-diagnosis and under-treatment.