EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO ADJUVANTED RECOMBINANT ZOSTER VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED TRIAL SUB-STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, 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 InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.

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.

COVID-19–RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS IN THE PHASE 3 POETYK TRIALS OF THE ALLOSTERIC TYROSINE KINASE 2 INHIBITOR, DEUCRAVACITINIB, IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE PLAQUE PSORIASIS

BackgroundDeucravacitinib is a first-in-class, oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor approved in multiple countries for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis. Deucravacitinib suppresses signaling of cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of immune-mediated diseases including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Deucravacitinib was efficacious compared with placebo in phase 2 trials in psoriatic arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.[1,2] In two phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (POETYK PSO-1 [NCT03624127], PSO-2 [NCT03611751]), deucravacitinib showed superior efficacy versus placebo and apremilast.[3,4] Upon completion of either psoriasis trial, patients could enroll in the POETYK long-term extension (LTE) trial (NCT04036435).ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence rate and severity of adverse events (AEs) due to COVID-19 with deucravacitinib treatment in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 trials and open-label POETYK LTE trial.MethodsIn PSO-1 (N=666) and PSO-2 (N=1020), adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized 2:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily, placebo, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. At Week 16, placebo patients in both trials switched to deucravacitinib. Based on their Week 24 PASI response, apremilast patients continued with apremilast or switched to placebo or deucravacitinib. In PSO-1, patients randomized to deucravacitinib continued treatment for 52 weeks;in PSO-2, some patients randomized to deucravacitinib had a randomized treatment withdrawal period. At Week 52, patients could enroll in the open-label LTE and receive deucravacitinib. Incidence rates and severity of COVID-19–related AEs in the POETYK trials (n=1364;2076.7 person-years [PY] of follow-up) were compared with the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine trial placebo group (n=19,544;3096.1 PY of follow-up). This reference population was selected due to the study design and timing of the trial, which occurred when variants were in circulation.ResultsAs of October 1, 2021, 1519 patients received ≥1 dose of deucravacitinib over a 2-year follow-up period;1364 patients met criteria for this analysis, with deucravacitinib exposure since the pandemic onset (estimated to be January 1, 2020). In total, 153 deucravacitinib patients reported a COVID-19–related AE, for an overall exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of 7.4/100 PY (95% CI, 6.2–8.6). Serious COVID-19–related AEs occurred in 43 patients (EAIR, 2.1/100 PY;95% CI, 1.5–2.8), including 30 with COVID-19 and 13 with COVID-19 pneumonia;this rate was within the margins of those for moderate to severe COVID-19 reported in the reference population (EAIR, 16.5/100 PY;95% CI, 15.0–17.9). Deaths due to COVID-19 occurred in 6 patients (EAIR, 0.3/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.6), with the COVID-19–related mortality rate being consistent with the reference population (EAIR, 0.23/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.5). Treatment was discontinued due to COVID-19 or COVID-19 pneumonia in 7 patients, including the 6 patients who died due to COVID-19.ConclusionCOVID-19 was among the most frequently reported AEs during the 2-year period of the pooled PSO-1, PSO-2, and LTE trials due to the temporal overlap of the pandemic with the trials. However, COVID-19 infection and death rates did not differ from the reference population;most infections were not serious and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. Based on this analysis, deucravacitinib did not appear to increase the risk of COVID-19 nor its progression to severe outcomes.References[1]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:815-822.[2]Morand E, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;Nov 11 (Epub ahead of print).[3]Armstrong A, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02256-3.[4]Strober B, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02643-3.AcknowledgementsThese clinical trials were sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of InterestsDiamant Thaçi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boeh inger Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Kenneth B Gordon Consultant of: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Melinda Gooderham Speakers bureau: Glenmark, Actelion, AbbVie, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Consultant of: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Andrew Alexis Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, L'Oreal, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Sol-Gel, UCB, Valeant, VisualDx, and Vyne, Grant/research support from: Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Menlo, Novartis, and Valeant (Bausch Health), Varsha Lalchandani Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Julie Scotto Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lauren Hippeli Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Matthew J Colombo Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Tamara Lezhava Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Almirall, AltruBio, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Arena, Aristea, Arrive Technologies, Avotres, BiomX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brickell Biotech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Castle Biosciences, CorEvitas' (Corrona) Psoriasis Registry, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Evelo Biosciences, Evommune, Forte Biosciences, Helsinn Therapeutics, Hexima, Leo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera, Pfizer, Seanergy, and Verrica, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Avotres, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, and UCB.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF DAZODALIBEP (VIB4920/HZN4920) IN SUBJECTS WITH SJÖGREN'S SYNDROME: A PHASE 2, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PROOF OF CONCEPT STUDY

