ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID ANTIBODIES AND VASCULAR THROMBOSIS IN PATIENTS WITH THE MOST SEVERE FORMS OF COVID-19

BackgroundThe presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) has been observed in patients with COVID-19 (1,2), suggesting that they may be associated with deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or stroke in severe cases (3). Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder and the most common form of acquired thrombophilia globally. At least one clinical criterion, vascular thrombosis (arterial, venous or microthrombosis) or pregnancy morbidity and at least one laboratory criterion- positive aPL two times at least 12 weeks apart: lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-β2-glycoprotein 1 (anti-β2GPI) antibody, have to be met for international APS classification criteria(4). Several reports also associate anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin antibodies (aPS/PT) with APS.ObjectivesTo combine clinical data on arterial/venous thrombosis and pregnancy complications before and during hospitalisation with aPL laboratory findings at 4 time points (hospital admission, worsening of COVID-19, hospital discharge, and follow-up) in patients with the most severe forms of COVID-19 infection.MethodsPatients with COVID-19 pneumonia were consequetively enrolled, as they were admitted to the General hospital Pancevo. Exclusion criteria were previous diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic disease and diagnosis of APS. Clinical data were obtained from the medical records. Laboratory results, including LA, aCL, anti-β2GPI, and aPS/PT antibodies were taken at hospital admission, worsening (defined as cytokine storm, connection of the patient to the respirator, use of the anti-IL-6 drug- Tocilizumab), at hospital discharge and at 3-months follow-up and sent to University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia for analysis. Statistics was performed by using SPSS 21.Results111 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were recruited;7 patients died during hospitalisation (none were aPL-positive on admission and at the time of worsening), 3 due to pulmonary artery embolism. All patients were treated according to a predefined protocol which included antibiotics, corticosteroids, anticoagulation therapy and specific comorbidity drugs;patients with hypoxia were supported with oxygen. During hospitalisation, pulmonary artery thrombosis occurred in 5 patients, one was aPL-positive at all time points (was diagnosed with APS), others were negative. In addition, 9/101 patients had a history of thrombosis (5 arterial thrombosis (coronary and cerebral arteries), none of whom was aPL-positive on admission and at follow-up, and 4 venous thrombosis, one of which was aPL-positive at all time points and received an APS diagnosis). Among 9/101 patients with a history of thrombosis, 55.6% were transiently positive at the time of discharge, compared to patients without prior thrombosis, in whom 26.1% were transiently positive at the hospital release (p=0.074). Two patients had a history of pregnancy complications (both had miscarriage after 10th week of gestation), but did not have aPL positivity at any time point.ConclusionAlthough aPL was expected to be associated with vascular disease in the most severe forms of COVID-19, all patients that have died in our cohort were aPL negative. At hospital discharge, 56% of patients with a history of arterial or venous thrombosis had positive aPL that became negative at the 3-months follow-up (were transienlty positive), which should be considered when prescribing therapy after hospitalisation.References[1]Trahtemberg U, Rottapel R, Dos Santos CC, et al. Anticardiolipin and other antiphospholipid antibodies in critically ill COVID-19 positive and negative patients. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2021;80:1236-1240.[2]Stelzer M, Henes J, Saur S. The Role of Antiphospholipid Antibodies in COVID-19. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2021;23(9):72-4.[3]Xie Y, Wang X, Yang P, Zhang S. COVID-19 complicated by acute pulmonary embolism. Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging 2020: 2: e200067.[4]Miyakis S, Lockshin MD, Atsumi T, Branch DW, Brey RL, et al. J.Thromb.Haemost. 2006;4: 295-306.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of nterestsNone Declared.

AUTOANTIBODIES RELATED TO RHEUMATIC DISEASES AFTER COVID-19 INFECTION

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2(Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) has been circulating worldwide for three years. It mainly causes upper respiratory tract infection, which can manifest as pulmonary infection and even respiratory distress syndrome in severe cases. Different autoantibodies can be detected in patients infected with COVID-19.ObjectivesTo explore autoantibodies related to rheumatic diseases after COVID-19 infection.MethodsNinety-eight inpatients were tested for antinuclear antibodies (ANA), antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens(ENA), anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies（ANCA), anticardiolipin antibodies,a-β2GPI (IgG/IgM). They were from a tertiary hospital in Guangzhou during the COVID-19 epidemic. Data were described statistically.ResultsNinety-eight hospitalized patients were tested for relevant antibodies. The average age was 50.64±19.54;67 (68.4%) were male, 64 (65.3%) were COVID-19 positive, 90 (90.9%) had rheumatic diseases, and 56 of them were COVID-19 positive patients with rheumatic diseases.There were 76 patients tested for antinuclear antibodies;29 （38.16%）were negative, 18 （23.68%）had a 1/80 titre, and 29（28.16%） had a titre greater than 1:80. The 31 covid patients were positive for ANA. In the high-titer group, 19 patients with rheumatic diseases were positive for COVID-19, and 12 patients had an exacerbation of the rheumatic diseases (6 of whom had previously had pulmonary fibrosis). Of 31 covid patients, only two were non-rheumatic patients, and both were elderly, aged 85 and 100, respectively.Fifty-six patients had ENA results, and 29 for positive antibodies, 8 for ds-DNA antibodies, 2 for anti-Sm antibodies, 6 for anti-nucleosome antibodies, 12 for anti-U1RNP antibodies, 2 for anti-Scl-70 antibodies, 12 for anti-SS-A antibodies, 3 for anti-mitochondrial M2 antibodies, 2 for anti-centromere antibodies, 1 for anti-Po antibodies, and one for anti-Jo-1 antibody. All 56 patients had rheumatic diseases, and no new patients were found.There were 62 patients with ANCA data. P-ANCA was positive in 12 cases(19.35%), and MPO-ANCA was positive in 2 cases. An 85-year-old non-rheumatic COVID-19 patient was P-ANCA positive. She had a history of hypertension, colon cancer, CKD3, coronary heart disease, and atrial flutter.In the anticardiolipin antibodies group, there were 62 patients;only 6 were positive, and 2 were rheumatic patients infected with COVID-19. Antiphospholipid antibodies were detected in 33 patients, and a-β2GPI was tested in one patient, an 82-year-old COVID-19 patient with gout, diabetes, and cerebral infarction in the past. We did not find a statistical difference in the above results.ConclusionWe have not found a correlation between SARS-CoV-2 and serum autoantibodies of rheumatic immune diseases. It needs large samples and an extended follow-up to research.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by Scientific and Technological Planning Project of Guangzhou City [202102020150], Guangdong Provincial Basic and Applied Basic Research Fund Project [2021A1515111172], National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Fund [82201998] and Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Cultivating Special Fund Project for National Natural Science Foundation of China [2022GZRPYQN01].Disclosure of Interestsone declared.

COMPARATIVE DISEASE BURDEN IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS OR ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: DATA FROM COVAD PATIENT-REPORTED E-SURVEY

BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis, including either Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), are some of the most diagnosed autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) in rheumatologists' routine clinical practice [1]. Understanding patients' health and functional status is crucial to provide personalized management strategies to optimize disease control and enhance the quality of life.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare disease burden in patients with RA, PsA or AS by assessing Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Health, Global Mental Health, Physical Function and Fatigue 4a together with VAS Pain.MethodsData were obtained in the international COVID vaccination in autoimmune rheumatic diseases study second e-survey (COVAD study). Demographics, AIRD diagnosis, disease activity, PROMIS Global Physical health, PROMIS Global Mental Health, PROMIS Physical Function SF10 and PROMIS Fatigue 4a score were extracted from the COVAD study database. For this study, we only included patients with self-reported RA or spondyloarthritis (either PsA or AS) undergoing active treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs) and/or biologic DMARDs, who answered all the survey questions. Active disease was defined as the patient's perception of their disease as active in the four weeks before their first COVID-19 vaccine shot. Analysis of Variance with Bartlett's and Tukey's test was used to compare continuous variables between groups.ResultsFrom January to June 2022, n.1907 patients with RA, female 87.62% (1671/1907), with mean age (±SD) 50.95 ±13.67, n.311 patients with PsA, female 67.20% (209/311), with a mean age of 50.42 ±12.70, and n.336 patients with AS, male 51.31% (209/311), with a mean age of 43.13 ±12.75 years, responded to the COVAD e-survey.In those with active disease, neither physical health, global mental health, physical function, fatigue, nor pain were different among groups (Table 1, Figure 1). Patients with inactive AS had higher mean global physical health scores than RA patients (13.13 ±2.93 VS RA 12.48 ±2.90, p=0.01, Table 1). Those with inactive RA or PsA showed more severe fatigue (PsA 10.58 ±2.22, RA 10.45 ±4.08 VS 9.4 ±4.13, p =0.01 for both). Patients with inactive RA also reported poorer physical function and more residual pain than those with AS (37.79 ±8.86 VS 41.13 ±7.79, p<0.001;3.87 ±2.45 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01, respectively). Similarly, residual pain was perceived as higher in patients with inactive PsA than those with AS (4.04 ±2.50 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01)ConclusionDisease burden is roughly comparable in patients with active RA, PsA or AS. Patients with inactive RA and PsA suffer higher disease burden than those with inactive AS.Reference[1]Mease PJ, Liu M, Rebello S, Kang H, Yi E, Park Y, Greenberg JD. Comparative Disease Burden in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, or Axial Spondyloarthritis: Data from Two Corrona Registries. Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Dec;6(4):529-542.Table 1.Patient-Reported Outcome Measures between groups.Inactive diseaseAS (n.185)PsA (n.179)RA (n.1167)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health13.13*2.9512.433.2712.482.90p=0.01, VS RAPROMIS Global Mental Health13.313.3612.973.3312.843.17PROMIS Fatigue 4a9.44.1310.58*4.2210.45*4.08p=0.01, bothPROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score41.137.3939.279.0137.79*8.86p<0.001, VS ASVAS Pain3.342.394.04*2.503.87*2.45p=0.01, bothActive DiseaseAS (n.35)PsA (n.38)RA (n.189)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health11.053.1910.102.7611.243.41PROMIS Global Mental Health11.313.2610.843.6311.893.30PROMIS Fatigue 4a12.944.8712.844.4211.754.68PROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score35.829.6233.528.7634.909.80VAS Pain4.682.775.02.544.682.61Figure 1.Violin plots showing kernel densities, quartiles and median for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for patients with RA, PsA and AS, stratified by disease activity status.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVincenzo Venerito: None declared, Marc Fornaro: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Arvind Nune: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Chris Wincup: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Carlo Vinicio Caballero: None declared, COVAD Study: None declared, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Speakers bureau: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Latika Gupta: None declared.

