Evaluation of the relationship between acute kidney injury and renin angiotensin system inhibition in COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), acute kidney injury (AKI) may alter the clinical course and outcome of the disease. In this study, the association of AKI with renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor treatment and its clinical consequences were examined in COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital during the initial stages of the pandemic. METHODS: A total of 407 patients between 18 and 85 years of age (202 male and 205 female) admitted to the Umraniye Research And Training Hospital between May 2020 and August 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in the study. Patients were categorized as follows: Group 1, subjects with no chronic conditions (n=150); and Group 2, subjects with comorbid conditions (n=257). Group 2 was subdivided into Group 2A (receiving angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB])/(angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI], n=81), and Group 2B (not receiving ARB/ACEI, n=176). RESULTS: Hypertension was the most frequent comorbid condition (36.4%). There was no difference in survival rates between the patients who used RAS inhibitor and the ones who did not based on log rank test (p=0.342). Fifty-four patients (13.4%) had developed AKI during the time frame of the disease. In patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension, the use of RAS inhibitory medication was not associated with developing AKI (OR 95% CI: 0.317-1.358; p=0.256). The survival rate of the patients with AKI was significantly lower than patients without AKI (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 may cause renal injury represents a risk factor for mortality. Therefore, detection of renal injury has a particular prognostic importance.

Real-life experience of tofacitinib in patients with treatment-resistant rheumatoid arthritis: A 5-year follow-up: Monocentric experience.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to assess the short- and long-term effects of tofacitinib (TOFA) therapy on efficacy, safety, and drug retention rate patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and/or biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: Thirty-five patients with RA who received TOFA therapy for at least 3 months in rheumatology outpatient clinic between December 2015 and December 2020 were included in the study. The prospectively follow-up results of the patients obtained on the 6th month and 5th year are presented. Demographic characteristics of the patients, the disease activity score-28 for RA with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS 28-4 [ESR]), change in DAS-28, health assessment questionnaire score, patient visual analog scale score, and laboratory parameters were recorded. The data at 6 months and 5 years of treatment were compared with baseline data. All side effects were recorded at each follow-up visit. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 35 patients, 23 received TOFA treatment after receiving ≥1 bDMARDs, while the remaining 12 patients received TOFA therapy were biologic naive. On the 6-month follow-up, DAS 28-4 (ESR) score and DAS28 improvement significantly decreased at the 6th months from baseline (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively), and moderate disease activity was achieved in 13 patients. High disease activity persisted in four patients. DAS28 improvement according to the EULAR response criteria was good response in 86% of the patients. DAS 28-4 (ESR) score and DAS28 improvement significantly decreased at 5 years from baseline (p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively), and the moderate disease activity was achieved in 10 patients. High disease activity persisted in two patients. Drug retention rate at 5-year follow-up was 54% and the daily glucocorticoid therapy could be discontinued in 9 patients (47%). Three patients (15%) were tested positive for COVID-19. None of them required hospitalization and no deaths were occurred due to COVID-19. CONCLUSION: TOFA is effective and well-tolerated treatment options that reduce the need for steroids in patients with RA.

Single-center experience of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease: Real-life data