BackgroundSjögren's syndrome (SS) is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease affecting exocrine glands, primarily the salivary and tear glands, with potentially severe manifestations in multiple organs. No approved disease-modifying therapies exist. Dazodalibep (DAZ) is a biologic antagonist of CD40L.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity (NCT04129164).MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to evaluate DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity, as defined by a EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score ≥ 5. Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous DAZ 1500 mg or placebo (PBO) Q2W x 3 doses, then Q4W x 4 additional doses. Starting on Day 169, subjects initially randomized to DAZ received PBO Q4W x 5 doses and subjects randomized to PBO received DAZ Q4W x 5 doses and were then followed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from Baseline in ESSDAI at Day 169. Safety assessments included the incidence of adverse (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs of special interest (AESIs).ResultsThe 74 randomized subjects all received ≥1 dose of study medication (DAZ, N=36;PBO, N=38). The baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between the two groups. The change from Baseline to Day 169 in ESSDAI score (LS mean ± SE), was -6.3 ± 0.6 in DAZ-treated subjects compared to -4.1 ± 0.6 in the PBO group, a difference of -2.2 (p = 0.0167). Compared to the PBO group, the DAZ group showed positive trends in the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index score, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score at Day 169. A post-hoc responder analysis of subjects achieving high levels (5 and 6 points) of improvement on ESSDAI favored DAZ (61.1% and 60.0%) over PBO (35.1% and 34.3%).The reported AEs were generally mild through Day 169 and similar in frequency between treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs occurring in ≥5% of DAZ-treated subjects and >PBO were COVID-19, diarrhea, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, contusion, device allergy, fatigue, hypertension, and oropharyngeal pain. Two SAEs were reported in a single DAZ-treated subject: this subject was a 59-year-old female who experienced a grade 3 SAE of COVID-19 infection and later died of unknown cause 46 days after last administration of DAZ (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). There was a single AESI of herpes zoster in a DAZ-treated subject.ConclusionDAZ is a potential new therapy for the treatment of systemic disease activity in patients with SS. SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease receiving DAZ experienced a statistically significant reduction in disease activity relative to PBO as measured by the improvement in ESSDAI score. Except for a case of severe COVID-19 infection, DAZ therapy in SS subjects appeared to be well tolerated. Larger controlled trials of DAZ therapy for SS are warranted to further explore its safety profile and confirm its clinical efficacy.Table 1.Efficacy and Safety DataPBO N=38DAZ 1500 mg N=36EfficacyΔESSDAI, LS mean (SE) †-4.1 (0.6)-6.3 (0.6)*ΔESSPRI, LS mean (SE) †-1.12 (0.29)-1.80 (0.31)ΔFACIT-Fatigue, LS mean (SE) †5.8 (1.6)8.1 (1.6)AE Summary, n (%)≥1 AE23 (60.5)28 (77.8)≥1 related AE8 (21)10 (27.8)≥1 SAE01 (2.8)≥1 related SAE00≥1 AE leading to discontinuation00≥1 AESI01 (2.8)≥1 Death01 (2.8)Efficacy endpoints as of Day 169;† Analyzed using MMRM;Comparisons vs PBO;*p<0.05;AE summaries based on AEs that occurred through Day 169;AE, adverse event;AESI, adverse event of special interest;ESSDAI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index;ESSPRI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index;FACIT-Fatigue, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue;PBO, placebo;SAE, serious adverse eventFigure 1.AcknowledgementsFunded by Horizon herapeutics. Medical writing support provided by B Lujan, PhD, an employee of Horizon Therapeutics.Disclosure of InterestsE. William St. Clair Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Resolve Therapeutics, Sonoma Biotherapeutics. Royalties: UpToDate, Liangwei Wang Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Ilias Alevizos Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, William Rees Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Alan Baer Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Wan Fai Ng Consultant of: Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbvie, BMS, Sanofi, MedImmune, Janssen and UCB, Ghaith Noaiseh Consultant of: Novartis, Chiara Baldini Consultant of: GSK, and Sanofi.