PLACEBO-CONTROLLED EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB THROUGH ONE YEAR IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients (pts) with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) through 14 weeks (wks) of treatment.[1]ObjectivesThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) through 1 year.MethodsThe SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study included a 52-wk randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Enrolled adults had a clinical diagnosis of active nr-axSpA fulfilling the 2009 ASAS classification criteria, objective signs of inflammation based on MRI sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein, and an inadequate response to NSAIDs. One-third of pts had an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily or PBO. Concomitant medications, including NSAIDs, had to be kept stable through wk 52. The study protocol outlined that pts who did not achieve ASAS20 at any two consecutive study visits between wks 24 to 52 should receive rescue therapy with NSAIDs, corticosteroids, conventional synthetic/biologic DMARDs, or analgesics. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle missing data and intercurrent events for binary efficacy endpoints. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to assess continuous efficacy endpoints. NRI was used for binary endpoints after rescue and as observed analysis excluding data after rescue for continuous endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through wk 52.ResultsOf the 314 pts randomized, 259 (82%;UPA, n=130;PBO, n=129) completed wk 52 on study drug. More pts achieved an ASAS40 response with UPA vs PBO from wks 14 to 52 with a 20% treatment difference at wk 52 (63% vs 43%;nominal P <.001;Figure 1). The proportion of pts achieving ASDAS inactive disease with UPA remained higher than PBO at wk 52 (33% vs 11%;nominal P <.0001;Figure 1). Consistent improvements and maintenance of efficacy were also seen across other disease activity measures. Between wks 24 and 52, fewer pts on UPA (9%) than PBO (17%) received rescue therapy. A similar proportion of pts in each treatment group had a TEAE (Table 1). Infections were the most common TEAE;the rates of serious infections and herpes zoster were higher with UPA vs PBO, although no new serious infections were reported from wks 14 to 52. COVID-19 events were balanced between treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported. Two pts (1.3%) on PBO had adjudicated venous thromboembolic events.ConclusionUPA showed consistent improvement and maintenance of efficacy vs PBO through 1 year across multiple disease activity measures. No new safety risks were identified with longer-term UPA exposure. These results continue to support the benefit of UPA in pts with active nr-axSpA.Reference[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10349):369–379.Table 1.Safety through week 52Event, n (%)PBO (n = 157)UPA 15 mg QD (n = 156)Any AE103 (66%)107 (69%)Serious AE6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)AE leading to D/C4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)COVID-19-related AE22 (14%)24 (15%)Deaths00Infection60 (38%)68 (44%) Serious infection1 (0.6%)2 (1.3%) Herpes zoster1 (0.6%)5 (3.2%)Malignancy other than NMSC00NMSC1 (0.6%)0Hepatic disorder7 (4.5%)6 (3.8%)Neutropenia1 (0.6%)8 (5.1%)MACE (adjudicated)00VTE (adjudicated)2 (1.3%)a0Uveitisb3 (1.9%)2 (1.3%)Inflammatory bowel disease00aBoth patients had non-serious events of deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb with risk factors including obesity and prior deep vein thrombosis in one patient and concomitant COVID-19 infection in the other patient.bThree events of uveitis occurred in each treatment group (among n = 3 patients in the PBO group and n = 2 patients in the UPA group);two events in the PBO group and one in the UPA group occurred in patients with a history of uveitis.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, res arch, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsFilip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer., Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis., Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB., Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

BIOLOGIC TREATMENT SUSPENSION AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DATA FROM MEXICAN ADVERSE REGISTRY (BIOBADAMEX)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic triggered serious challenges in the treatment of chronic diseases due to the lack of access to medical attention. Patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) must have adequate treatment compliance in order to reach and maintain remission or low activity of their diseases. Treatment suspension because of non-medical reasons might lead to disease activation and organ damage.ObjectivesIdentify the frequency of biologic treatment (bDMARD) suspension in patients with RD during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the associated factors for suspension.MethodsIn this study we included all patients registered in the Mexican Biologics Adverse Events Registry (BIOBADAMEX), that started bDMARD before March 2019 and suspended treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used descriptive statistic to analyze baseline characteristics and main treatment suspension causes. We used Chi[2] and Kruskal Wallis tests to analyze differences between groups.ResultsA total of 832 patients patients registered in BIOBADAMEX were included in this study, 143 (17%) suspended bDMARD during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main causes of suspension were inefficacy in 54 (38%) patients, followed by other motives in 49 (34%) patients from which 7 (5%) was loss of medical coverage. Adverse events and loss of patients to follow up were the motive in 16 (11%) and 15 (11%) patients respectively.When we compared the group that suspended bDMARD with the non-suspenders (Table 1), we found statistical differences in patient gender, with 125 (87%) female patients that suspended bDMARD, with a median age of 52 (42-60) years, and a treatment duration of 3.8 years.ConclusionIn our study we found that 17% of patients with RD suspended bDMARD treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic and that non-medical motives such as lack of patients follow up and loss of medical coverage due to unemployment were important motives. These results are related to the effect of the pandemic on other chronic diseases.Table 1.Patients baseline characteristicsPatients that did not suspended bDMARD during pandemic (n = 689)Patients that suspended bDMARD during pandemic (n = 143)pFemale gender, n(%)549 (79.7)125 (87.4)0.02Age, median (IQR)55 (45 – 63)52 (42 – 60)0.04Body mass index, median (IQR)26.4 (23 – 30.4)27.23 (24.2 – 30.46)0.13Social security, n(%)589 (85.5)128 (89.5)0.2Diagnosis0.7- Rheumatoid arthritis444 (64.4)97 (67.8)- Juvenil idiopathic athritis29 (4.2)2 (1.4)- Ankyosing sponylitis93 (13.5)19 (13.3)- Psoriasic arthritis43 (6.2)6 (4.2)- Systemic lupus erithematosus32 (4.6)9 (6.3)- Others48 (6.9)10 (6.9)Disease duration, median (IQR)11 (7 – 19.5)12 (6 - 18)0.95Comorbidities, n(%)305 (44.3)73 (51)0.08Previos biologic, n(%)249 (36.1)60 (42)0.1Treatment at pandemic iniciation, n(%)0.8 - Etanercept a34 (4.9)5 (3.5)- Infliximab a24 (3.5)5 (3.5)- Adalimumab130 (18.9)22 (15.4)- Rituximab a61 (8.9)25 (17.5)- Abatacept76 (11)20 (14)- Tocilizumab82 (11.9)18 (12.6)- Certolizumab92 (13.4)28 (19.6)- Rituximab b7 (1)0- Golimumab36 (5.2)5 (3.5)- Tofacitinib14 (2)1 (0.7)- Infliximab b4 (0.5)2 (1.4)- Etanercept b31 (4.5)6 (4.2)- Baricitinib12 (1.7)1 (0.7)- Belimumab5 (0.7)1 (0.7)- Secukinumb8 (1.2)3 (2.1)Steroids use, n(%):254 (36.9)57 (39.9)0.2Steroids dose (mg), median (IQR)6 (5 – 10)6 (5 – 10)0.47DMARD use, n(%):538 (78.1)118 (82.5)0.1Treatment duration, median (IQR)5.06 (4.04 – 5.78)3.82 (3.35 – 4.95)0.001Suspension motive, n(%)NA- Inefficacy-54 (37.8)- Adverse event-16 (11.2)- Pregnancy-2 (1.4)- Loss of patient-15 (10.5)- Remission-7 (4.9)- Others-49 (34.2)Adverse events, n(%):102 (14.8)24 (16.8)0.3- Severe, n(%)13 (1.9)5 (3.5)0.4a original, b biosimilarREFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVijaya Rivera Teran: None declared, Daniel Xavier Xibille Friedmann: None declared, David Vega-Morales: None declared, Sandra Sicsik: None declared, Angel Castillo Ortiz: None declared, Fedra Irazoque-Palazuelos: None declared, Dafhne Miranda: None declared, Iris Jazmin Colunga-Pedraza: None declared, Julio Cesar Casasola: None declared, Omar Elo Muñoz-Monroy: None declared, Sandra Carrilo: None declared, Angélica Peña: None declared, Sergio Duran Barragan: None declared, Luis Francisco Valdés Corona: None declared, Estefanía Torres Valdéz: None declared, Azucena Ramos: None declared, Aleni Paz: None declared, ERICK ADRIAN ZAMORA-TEHOZOL: None declared, Deshire Alpizar-Rodriguez Employee of: Scientific Advisor in GSK México.