Background/Aim: Patients with rheumatic disease are at high risk of infection complications, and vaccines are essential to prevent these diseases. Moreover, biologic disease-modifying/targeted synthetic anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have been shown to reduce the immunogenicity of vaccines, although their effectiveness, side effects, and effects on disease activity are not yet clear. In this study, we aimed to investigate the incidence of post-vaccine side effects, disease exacerbation, and COVID-19 infection despite vaccination in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease;the difference in vaccination effects between patients who received and did not receive b/tsDMARD treatments. Methods: Patients received b/tsDMARD (i.e., biologic group (BG)) (n = 194) who were admitted to the rheumatology outpatient clinic, were included in this study. All patients with inflammatory rheumatological disease, who did not receive b/tsDMARD (n = 185), but who applied to the rheumatology outpatient clinic during this time, were included in the non-biologic group (NG). Patients followed were included and evaluated cross-sectionally. Clinical and demographic characteristics, as well as type of COVID-19 vaccination, post-vaccine side effects, COVID-19 infection status before and after vaccination, and post-vaccine rheumatological disease exacerbation, were also evaluated. Results: In BG, 92.2% of patients were vaccinated, but for NG, 82.7% were vaccinated against COVID-19 patients with BG, 46.2% were vaccinated with CoronaVac vaccine alone, 51.4% with Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine alone, and 37.4% with a combination of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccines. In the NG, 53.8% of patients were vaccinated with CoronaVac vaccine alone, 48.6% with BNT162b2 vaccine alone, and 36.2% with a combination of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccines. There was a significant difference between groups, according to vaccine types (P = 0.040), as this difference was due to a larger number of patients vaccinated with the CoronaVac + BNT162b2 combination for BG. Adverse effects were detected in 99 patients (55.9%) with BG and 95 patients (62.5%) with NG post-vaccination. There was no difference between BG and NG vaccines (CoronaVac, BNT162b2, or their combination) for adverse effects (P > 0.05 for all). The vaccine with the most common adverse events was BNT162b2, for both BG and NG. The most common side effect was arm pain, significantly higher in BG (P = 0.014). Fever and rash were more common for NG (P = 0.017). Disease exacerbation was not observed with BG, whereas it was detected in 5 (1%) patients for NG that was different (P = 0.021). SARS-COV-2 infection was also significantly less common for BG vs. NG (15.3% vs. 20.3%) (P = 0.017). Despite COVID-19 vaccinations, 56 patients with BG and 62 patients with NG had COVID-19 (P = 0.005). Conclusion: Standardized vaccination comparisons could not be achieved, as patients using b/tsDMARD were vaccinated for fewer COVID-19 infections. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccines are well-tolerated in patients with rheumatological disease, with vaccine-related disease activity at 1%, only seen in those not using b/tsDMARDs.

Clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and inflammatory rheumatic diseases receiving biological/targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: Anti-cytokine treatments are used in the treatment of severe COVID-19. Other studies have shown statistical significance with TNF inhibitors but not with other biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD). OBJECTIVES: Compare the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) infection and the course and incidence of COVID-19 infection in patients who received b/tsDMARD with control patients. DESIGN: Analytical cross-sectional SETTINGS: Tertiary care hospital PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who applied to the rheumatology outpatient clinic between June 2020-March 2021 and received b/tsDMARD were included in the study. All patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis who applied to the rheumatology outpatient clinic in the three months before March 2021 and did not receive b/tsDMARD were included as the control group. History of COVID-19 infection and treatments were recorded. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess factors associated with use of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and differences between specific biologic drugs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of COVID-19 disease among patients using biological/targeted synthetic therapy and non-biological/targeted synthetic therapy. COVID-19 clinical outcomes (hospitalization, intensive care admission, mechanical ventilation and death). SAMPLE SIZE: 533 in total; 341 received b/tsDMARD, 212 in the control group that did not receive b/tsDMARD. RESULTS: One hundred patients (18%) had been infected with SARS-COV-2. The difference in SARS-COV-2 infection between b/tsDMARD and the control was statistically significant (13, 2% vs. 25, 9%, respectively) (P<.001). The hospital stays were longer in the controls (P<.001). Multinomial regression analysis revealed that COVID-19 negative patients were more likely to use tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (OR: 2, 911; 95% CI: 1.727-4.908; P<.001) compared to COVID-19 positive participants. Multinomial logistic regression analysis indicated that hospitalized patients were more likely to use TNF inhibitors (OR: 11, 006; 95% CI: 3.447-35.138; P<.001) and there was no significant difference between b/tsDMARDs other than TNF inhibitors in frequency of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were medicated with b/tsDMARD were less likely to be infected with COVID-19 and be hospitalized due to the infection. We have found that this effect was particularly dependent on the use of TNF inhibitors. LIMITATIONS: Conducted in a single center and unable to provide a homogeneous study population. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

Evaluation of factors affecting the frequency and clinical course of COVID-19 in patients using anti-TNF-alpha agents.