Adverse events following immunization associated with the ChAdOx1nCoV-19 and BBV152 vaccine-a cross-sectional study

COVID-19, an infectious disease, has become a leading cause of death in many people. The rapid emergence of the pandemic prompted the development of a vaccine to mitigate the disease's harmful consequences. Vaccination is the only effective way to prevent infection from spreading and build immunity to the virus. However, developing adverse effects has become a major problem for vaccine reluctance. Accordingly, the interest has been shifted towards identifying the adverse effects developed following immunization. The current study objective is to assess and compare the intensity of adverse effects following 1st and 2nd dose of COVID-19 vaccination and the medication administered to relieve the symptoms associated with vaccination. A cross-sectional study was performed in a community over six months. A total of 836 participants were involved in the study. All the data regarding the vaccination were collected through a specially designed questionnaire form and analyzed in all the participants within the study group. According to the study, at least 1 AEFI was developed in about 90% of the study population. The most common systemic and local effect developed in the study population was fever (59.42%) and pain at the injection site (69.82%), respectively. With both vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBV152), the incidence and severity of AEFIs were lower after the second dose than after the first dose, and most of the symptoms associated with vaccination were alleviated by taking home remedies and symptomatic treatment. The adverse effects reported after receiving the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBV152 vaccines are typical of most vaccines, and the majority of them were tolerated, and most subsided in less than 24 hours.

TOFACITINIB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS -WELL TOLERATED DRUG - REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE

BackgroundTofacitinib a small molecule JAK- inhibitors has been approved for use in psoriatic arthritis (PSA) since 2017 while it has shown to be effective in the clinical trials real life data is sparse.With increase in use there has been growing concern about the safety profiles and adverse events which makes it all the more important to have real life data.ObjectivesTo review patient records who were treated with tofacitinib for psoriatic arthritis and to assess the tolerance and continuation rate and also assess the occurrence of adverse events like infections, coronary artery disease.MethodsAll PSA patients who were prescribed tofacitinib from JAN-2021 to JUNE 2022 with minimum of 6 months followup were included for analysis. Demographics, weight recordings, lab parameters and occurence of adverse events were noted.ResultsThere were a total of 71 patients who were prescribed tofacitinib out of which 46 are continuing and 25 have stopped during this period. The mean age was 47.25 (10.9)yrs the mean disease duration was 4.182 (4.474)yrs The reason for stopping tofacitinib was better(52%) followed inefficacy(24%), and miscellaneous(24%)reasons..When analysing before and after tofacitninb one thing whihc was striking is the significant weight gain among patients with minimum of 3.52(3.06) kg weight gain and this weight gain was consistent even in stopped patients.in comparing the lab parameters before and after tofacitininb there was a significant redcution in CRP,ESR,PLATELET COUNT Table 1 and a minimal but insginificant rise in liver enzymes within the physiological range.When compared to before and after tofacitinib there was increased occurence of fatigue(18.3%), minor infections(11.2%), Gastrointerstinal adverse events (11.2%), alopecia (11.2%), Itching(10.4%), headache(9.8%), UTI(5.6%), cough (4.2%), transaminitis(2.8%), covid(1.7%), zoster(1.4%) and CAD(1.4%).ConclusionTofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis is well tolerated with significant reduction in the inflammatory markers and weight gain but serious adverse events in lesser percentage eventhough it leads to significant weight gain.Table 1.PARAMTERSBeforeAfterP valueWeight70.15 (14.19)72.31 (14.24)0.000249ESR45.29 (28.26)35.23 (28.33)0.037CRP21.56 (16.38)10.72 (11.98)<.0001PLATELET COUNT332.92 (88.77)307.09 (88.18)0.0046SGOT30.33 (9.99)35.69 (19.92)0.125SGPT22.57 (12.96)27.98 (20.17)0.116Reference[1]Ly K, Beck KM, Smith MP, Orbai A-M, Liao W. Tofacitinib in the management of active psoriatic arthritis: patient selection and perspectives. Psoriasis (Auckl) [Internet]. 2019;9:97–107. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2147/PTT.S161453Acknowledgements: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.