ANTI-TNF TREATMENT MODIFIES PAIN MODULATION DESCENDING PATHWAYS. A PROSPECTIVE, 6 MONTHS STUDY IN ACTIVE CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATISM PATIENTS' NAÏVE OF BDMARD

BackgroundIn rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (Spa), persistent pain remains challenging. In active disease, diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (assessed through conditioned pain modulation (CPM)) are impaired [1]. Little is known regarding impairment of pain pathways in patients under bMDARD.ObjectivesThe main objective of the RAPID (Rheumatism Pain Inhibitory Descending pathways) study, was to assess descending pain modulation (through CPM paradigm) in patients with active RA or Spa, after introduction of first bDMARD with anti-TNF.MethodsWe included 50 RA and 50 Spa patients with active disease, naïve of bDMARD. We assessed clinical disease variables for patients, together with responses to various psychological questionnaires. All participants underwent QST with the determination of heat and cold pain thresholds (HPT-CPT) on dominant forearm and CPM. CPM paradigm require a conditioning stimulus, here applied to the non-dominant foot (cold circulating bath at 8°C during 1min). Descending pain control was assessed as the change in HPT (in °C) following the conditioning stimulus: the higher the CPM effect, the more efficient the inhibitory control. Patients were followed at 3 and 6 months after TNF inhibitor initiation. At both follow-up visits, clinical monitoring of the rheumatism and repeated thermal QST and CPM.ResultsOne hundred patients were included, 59 women, mean age 45.8 (± 14.6) and mean disease duration 7.93 (± 7.96) years. Due to COVID surge 87 patients initiated an anti-TNF, 74 patients completed the follow-up. At 6 months, 40 patients achieved a good therapeutic response (good EULAR response or ASDAS major improvement), 19 patients had a moderate therapeutic response (moderate EULAR response or clinically important improvement) and 15 patients had no therapeutic response. At the end of follow-up, 51 patients were in remission or low disease activity and 47 patients had a pain intensity <4/10. Thermal pain thresholds did not significantly change during follow-up. Mean HPT was at beaseline 42.35°C (+/- 3.68) and at 6 months 42.17°C (+/- 3.67). Mean CPT was at baseline 13.11°C (+/- 10.04) and at 6 months 12.86°C (+/- 9.45). Conditioned pain modulation was significantly changed during follow-up. Mean CPM effect was at baseline 0.25°C (±2.57), 2.64°C (±2.12) at 3 months and 2.96°C (±2.50) at 6 months. At the end of the 6 months follow-up, mean CPM effect was significantly higher in patients with residual mean pain intensity <4/10 compared to patients with persisting pain ≥ 4/10: 3,25°C (± 2,68) vs 2,47 (± 2,11) (p=0.04).ConclusionAfter TNF inhibitor initiation in active RA or SpA, impaired diffuse noxious inhibitory controls are significantly improved. Apart from their articular efficacy, TNF inhibitor have an action on the central nervous system and pain modulation pathways. In patients with persisting pain under bDMARD, diffuse noxious inhibitory controls are not as efficient as patient without residual pain.Reference[1]Trouvin AP, Simunek A, Coste J, Medkour T, Carvès S, Bouhassira D, Perrot S. Mechanisms of chronic pain in inflammatory rheumatism: the role of descending modulation. Pain. 2022 Aug 3. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002745.Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

BERTOLOTTI SYNDROME: AN UNDER RECOGNIZED CAUSE OF INFLAMMATORY BACK PAIN?

BackgroundBertolotti syndrome describes a lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV) which causes symptoms, usually low back pain. LATV is a congenital anomaly where the L5 vertebra has an unusual morphology. Bertolotti syndrome is an under-recognised condition by clinicians.ObjectivesTo clarify the presentation of Bertolotti syndrome, whether there are features of inflammatory back pain (IBP) and the effect on quality of life.MethodsIn this pilot study, 62 patients with LSTV were identified on imaging (plain x-ray). Imaging was performed for a variety of indications, predominently for back pain. In total, 34 patients agreed to take part, with 18 returning questionnaires. Questionnaires were selected for face vailidity and included: Calin IBP Questionnaire, EQ-5D Questionnaire, Visual analogue pain scale (VAS-P). In view of Covid restrictions all contact was by phone and questionnaires were completed online or returned via post.Plain X-rays visualising the lumbar spine were assessed for radiological features of LSTV.ResultsSeventeen (94%) of the participants (n=18) recorded a VAS-P score >3, indicating a clinically significant level of pain. The mean VAS-P score was 6 (range of 2-9). 89% of respondents scored at least 3/5 in the Calin questionnaire. Of the 5 features of inflammatory back pain in the Calin questionnaire, 4 out of the 5 were reported by most respondents. The exception was ‘improvement on exercise', which was only reported by 18% of respondents. Quality of life was impaired-EQ-5D (mean: 0.503, range -0.074 to 0.796).The commonest radiological abnormality was enlarged transverse process (100%) followed by pseudoarticulation with the sacrum (83%) and scoliosis (33%). Presence of sclerosis and/or osteoarthritis at the pseudoarticulation was associated with worse pain scores. Female respondents reported worse pain.ConclusionThese results suggest Bertolotti syndrome is associated with pain in the majority of patients and affects quality of life,. The character and site of the pain suggests that Bertollotti syndrome should be considered in the differential diagnosis of spondyloarthritis.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsSimon Stebbings Consultant of: Abbvie.Janssen, Ciara White: None declared, Terence Doyle: None declared.

EFFECTS OF DMARD TREATMENT ON SARS-CoV-2 mRNA VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE RHEUMATIC DISEASE: A MATCHED, PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