OBJECTIVES: Patients being treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-alpha) agents were reported to have better prognosis related to COVID-19. We evaluated the factors affecting the frequency, clinical course, and outcome of COVID-19 in patients treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid diseases and chronic inflammatory bowel diseases treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents were evaluated retrospectively. The laboratory data in routine visits, frequency of COVID-19, pneumonia, hospitalization and/or intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up and, mortality were recorded. The factors related to COVID-19 frequency and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients (177 males [54.6%] and 147 females [45.4%], mean age: 45.3±12.16 years) was included in the study. In all, 44 (13.6%) patients had COVID-19; of these, 11 (25%) developed pneumonia, 7 (15.9%) were hospitalized, and 1 (2.3%) was followed up in ICU. There was no mortality. The patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were older (mean age: 52±11 years versus 41±12 years, p=0.01), had hypertension and coronary artery disease more frequently (5 cases [55.6%] versus 4 cases [44.4], p=0.02 and 2 cases [100%] versus 0 cases [0%], p=0.014, respectively), and lower eosinophil % (1.35±1.79% versus 2.3±1.45%, p=0.016). The diabetes mellitus was more frequent (66.7 versus 33.3%, p=0.013), and mean eosinophil % was lower among inpatients compared with outpatients (1.29±2.22% versus 2.19±1.37%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the patients treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents having COVID-19 might have mild clinical course and better prognosis.

Can Monocytopenia Be a New Indicator in Determining Survival in Covid-19 Disease?

BACKGROUND: Monocytes play a central role in Covid-19 infection. Monocytopenia is especially observed in patients with severe infection. In our study, we aimed to investigate the effects of monocytopenia on survival in patients presenting with the suspicion of Covid-19. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with Covid-19 who received inpatient or outpatient treatment in the pandemic clinic of Umraniye Training and Research Hospital between April 2020 and July 2020 were included in our retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups, severe and non-severe. Demographic data, laboratory parameters, those who were monocytopenic at presentation, those who developed monocytopenia during follow-up, and those with persistent monocytopenia were noted. RESULTS: The study included 471 patients with a mean age of 50.4 ± 18.2 years. Sixty-seven (14.2%) patients had severe and 404 (85.8%) had non-severe disease. The minimum value of monocytes detected during the follow-up in severe patients was significantly lower (p < 0.001). As patients were grouped into those with monocytopenia at the time of admission, those with monocytopenia developing during their follow-up, and those whose monocytopenia at admission persisted, they were compared with regards to the presence or absence of severe disease. Newly developing monocytopenia and persistent monocytopenia were significant in patients with severe disease (p < 0.001, p = 0,001 respectively). Also, among non-surviving patients, there was a significant difference in survival times in the monocytopenia group (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we found more developing and persistent monocytopenia in the severe group, and the survival time was low, especially in those with newly developing monocytopenia. The development of monocytopenia in the daily hemogram follow-up of the patients may increase the possibility of mortality, which suggests that monocytopenia may be a new marker in determining survival.

COVID-19 Among Patients With Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

BACKGROUND: The course of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been of special concern in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) due to the immune dysregulation that may be associated with these diseases and the medications used for IRDs, that may affect innate immune responses. OBJECTIVE: In this cohort study, we aimed to report the disease characteristics and variables associated with COVID-19 outcome among Turkish patients with IRDs. METHODS: Between April and June, 2020, 167 adult IRD patients with COVID-19 were registered from 31 centers in 14 cities in Turkey. Disease outcome was classified in 4 categories; (i) outpatient management, (ii) hospitalization without oxygen requirement, (iii) hospitalization with oxygen requirement, and (iv) intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine variables associated with a worse outcome. RESULTS: 165 patients (mean age: 50 ± 15.6 years, 58.2% female) were included. Twenty-four patients (14.5%) recovered under outpatient management, 141 (85.5%) were hospitalized, 49 (30%) required inpatient oxygen support, 22 (13%) were treated in the ICU (17 received invasive mechanic ventilation) and 16 (10%) died. Glucocorticoid use (OR: 4.53, 95%CI 1.65-12.76), chronic kidney disease (OR: 12.8, 95%CI 2.25-103.5), pulmonary disease (OR: 2.66, 95%CI 1.08-6.61) and obesity (OR: 3.7, 95%CI 1.01-13.87) were associated with a worse outcome. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) do not seem to affect COVID-19 outcome while conventional synthetic DMARDs may have a protective effect (OR: 0.36, 95%CI 0.17-0.75). Estimates for the associations between IRD diagnoses and outcome were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Among IRD patients with COVID-19, comorbidities and glucocorticoid use were associated with a worse outcome, while biologic DMARDs do not seem to be associated with a worse outcome.