BackgroundPatients suffering from systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) display poor antibody development after two doses of mRNA vaccinations leaving these patients with only limited humoral protection against severe SARS-CoV-2 disease courses. Of key interest is the effect of conventional synthetic (csDMARD) and biological/ targeted drugs (b/tsDMARDs) disease modifying antirheumatic drugs on the time of protection.ObjectivesTo compare antibody titer development in patients with vasculitis and connective tissue disease (CTD) with healthy controls 6 months after two mRNA vaccinations and after third immunization. To analyze factors, that affect the velocity of titer decline, well as qualitative humoral response.MethodsPatients with SARD were enrolled and matched for gender and age with healthy control subjects (HC) and the humoral response after 6 months to two doses of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 in terms of SARS-COV-2 antibody titer was assessed. In addition to binding antibody units (BAU) we also analyzed neutralizing antibodies. Patients receiving B-cell depleting therapy and those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (via detection of nucleocapsid antibodies) were excluded. Differences between two groups were calculated with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.ResultsA total of 53 patients with SARD (42 patients suffering from connective tissue disease and 11 with vasculitis respectively) and 73 HC were analysed. Interestingly only patients receiving a combination therapy of different csDMARDs/ b/tsDMARDs demonstrated diminished antibody titers 6 months after two doses of mRNA vaccine (p-value p-value<0,001), whereas patients receiving only csDMARD as monotherapy displayed comparable antibody levels to healthy controls. This effect was equalized after a third booster vaccination (p-value=0,13). Concerning disease entities, patients with vasculitis seemed to have lower BAU than HC (p-value<0,05) and patients suffering from CTD. After third vaccination both patient groups had lower antibody levels than HC (vasculitis: p-value <0,0001;CTD: p-value p-value<0,01). Lower antibody levels before third vaccination correlated with lower antibodies after third immunization.ConclusionPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases undergoing combination therapy may be more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, due to reduced antibody levels 6 months following two doses of mRNA vaccine. Our data strongly recommends antibody measurements in patients receiving combination therapy and individualized earlier booster vaccination.Figure 1.Anti-SARS-Cov-2 S antibody titers. A: Antibody titers measured 6 months after two doses of mRNA vaccination in patients with connective tissue disease, vasculitis and healthy controls. B, Antibody levels according to disease entity. AB: antibody;BAU: binding antibody unit;CTD: connective tissue disease;HC: healthy control;mono: disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug monotherapy;combination: combination therapy of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs;RBD: receptor binding domain;[Figure omitted. See PDF]Table 1.Demographic parameters and therapy of study participants.SARD (n=53)HC (n=73)Age, mean (standard deviation)53.55 (±14.04)51.27 (±14.07)Female45 (84.9%)47 (64.4%)Connective tissue disease42 (79%)Vasculitis11 (21%)csDMARD or b/tsDMARD monotherapy22 (41%)csDMARD and/or b/tsDMARD combination therapy13 (25%)No therapy18 (34%)Methotrexate8 (15%)Mycophenolate mofetil10 (19%)Hydroxychloroquine17 (32%)Azathioprine8 (15%)Belimumab3 (6%)Tocilizumab3 (6%)Glucocorticoid dose 1. vaccination, mean (standard deviation)2.8 (±10.8)Glucocorticoid dose 2. vaccination, mean (standard deviation)2.6 (±10.7)SARD: Systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, HC: Healthy controls, csDMARD: conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and b/tsDMARD: biological/ targeted drugs disease modifying antirheumatic drugsREFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsElisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Selma Tobudic: None declared, Helmuth Hasla her Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Thomas Maria Karonitsch: None declared, Daniel Mrak: None declared, Thomas Nothnagl: None declared, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helga Lechner-Radner: None declared, Judith Sautner: None declared, Florian Winkler: None declared, Heinz Burgmann Speakers bureau: speaker fees from Shionogi, Pfizer, MSD, Paid instructor for: advisory boards for Valneva, MSD, Gilead, Consultant of: consulting fees from MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, Gilead, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: other from Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: grants from Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi, Sanofi, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Stephan Blüml Speakers bureau: personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from Novartis, Peter Mandl Speakers bureau: reports speaker fees from AbbVie, Janssen and Novartis, Grant/research support from: research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, MSD and UCB.

COVID-19 VACCINE PERCEPTION AND HESITANCY AMONG PATIENTS WITH AUTOIMMUNE RHEUMATIC DISEASE (AIRD) IN MALAYSIA

BackgroundPatients with autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRD) are at risk of severe COVID-19 infection and vaccine has been demonstrated to be able to reduce the severity of infection. Malaysia has a low flu vaccination coverage rate (approximately 3%) and hence it is important to assess the perception and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine especially among the vulnerable group.ObjectivesTo study the perception of COVID-19 vaccine and to determine the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy among AIRD patients in Malaysia.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey using online Google Forms® that was conducted among adult AIRD patients (18 years and older) from August 2021 until February 2022. Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinics as well as distribution of the survey through social medias. The survey was in English and Malay language. The survey collected data on the socio-demographic background, prior history of other vaccination after the age of 18 and COVID-19 vaccination with reasons of hesitancy, defined as being unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated. The survey also assessed the patients' perception by specifying the level of agreement to COVID-19 vaccine statements using the Likert response scale: 1-Strongly disagree;2- Disagree;3-Neither agree nor disagree;4-Agree;5-Strongly agree.ResultsA total of 162 patients participated in the survey and majority of them were females (87.7%). Our multi-racial cohort consisted of Malay (n=103, 63.5%), followed by Chinese (n=38, 23.5%), Sabahan Bumiputra (n=12, 7.4%) and Indian (n=7, 4.3%). More than half (n=107,66.6%) have not had any history of other vaccination after the age of 18. Only 16.7% (n=27) agreed/strongly agreed that COVID-19 vaccine can be given to patients with co-morbidities and 24.1 (n=39) agreed/strongly agreed that COVID-19 vaccine can be given to patients who have history of allergy to other drugs or food. At the time of the survey, vast majority of the respondents have received at least the 1st dose of Covid-19 vaccine (n=148, 91.4%). A total of 9 (5.6%) patients were hesitant to be vaccinated (6 were unsure and 3 patients were not willing to be vaccinated). The commonest reasons of being unsure or not willing to be vaccinated was worried of the vaccine's adverse effects (66.7%), worried of the blood clot complication (33,3%), worried of disease flare post-vaccine (33,3%), worried of allergic reaction (22.2%), lack of information on the safety of the vaccine in patients with AIRD from government and media (22.2%), face mask and social distancing measures were adequate (22.2%). Statistical analysis revealed that more patients who had vaccine hesitancy were from the lower socioeconomic status (income <1066 Euro/month), 88.9% vs 11.1%, p=0.03 but no association with ethnicity, education status, marital status or place of residence (urban vs rural).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is low in Malaysian patients with AIRD but patients with a low socioeconomic status are prone to have vaccine hesitancy. More education on the vaccine's efficacy and safety especially among patients with co-morbidities are warranted.Reference[1]Knowledge, acceptance and perception on COVID-19 vaccine among Malaysians: A web-based survey. Mohamed NA, Solehan HM, Mohd Rani MD, Ithnin M, Che Isahak CI (2021) Knowledge, acceptance and perception on COVID-19 vaccine among Malaysians: A web-based survey. PLOS ONE 16(8): e0256110.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsSyahrul Sazliyana Shaharir Speakers bureau: Pfizer,Novartis, Lydia Kamaruzaman: None declared, Theepa Nesam Mariamutu: None declared, Mohd Shahrir Mohamed Said: None declared, Azmawati Mohammed Nawi: None declared, Wan Syamimee Wan Ghazali: None declared, Malehah Mohd Noh: None declared.

PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE VACCINE AGAINST SARS-COV-2 IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: DATA FROM SAFER STUDY

BackgroundSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease, which presents an immune disorder that leads to the production of autoantibodies with potential involvement of multiple organs. Infections are one of the most frequent causes of hospitalization and death in lupus patients, and SARS-CoV-2 infection has been a global threat since March 2020. Immunization of these patients has been strongly recommended, although vaccine evaluation studies have not included this profile of patients.ObjectivesTo evaluate the immunogenicity and safety after 2 doses of the vaccine against SARS-CoV2 in patients with SLE.MethodsSubgroup of SLE patients from the prospective multicenter cohort of patients with immune-mediated diseases "SAFER” – Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Disease, a phase IV study. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 took place with vaccines approved by Brazilian regulatory bodies CoronaVac (Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine), ChadOx-1 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and this project followed in line with the guidelines of the National Immunization Plan in Brazil. Patients aged 18 years or older with a previous diagnosis of SLE (according to the 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria) were included. Patients were evaluated by telephone contact and in a face-to-face visit on the 28th day after each dose. Patients were followed up by means of blood collection for measurement of IgG antibody against SARS-COV-2 by chemiluminescence and disease activity assessed using SLEDAI-2K score.ResultsA total of 367 individuals with SLE were included, of whom 207 received 2 doses of CoronaVac, 128 received 2 doses of ChadOx-1 and 32 received 2 doses of BNT162b2. 90% of the subjects were female with a mean age of 37 years. About 42% (154) of the individuals included did not have any other associated comorbidity. 50% (182) of patients were using oral glucocorticoids and azathioprine was the most frequent immunosuppressive therapy. Regarding disease activity parameters, 38% (140) of patients had zero SLEDAI-2K at baseline and 41% (147) had zero SLEDAI-2K 28 days after the 2nd dose. Anti-DNA positivity was 30.7% (16/52) at inclusion and 32.6% (17/52) 28 days after the 2nd dose. Complement consumption was present in 18% (10/55) at inclusion and in 14.5% (8/55) 28 days after the 2nd vaccine dose. The geometric mean titers of IgG antibodies against SARS-COV-2 increased in the different vaccine groups, log 2.27 BAU/mL at inclusion and log 5.58 BAU/mL 28 days after the 2nd dose. Antibody titers after second dose varied between different vaccines, 4.96 BAU/mL CoronaVac, 6.00 BAU/mL ChadOx-1 and 7.31 BAU/mL BNT162b2 vaccine, p < 0.001. Only 3.54% (13/367) patients had covid-19 infection after the 15th day of the second dose of immunization, 9 of them having received 2 doses of CoronaVac, 4 of them of ChadOx-1 and none of them receiving BNT162b2, with p-value of 0.63.ConclusionThis study suggests that vaccines against SARS-COV-2 are safe in SLE patients. Induction of immunogenicity occurred in different vaccine regimens. Only 3.5% of individuals had COVID-19 infection with no difference between the types of vaccines evaluated. Future analyzes to explore the association of the effect of immunosuppressive medication, as well as the impact of booster doses and longer follow-up on clinical outcome will be performed.References[1]Mason A, et al. Lupus, vaccinations and COVID-19: What we know now. Lupus. 2021;30(10):1541-1552.[2]Furer V, Eviatar T, Zisman D, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases and in the general population: A multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1330-1338.[3]Izmirly PM, Kim MY, Samanovic M, et al. Evaluation of Immune Response and Disease Status in SLE Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination. Arthritis Rheumatol. Published online 2021.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON ADHERENCE TO DISEASE MODIFYING DRUGS AMONG PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES: A POPULATION-BASED, INTERRUPTED TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BackgroundAlthough studies have quantified adherence to medications among patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) during the COVID-19, lack of direct pre-pandemic comparison precludes understanding of impact of the pandemic.ObjectivesOur objective was to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on adherence to disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) including conventional synthetic (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic (tsDMARDs).MethodsWe linked population-based health data on all physician visits, hospital admissions, and all dispensed medications, regardless of payer in British Columbia from 01/01/1996 to 3/31/2021. We identified prescriptions for csDMARDs (including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine) and tsDMARDs, namely anti-TNFs (including infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) and rituximab using drug identification numbers among indicated individuals with RD. We defined March 11, 2020, as the ‘index date' which corresponded to the date that mitigation measures for the COVID-19 pandemic were first introduced. We assessed adherence as proportion days covered (PDC), calculated monthly in the 12 months before and 12 months after the index date. We used interrupted time-series models, namely segmented regression to estimate changes and trends in adherence before and after the index date.ResultsOur analysis showed that the mean PDCs for all included DMARDs stayed relatively steady in the 12 months before and after mitigation measures were introduced (see Table 1). Adherence was highest among anti-TNFs, methotrexate, and azathioprine. Anti-TNFs were on a downward trajectory 12 months prior to the index date. Interrupted time-series modeling demonstrated statistically significant differences in the trends in PDCs post- vs. pre-mitigation measures for all anti-TNFS (slope [∂]: 1.38, standard error [SE]: 0.23), infliximab (∂: 1.35, SE: 0.23), adalimumab (∂: 0.82, SE: 0.25), and etanercept (∂: 1.07, SE: 0.25) (see Figure 1a). Conversely, the csDMARDs were on a flatter trajectory, and methotrexate (∂: -0.53, SE: 0.16), leflunomide (∂: 0.43, SE: 0.08), mycophenolate (∂: -1.26, SE: 0.48), cyclophosphamide (∂: 0.29, SE: 0.05), minocycline (∂: 0.04, SE: 0.02), chloroquine (∂: 0.02, SE: 0.00) showed statistically significant changes in estimated PDC trajectory after mitigation measures were introduced (see Figure 1b).ConclusionThis population-based study demonstrates that messaging and pandemic mitigation measures did not affect adherence to DMARDs.Table 1.Mean PDC 1 year before and after mitigation measures for the COVID-19 pandemic were introduced.MedicationMean PDC (%) 12 months before index dateMean PDC (%) 12 months after index datecsDMARDsmethotrexate28.926.8azathioprine21.819.5sulfasalazine16.214.9leflunomide14.313.0cyclosporine13.711.5hydroxychloroquine10.59.6mycophenolate4.52.9antimalarials4.43.9penicillamine3.53.4cyclophosphamide1.50.7chlorambucil1.20.4minocycline1.10.9gold0.50.2chloroquine0.10.0tsDMARDsanti-TNFs52.149.2infliximab41.838.3adalimumab40.336.8etanercept31.828.9rituximab3.42.9REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

SAFETY OF BIVALENT SARS-COV-2 VACCINES AS A SECOND BOOSTER DOSE IN ARTHRITIS PATIENTS ON IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE THERAPIES

BackgroundSafety and efficacy of updated bivalent vaccines, containing both the original vaccine variant of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and either Omicron variants BA.1 or BA.4/5, are of particular interest in arthritis patients on immunosuppressive therapies. With the continuous emergence of new viral variants, it is important to evaluate whether updated vaccines induce more adverse events in this patient group.ObjectivesTo examine if a second booster dose with updated bivalent vaccine increases the risk of adverse events, compared to the first booster dose with monovalent vaccines.MethodsThe prospective Nor-vaC study investigates vaccine responses in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressive therapies (1). The present analyses included arthritis patients who received two booster doses. Patients received available vaccines according to the Norwegian vaccination program. The current recommendation in the Norwegian arthritis population is a three-dose primary vaccination series followed by two booster doses. Adverse events following vaccines doses were self-reported through questionnaires. Adverse events following the first (monovalent) and second (bivalent) booster were compared with McNemar's test.ResultsBetween 7th of July 2021 and 6th of December 2022 a total of 243 arthritis patients (127 rheumatoid arthritis, 65 psoriatic arthritis, 51 spondyloarthritis) on immunosuppressive therapies (Table 1) received a first, monovalent (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) and a second, bivalent booster dose (BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1), mRNA-1273.214, BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)). Adverse events were recorded within 2 weeks in all patients (Figure 1). In total, 45 vs 49 (19% vs 20 %) patients reported any adverse event after a second, bivalent booster dose, compared to the first, monovalent booster, respectively. There was no significant difference in adverse events overall (p= 0.57). The most common adverse events after the second booster were pain at injection site (12 %), flu-like symptoms (9 %) and headache (6 %). No new safety signals emerged. A total of 15 (6 %) patients reported a disease flare after receiving the second, bivalent booster, compared to 21 (8 %) after the first, monovalent booster.ConclusionThere was no difference in adverse events between the monovalent, first booster, and the bivalent, second booster, indicating that bivalent vaccines are safe in this patient group.Reference[1]Syversen S.W. et al Arthritis Rheumatol 2022Table 1.Demographic characteristics and immunosuppressive medication in patients receiving a 1st monovalent and a 2nd bivalent booster dose.CharacteristicsPatients, n (%)Total243Age (years), median (IQR)61 (52-67)Female152 (63)Immunosuppressive medicationTNFi monoa75 (31)TNFi comboa+b72 (30)Methotrexate62 (26)Rituximab9 (4)IL-inhibitorsc6 (2)JAK-inhibitorsd11 (5)Othere8 (3)1st boosterBNT162b2106 (44)mRNA-1273137 (56)2nd boosterBNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1)65 (25)BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)120 (47)mRNA-1273.214 (WT/OMI BA.1)58 (23)Results in n (%) unless otherwise specified.aTumor necrosis factor inhibitors: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol.bCombination therapy: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.cInterleukin inhibitors: tocilizumab, secukinumab.dJanus kinase inhibitors: filgotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib.eOther: abatacept, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.Figure 1.Adverse events after bivalent vaccine as a 2nd booster dose compared to a monovalent vaccine as a 1st booster dose.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsWe thank the patients and health-care workers who have participated in the Norwegian study of vaccine response to COVID-19. We thank the patient representatives in the study group, Kristin Isabella Kirkengen Espe and Roger Thoresen. We thank all study personnel, laboratory personnel, and other staff involved at the clinical departments involved, particularly Synnøve Aure, Margareth Sveinsson, May Britt Solem, Elisabeth Røssum-Haaland, and Kjetil Bergsmark.Disclosure of InterestsHilde Ørbo: None declared, Ingrid Jyssum: None declared, Anne Therese Tveter: None declared, Ingrid E. Christensen: None declared, Joseph Sexton: None declared, Kristin Hammersbøen Bjørlykke Speakers bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Grete B. Kro: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ludvig A. Munthe Speakers bureau: Novartis, Cellgene, Gunnveig Grodeland Speakers bureau: Bayer, Sanofi, ThermoFisher, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Siri Mjaaland: None declared, John Torgils Vaage: None declared, Espen A Haavardsholm Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Kristin Kaasen Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Silje Watterdal Syversen: None declared, Guro Løvik Goll Speakers bureau: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB.

REFERRAL BEHAVIOUR OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS TO RHEUMATOLOGY CLINIC IN MALAYSIA

BackgroundThe workload at rheumatology clinics have been growing relentlessly and an audit on new.referrals helps to identify referral behaviour of primary care doctors and improvement can be done by providing further training.ObjectivesTo audit on new referral cases to rheumatology clinic from 2020-2022 and to identify new cases with misdiagnosis for future training purpose.MethodsThis was a retrospective study. The medical records of all new referral to rheumatology clinic Hospital Sultan Ismail and Hospital Pakar Sultanah Fatimah from 1st January 2020 to 31th November 2022 were reviewed. The referral diagnosis and final diagnosis were identified and analysed.ResultsThere were total of 927 new cases referral throughout the 35 months during Covid-19pandemic. Majority of them were diagnosed to have rheumatoid arthritis (217/927)followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (190/927), psoriatic arthritis (147/927),gout (62/927), osteoarthritis (58/927), systemic sclerosis (25/927), ankylosing spondylitis (25/927), soft tissue rheumatism (24/927), Sjogren syndrome (24/927),mixed connective tissue disease (14/927), vasculitis (11/927), fibromyalgia (10/927),polymyositis (7/927) and miscellaneous (39/927).45 out of the new cases were diagnosed as unlikely rheumatic diseases. There were 29pending cases awaiting final diagnosis.212 of the referrals were identified as misdiagnosis with the highest as nodal osteoarthritis.(55/212) followed by unlikely rheumatic disease (43/212), soft tissue rheumatism (24/212),psoriatic arthritis (20/212), Sjogren syndrome (14/212), gout (8/212), rheumatoid arthritis (7/212), fibromyalgia (6/212), systemic lupus erythematosus (5/212), ankylosing spondylitis (4/212), mixed connective tissue disease (3/212), systemic sclerosis (2/212), polymyositis (2/212) and others (19/212): diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis, hypermobility syndrome, RS3PE syndrome, idiopathic uveitis, graft versus host disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, antiphospholipid syndrome, hypothyroidism, post streptococcal arthritis, prolapsed intervertebral disc, cerebrovascular disease, traumatic sternoclavicular joint subluxation, ledderhose disease, paraspinal muscle spasm and viral myalgia).ConclusionNodal osteoarthritis and soft tissue rheumatism can be great mimicker for inflammatory.arthritis and if wrongly diagnosed will lead to unnecessary anxiety or wrong treatment. More training is needed to improve clinical skills amongst primary care doctors.ReferencesNA.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

CLINICAL COURSE IN COVID 19 DISEASE IN IMMUNOSUPRESSED PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES

BackgroundPatients with pre-existing rheumatic diseases may be exacerbated during SARS-CoV-2 infection, or may develop new autoimmune features. Furthermore, immunosuppressive agents used to treat autoimmunity-inflammation as well as comorbidities can also affect the disease outcome.ObjectivesTo evaluate the outcome of rheumatic diseases after Covid 19 infection in patients diagnosed with rheumatic diseases, under various immunosuppressive treatment, as well as the effects of vaccines against Covid or antiviral treatment in this sensitive population group.MethodsDuring the pandemic, 1493 patients with autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease who were continuously followed up in two tertiaries hospitals in northern and northwestern Greece were included in the current study. The patients were compared with 769 controls after adjustment for age, sex, weight, vaccination status and comorbidities. Of the 1493 patients, 648 had rheumatoid arthritis, 282 psoriatic arthritis, 173 ankylosing spondylitis, 122 systemic lupus erythematosus, 98 Sjogren's syndrome, 43 polymyalgia rheumatica, 34 mixed connective tissue disease or overlapping syndromes, 31 vasculitis, 27 systemic sclerosis, 18 myositis, 10 Behcet syndrome, 5 primary antiphospholipid syndrome and 2 had Familial Mediterranean Fever. The vast majority of patients and controls were fully vaccinated (82%) and 397 patients received antiviral treatment, 94% of them were fully vaccinated.ResultsCovid 19 disease in vaccinated patients with rheumatic diseases was shown to perform the same or about the same as those in the control group after adjustment for risk factors for severe disease. 19 of our patients required admission in the intensive care unit (62% full vaccinated) while a total of 12 died (66% non vaccinated). Major risk factors for severe disease were previous respiratory failure, chronic renal impairment, obesity, and failure to receive antiviral therapy. It was also shown that infection with Covid led to an exacerbation or induction of autoimmune disorders in 25 of the participants.ConclusionIn this large cohort, Covid 19 disease was shown to affect patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases the same or approximately the same way as the general population if they are fully vaccinated and if they start timely antiviral treatment where indicated. Further research and monitoring of the results after the multiple mutations of the virus is advisable.ReferencesNone.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES UNDER TREATMENT WITH BIOLOGICAL THERAPY: INFORMATION FROM BIOBADAMEX

BackgroundThe advent of biologic treatment (bDMARD) in childhood rheumatic diseases (RD) has changed their evolution and prognosis. Evidence is robust for diseases such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but in other diseases we still have to learn which is the ideal therapy, time to discontinuation and the potential adverse events (AE) in short and long term.ObjectivesIdentify the clinical and treatment characteristics of pediatric patients with rheumatic diseases with bDMARD treatment and describe the development of AE.MethodsBIOBADAMEX is a prospective ongoing cohort of Mexican patients with RD using bDMARDs since 2016. We included all patients younger than 18 years of age registered in BIOBADAMEX. Descriptive statistics were used for the baseline characteristics and the Chi-square test to analyze the differences between the characteristics of the groups in relation to the development of AE.ResultsA total of 45 patients were included, 31 (69%) of them female, mean age of 13.3 (±3.6) years. (Table 1).The most frequent diagnosis was JIA 25 (56%), followed by SLE 9 (20%), uveitis 5 (11%), polymyositis/dermatomyositis and hidradenitis 2 (4%) respectively;systemic sclerosis and CINCA 1 patient (2%) respectively. The mean duration disease in years was 4.67 (±2.1). Nine patients (20%) used a biologic prior to the current;23 (51%) patients had comorbidities.The most frequent bDMARDs used was Adalimumab (ADA) in 17 (38%) patients followed by Rituximab in 15 (33%) and Tocilizumab in 10 (22%), Infliximab, Abatacept and Canakinumab were used in one patient respectively.When compared by groups, ADA and Tocilizumab were the most used bDMARDs in JIA, Rituximab the only one used in SLE and PM/DM, and ADA the only one for uveitis.15 patients discontinued biological treatment, 4 (27%) due to AE. 82% used an additional synthetic DMARD, being methotrexate the most used in 48% of patients. Steroids were used by 21 (47%) of the patients with a median dose of 10mg (IQR 5 - 25).Fifteen AEs were recorded: 7 (47%) were infections, 5 of these (71%) were COVID;allergies and neutropenia in 2 (13%) patients respectively. By disease infections were more frequent in patients with JIA and Uveitis;neutropenia only occurred in patients with JIA (p 0.95). 87% of the AEs were non-serious, 1 patient with JIA presented a severe AE and one patient with SLE a fatal AE associated with COVID (p 0.93), with no statistically significant difference between groups.ConclusionJIA is the most frequent indication to use bDMARD as worldwide reported. The AE in this analysis are similar to previous registries in terms of the prevalence of infections, in our group the most frequent infectious complication was COVID, being fatal in one patient related with rituximab in SLE. Our study did not find statistically significant differences in the development of AE between diseases;however, they will continue to be reported and the number of patients in the registry will increase.References[1] Sterba,Y.et al. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2016;18,45[2] Fuhlbrigge RC, et al. 2021;47(4):531-543.Table 1.Baseline CharacteristicsBaseline characteristics (n = 45)n%Female, n(%)3168.9Age, media (SD)13.3 (±3.6)Index Body Mass, media (SD)19.6 (±4.9)Dx n(%)n %- JIA25 55.6- SLE9 20- PM/DM2 4.4- Uveitis5 11.1- Hidradenitis2 4.4- Systemic sclerosis1 2.2- CINCA1 2.2Disease duration(years) media (IQR)4.67±2.1Current treatment n(%)n %- Infliximab1 2.2- Adalimumab17 37.8- Rituximab15 33.3- Abatacept1 2.2- Tocilizumab10 22.2- Canakinumab1 2.2Treatment duration (months) median (IQR)4.5 (0.56 – 36.9)Treatment suspension, n(%)15 (33.2)Months to suspension, median (IQR)0.66 (0.46 – 1)Discontinue cause, n(%)n %- Inefficacy1 6.6- Remission1 6.6- Side effects4 26.6- Others5 33.3- Unknown4 26.6Steroids use, n(%):21 46.7Steroids dose (mg), median (IQR)10 5 – 25DMARDs use n(%):37 82.2AE, n(%):15 33.3By disease:AE TypeInfectionAllergyNeutropeniaOtherChi2JIA31230.95SLE1101Uveitis3000Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsSamara Mendieta: None declare , Alfonso Torres: None declared, Fedra Irazoque-Palazuelos: None declared, Sandra Sicsik: None declared, Iris Jazmin Colunga-Pedraza: None declared, Daniel Xavier Xibille Friedmann: None declared, Deshire Alpizar-Rodriguez Employee of: Scientific advisor in GSK-Mexico, VIJAYA RIVERA TERAN: None declared.

EVALUATION OF TELENURSING FOLLOW-UP IN A COHORT OF STABLE/LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIDES: A FEASIBILITY STUDY

BackgroundPeriodic follow-up (FU) is necessary for patients with Rheumatic Diseases (RDs). In the case of a stable clinical condition or low disease activity, FU can be carried out also by rheumatology nurses (RNs). Recent studies focusing on FUs led by RNs either in Rheumatology Clinics and with Telenursing (TN), showed promising results in terms of outcomes, cost reduction and users' satisfaction.ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a Telenursing FU in a Rheumatology Centre in Florence, Italy.MethodsIn this pilot study, patients with stable inflammatory arthritis or low disease activity were contacted, after their first visit, through TN (T0) and then assessed during the following in-person visit (V12) by RNs for treatment adherence, for pain, for mental and physical health, for workability, for perception of disease activity and satisfaction concerning the TN service.ResultsOut of 27 interviewed patients, 59.3% (n=16/27) was affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), 18.5% (n=5/27) by Spondyloarthritis (AS), 14.8% (n=4/27) by Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and 7.4% (n=2/27) by Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. The mean age was 57.5±13.1 (M± DS) years and the treatment adherence level was optimal. 11.1% (n=3/27) of patients was referred for medical consultation because of the urgent clinical situation assessed by the RNs according to the clinical multidisciplinary checklist. After specialist consultation, 1 patient was revalued in presence for a transient ischemic attack;1 patient was contacted by the rheumatologist following independent discontinuation of methotrexate therapy;1 patient was redirected to urgent dermatology consultation because of a suspected cutaneous drug reaction.During the TN period (12 months), 33.3% (n=9/27) of the patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection and 11.1% (n=3/27) contracted urinary or upper respiratory tract infections.RA patients showed a mean Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease-RAID score of 2.4 at T0 and 2.5 at V12 (Range 0-10);AS patients showed a mean Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society-ASAS score of 0.3 in both periods and PsA showed a mean Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease-PSAID score of 0.7 and 0.8 at T0 and V12, respectively. Among RA, AS and PsA patients, as a pain score of 3 was recorded in both periods.In order to attend the in-person FU visit, 68.4% (n=13/19) of the patients took work leave. 37% (n=10/27) of them waited 40.9±18.6 minutes at V12 control. The average distance between the Rheumatology Centre and patients' home was 29.3±25.6 km. 15.4% (n=5/13) of the respondents did not own a car and 23.1% (n=3/13) was accompanied to visit by their caregiver.All the included patients expressed high satisfaction for the TN service, corresponding to 5 point Likert scale.ConclusionThe data show that TN FU is a valuable model for maintaining an adequate level of therapeutic adherence, reducing the travel time and working day loss, intercepting remotely clinical issues, as well as registering a high level of user acceptance and satisfaction. Further studies on larger samples are needed to confirm our findings.References[1] Bech B et al (2020) 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases;79:61-68. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215458.[2] Alcazar B, Ambrosio L. (2019) Tele-nursing in patients with chronic illness: a systematic review. An Sist Sanit Navar;42(2):187-197. doi: 10.23938/ASSN.0645.[3] Larsson I et al. (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a nurse-led rheumatology clinic for monitoring biological therapy. Journal of Advanced Nursing;70(1), 164–175., 2013 doi:10.1111/jan.12183Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS IN THE VINSCHGAU VALLEY IN SOUTH TYROL

BackgroundFor patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, the Covid-19 pandemic carried some implications in addition to those faced by the general population. In particular, the question whether these patients are at increased risk of contracting Covid-19 or have an unfavourable disease course has been and is a matter of concern.In autumn 2020, the population of the Vinschgau valley in South Tyrol, northern Italy was still largely spared from infection with SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, incidence of the disease in the upcoming winter was anticipated to be high.ObjectivesThis prospective observational study aimed at characterizing Covid-19 infections in a population of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) residing in the Vinschgau valley. The study was conceived as companion project to an analogously designed prospective cohort study in the general population of the Vinschgau valley, the CHRIS Covid-19 study.MethodsBetween september and december 2020, IA patients (i.e. previously diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA] or peripheral spondyloarthritis [SpA]) residing in the Vinschgau valley (n=394 based on national healthcare system database) were contacted. Those who consented to participate in the study underwent a clinical baseline visit including TJC, SJC, VAS and assessment of RAID, PsAID9 or BASDAI (range 0-10, respectively). In addition, a Covid-19 screening questionnaire was administered. Then, active and/or past infection with SARS-CoV-2 were determined by nasopharyneal swab (PCR) and serum antibody test. In positively tested subjects, Covid-19 disease severity was graded according to WHO criteria (range 0-8, with 0 = no evidence of infection and 8 = death). Patients were followed-up with regular telephone interviews including Covid-19 screening questionnaire and RAID/PsAID/BASDAI for up to 12 months.Results111 patients (72 RA, 29 PsA, 10 SpA) were enrolled (see Table 1 for demographics and comorbidities).A total number of 19 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in 17 patients (10 RA, 7 PsA) were observed. Mean ± standard deviation 7-day incidence (incident cases/study population) was 0.003 ± 0.007.Fatigue, fever, anosmia and sore throat (present in 57.9%, 47.4%, 42.1% and 36.8% of infections, respectively) were the most frequent symptoms. Median (min-max) disease severity was 2 [1-4]. Two infections led to hospitalization, in one case oxygen supply was necessary. Four infections were asymptomatic (Figure 1).One patient died during follow-up due to pre-existing non-small cell lung cancer.Median absolute difference between post- and pre-infection disease activity was 0.4 and -0.8 for RAID and PsAID, respectively (both markedly below the minimal clinically important difference of 3 and 3.6 points, respectively).ConclusionIncidence of Covid-19 in the analysed cohort of patients with IA was low. Symptoms and comorbidities of SARS-CoV-2-positive IA patients reflected those known from the general population. Covid-19 seemed to have no relevant impact on IA disease activity. Comparison of these preliminary data with those of the general population is planned.Figure 1.Spectrum of clinical symptoms reported by study patients during infection with SARS-CoV-2[Figure omitted. See PDF]Table 1.Demographic data and selected comorbidities of study patients. Age and body mass index (BMI) are given in means ± standard deviation, female sex and comorbidities are given in n (% of column totals).TotalSARS-CoV-2 positiveHospitalized111172Age at inclusion (years)59.7 ± 9.462.5 ± 10.076.3 ± 9.0BMI at inclusion (kg/m2)27.9 ± 17.126.1 ± 3.330.5 ± 1.6Female sex76 (68.5)10 (58.8)1 (50)Active smokers22 (19.8)1 (5.9)0 (0)Arterial hypertension44 (39.6)8 (47.1)2 (50)Diabetes mellitus4 (3.6)1 (5.9)1 (50)Hyperlipidemia27 (24.3)2 (11.8)1 (50)Cardiac arrhythmias12 (10.8)2 (11.8)1 (50)History of cancer5 (4.5)1 (5.9)0 (0)Chronic bronchitis4 (3.6)1 (5.9)0 (0)Asthma3 (2.7%)0 (0)0 (0)Hospitalized in previous 12 months21 (18.9)3 (17.6)0 (0)Surgery with general anaesthesia in previous 12 months11 (9.9)2 (11.8)0 (0)Ack owledgementsThe authors thank Elena Cannavò and the CHRIS study team, whose support was of invaluable importance for the conduction of the study.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

COVID-19 WAS NOT TRIGGER FOR RHEUMATIC DISEASE ACTIVITY AFTER 6 MONTHS FOLLOW-UP: RESULTS FROM REUMACOV BRASIL REGISTER

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought uncertainties to rheumatology practice, mainly related to the possibility of triggering disease activity after infection in immune mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD). To date, there are few data in the literature specifically evaluating this issue.ObjectivesEvaluate the disease activity in IMRD patients after 6 months of the infection, compared to pre infection status.MethodsReumaCoV Brasil is a longitudinal study performed at 35 study centers designed to follow-up IMRD patients for 6 months after clinical or laboratorial COVID-19 diagnosis (cases), comparing with patients with IMRD who had not had the infection at the time of inclusion (controls). Demographic data such as age, sex, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, treatment, evolution of COVID-19 and disease activity status were collected using a Research Eletronic Data Capture (REDCap) database on three consecutive visits (inclusion and 6 months). The analysis was carried out on the four diseases with the highest inclusion number in the study: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In addition to specific disease activity assessment metrics, we used patient's global assessment of disease activity (PGA), ranging from 0 to 10, at all visits, with 0 being no activity and 10 being intense activity. All conclusions were drawn considering the significance level of 5%. This study was registered at the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials—REBEC, RBR-33YTQC. All patients read and signed the informed consent form before inclusion.ResultsBetween May 2020 and January 2021, 2032 patients were included in the registry, and of these, 1322 patients (721 cases and 601 controls), completed 6 months of follow-up, being 550 SLE (42.0%), 497 RA (37.6%) and 176 SpA (13.3%) and 99 (7.4%) PsA. Most patients were female (82.0%);the median age was 46.7 (13.8). Disease activity at the time of enrollment, according to the PGA, was similar between cases and controls, except for patients with RA and AS, where it was higher in controls. After the follow up time, no worsening of activity was observed in any of the diseases evaluated in the case group (Table 1). Despite this, worsening of disease symptoms after COVID-19 was reported by 23.3%, 24.6%, 25.0% and 25.8% of patients with SLE, RA, AS and PsA respectively, not related with disease activity.ConclusionIn patients with IMRD, no worsening of disease activity was observed after COVID-19 in this cohort of Brazilian patients. Despite this, many patients noticed worsening of symptoms, possibly associated not with the triggering of the activity, but with the so-called long COVID syndrome.Table 1.Comparison of disease activity, according to PGA, comparing disease activity status at inclusion and after 6 months of follow up, in cases and controlsINCLUSIONAFTER 6 MONTHSCasesControlsp-valueCasesControlsp-valueSLE2 (0-4,5)2 (0-4)0,8102 (0-5)2 (0-4)0,172RA3 (1-5)4 (2-6)0.0013 (1-5)3 (1-5,5)0,731AS2 (0-5)4 (1-6)0,0022 (0-5)3,5 (1-6)0,044PsA2 (0-4)2 (0-5)0,8162 (0-5)2 (0-5)0,939*Median and interquatile range;Student t test;CI 95%AcknowledgementsReumaCoV Brasil researchers, Brazilian Society of Rheumatology and National Council for Ccientific and Technological Development.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

IS THERE HIGHER RISK OF FATIGUE, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY AND STRESS AFTER COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH IMMUNE-MEDIATED RHEUMATIC DISEASES? DATA FROM THE REUMACOV BRASIL COHORT

BackgroundSome individuals may have persistent symptoms after COVID-19, a new condition known as long COVID-19. However, these complaints can be misunderstood with disease activity in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD), especially fatigue and mental distress.ObjectivesTo evaluate fatigue, depression, anxiety, and stress in IMRD patients after 6 months of COVID-19, compared with IMRD patients without COVID-19.MethodsThe ReumaCoV Brasil is a longitudinal study designed to follow-up IMRD patients for 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (cases) compared with IMRD patients no COVID-19 (controls). Clinical data, such as age, sex, comorbidities, as well as disease activity measurements and current treatment regarding IMRD, and COVID-19 outcomes were evaluated in all patients. The FACIT questionnaire (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) and the DASS 21 (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items) were applied at 6 months after COVID in both groups.ResultsA total of 606 IMRD patients were included, of whom 322 (53.1%) cases and 284 (46.9%) controls. Most patients were female (85.3%) with mean age 46.1 (13.0) years old. Specific disease activity were similar between cases and controls. There was a significant difference between FACIT scores and 3 domains of DASS-21 comparing cases and controls (Figure 1). The factors associated with FACIT were female gender, diabetes, obesity, no comorbidities, COVID manifestations (skin, joint pain, asthenia, diarrhea, and dyspnea), and chronic oral corticosteroid use. DASS-21 Depression was associated with these same factors. Female gender, COVID manifestations as skin, joint pain, asthenia, cough, dyspnea, and chronic oral corticosteroid use were associated with DASS-21-Anxiety. DASS-21 Stress was associated with female gender, asthenia, diarrhea, dyspnea, cough, chronic oral corticosteroid use, and hospitalization. Table 1 shows the variables that remained in the models after the univariate logistic analysis. A weak correlation between disease activity and FACIT was observed in rheumatoid arthritis (p=0.010;r2 = 0.035) and ankylosing spondylitis patients (p=0.010;r2 = 0.129). No other correlations were observed between the scores results and disease activity (patient's global assessment - PGA), medications or specific IMRD.ConclusionFatigue and mental changes such as depression, anxiety, and stress, occurred more frequently in IMRD patients who had COVID-19 than in those who did not have COVID-19, especially in women, regardless of disease activity score. Fatigue was more related to female gender, diabetes, obesity, and current joint pain. Mental impairment was more associated with severity of COVID-19, including respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms.Figure 1.Comparison between cases and controls of FACIT and DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scoresFACIT (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy);DASS-21 (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items):Table 1.Final model using binary Logistic Regression analysis to evaluate the preditive factors associated with FACIT and DASS-21 scoresFACIT Score ≤ 37 x score > 37§DASS-21-DEPRESSION Score ≤ 6 (normal/mild) x score > 6 (moderate/severeDASS-21-ANXIETY Score ≤ 5 (normal/mild) x score > 5 (moderate/severe)DASS-21-STRESS Score ≤ 9 (normal/mild) x score > 9 (moderate/severeVariableP-valueOR (CI 95%)VariableP-valueOR (CI 95%)VariableP-valueOR (CI 95%)VariableP-valueOR (CI 95%)Female0.151.83 (1.12-2.98)No comorbidities0.0290.66 (0.46-0.95)Joint pain0.0022.44 (1.39-4.26)Female0.0122.31 (1.20-4.46)Diabetes0.0062.35 (1.28-4.32)Joint pain**0.0012.58 (1.57-4.22)Dyspnea0.0013.61 (2.11-6.19)Dyspnea0.0013.69 (2.09-6.51)Dyspneia0.0012.00 (1.23-3.26)Dyspnea0.0012.82 (1.79-4.44)Oral CE0.0141.55 (1.09-2.21)Joint pain0.0052.20 (1.41-3.43)Oral CE0.0481.41 (1.00-1.99)§Lower scores mean worse fatigue;CE: corticosteroid;OR: odds ratio;CI: confiance intervalAcknowledgementsReumaCoV Brasil researchers, Brazilian Rheumatology Society and National Council for Scientific and Technological Deve opment.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

CHALLENGES FOR PATIENTS WITH RMD'S IN BULGARIA DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic has put patients with rheumatic diseases in front of a number of obstacles that had to be solved together with Bulgarian rheumatologists. The lockdowns and restrictive measures have made it difficult for people with rheumatic diseases to have access to timely hospital and pre-hospital care. A number of digital solutions have been implemented to address these issues.ObjectivesTo highlight the problems that patients with rheumatic diseases had during the Covid-19 pandemic;access to rheumatologists and the effectiveness of hospital and pre-hospital care during the pandemic, access to treatment, changes of treatment;communication between physicians and patients, the impact of the pandemic on work, social contacts, hobbies.MethodsAn anonymous survey was conducted online and by telephone. The survey was developed by Medical university, Plovdiv, University hospital "Kaspela”:, Plovdiv, Bulgarian Association for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound, Bulgarian organization for people with rheumatic diseases;Association for patients with autoimmune diseases.Number of participants: 1205 patients with RMD's.Age range: 18-82ResultsFace to face meetings with doctors have been limited during the pandemic.Visits to the rheumatologist's office are significantly reduced and phone, email, text messaging, online consultations were preferred as communication channels.Before the pandemic, 76% of respondents most often communicated with their physicians by visiting their practice, during the pandemic their relative share decreased to 46%, with a significant difference of 30%Phone consultations: patients using this type of communication increasing from 38% before the pandemic to 56% during the pandemic, a significant difference of 18%The percentage of patients who communicated via text or email rises from 10% to 17 %.It has become apparent that Digital transformation is needed and patients and physicians should work together to achieve it and to be established in Bulgaria.245 patients reported a change in their treatment. Of these: (30%) reduced the dose of their medications, 119 (49%) increased the dose and the remaining 55 (21%) stopped their therapy.From the responses of the respondents, it is clear that 71% have not experienced a change in their work during the COVID-19 pandemic, 17% have worked from home.From the responses of the respondents, it is clear that 71% have not experienced a change in their work during the COVID-19 pandemic, 17% have worked from home, 4% have been fired, 3% have left their jobs due to the risk of their health and 5% left their jobs for other reasons.ConclusionThe Covid-19 pandemic has shown that the digital transformation in rheumatology care can be an efficient alternative to some of the services offered to patients with rheumatic diseases in Bulgaria (especially secondary examinations and therapy monitoring examinations). The results of the conducted survey could be used to support digitization in healthcare in Bulgaria.Very important was the collaboration between the patient organizations and the Bulgarian Association for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound, Medical University, Plovdiv and the rheumatologists from University hospital "Kaspela” Plovdiv.References[1]Gianfrancesco M, Hyrich KL, Al-Adely S, et al. Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79: 859–66.[2]Monti S, Balduzzi S, Delvino P, Bellis E, Quadrelli VS, Montecucco C. Clinical course of COVID-19 in a series of patients with chronic arthritis treated with immunosuppressive targeted therapies. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79: 667–68.[3]Dejaco, C.;Alunno, A.;Bijlsma, J.W.;Boonen, A.;Combe, B.;Finckh, A.;Machado, P.M.;Padjen, I.;Sivera, F.;Stamm, T.A.;et al. Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on decisions for the management of people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A survey among EULAR countries. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2020AcknowledgementsBul arian organization for people with rheumatic diseases.Association for patients with autoimmune diseases.Bulgarian Association for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.