ACCELERATED WANING OF HUMORAL IMMUNE RESPONSE TO A THIRD COVID-19 VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH IMMUNE-MEDIATED INFLAMMATORY DISEASES

BackgroundA 3rd COVID-19 vaccination is currently recommended for patients under immunosuppression. However, a fast decline of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein has been observed.ObjectivesIt remains unclear whether immunosuppressive therapy affects kinetics of humoral and cellular immune responses.Methods50 patients under immunosuppression and 42 healthy controls (HCs) received a 3rd dose of an mRNA-based vaccine and were monitored over a 12-weeks period. Humoral immune response was assessed 4 and 12 weeks after 3rd dose. Antibodies were quantified using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were quantified by IFN-γ ELISpot assays. Adverse events, including SARS-CoV-2 infections, were monitored over a 12-week period.ResultsAt week 12, reduced anti-RBD antibody levels were observed in IMID patients as compared to HCs (median antibody level 5345 BAU/ml [1781 – 10208] versus 9650 BAU/ml [6633 - 16050], p < 0.001). Reduction in relative antibody levels was significantly higher in IMID patients as compared to HCs at week 12 (p < 0.001). Lowest anti-RBD antibody levels were detected in IMID patients who received biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or a combination therapy with conventional synthetic and biological DMARDs. Number of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells against wildtype and Omicron variants remained stable over 12 weeks in IMID patients. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionDue to a fast decline in anti-RBD antibodies in IMID patients an early 4th vaccination should be considered in this vulnerable group of patients.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsDaniel Mrak Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Daniela Sieghart: None declared, Elisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp and Pfizer, Peter Mandl: None declared, Lisa Göschl: None declared, Philipp Hofer: None declared, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Irina Gessl: None declared, Renate Kain Speakers bureau: Otsuka, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Takeda Pharma, MEDahead and Janssen Cilag, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Josef S. Smolen Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sanofi, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz Roche, Samsung and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helmuth Haslacher Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Leonhard Heinz: None declared, Michael Bonelli Consultant of: EliLilly.

SAFETY ANALYSIS OF JAKINIBS IN REAL CLINICAL PRACTICE IN A COHORT OF 116 PATIENTS

BackgroundJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA), although their safety profile continues to be analysed due to the possible increase in adverse events (AEs) in relation to anti-TNFs (mild and severe infections, haematological alterations, thromboembolism, increase in neoplasms).ObjectivesTo evaluate in real clinical practice the AEs of JAKinibs in a cohort of patients with RA and SpA. In addition, adherence and reasons for discontinuation (1st or 2nd failure, AE) are analysed.MethodsObservational study of 116 patients diagnosed with RA or SpA who received treatment with JAKinibis (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib) after failure of treatment with different classical synthetic (FAMEsc) or biological (FAMEb) disease-modifying drugs. The following data were analysed: demographic characteristics of the patients, years of disease progression, 1st or 2nd failures and AE.ResultsMean age was 52 years, with Baricitinib being older (60 years -SD 13.6), higher prevalence of females in all groups, and a disease progression time of about 10 years. Mean number of FAMEsc was 1.6 and mean number of FAMEb was 2,3 to Tofacitinib(Tofa), 2,76 to Baricitinib(Bari) and 4,4 to Upadacitinib(Upa). 71 (63%) patients had active corticosteroid therapy. The median treatment time with Tofa was 8.8 months, Bari 9.5 and Upa 2.4 months.Most frequent AEs with Tofa were urinary tract infections(UTI) (11.9%, 7 cases) and headaches (8.47%, 5 cases). There were 3 cases of herpes zoster (5.1%), one of which was recurrent, and 2 cases respectively of tachycardia and gastrointestinal intolerance (3.4%). With Baricitnib, 2(5%) cases of UTI and 2(5%) of influenza A were reported. Most frequent AEs related to Upadacitinb are gastrointestinal intolerance, labialis and facial herpes, anterior uveitis and recurrent UTI, with 1 case for each adverse event. There were 4 success with Baricitinib treatment: 2 due to severe COVID, 1 influenza A and 1 due to stroke. 17 patients had 1st failure to Tofa(28.81%), 8 to Bari20.0%) and 3 to Upa(18.75%);7(11.86%) and 2(5%) patients had 2nd failure to Tofa and Bari respectively, no with Upa.Mean CRP to Tofa-SD 18.9-was 17.19, 20-SD 22.7- to Bari and 24.2-SD 27.40- to Upa. Mean ESR-SD 15.3- was 25.4, -SD 26.4 and 44.3 -SD 32-, respectively. At 6 months, 36(62%) were continuing on Tofa, 22(56%) on Bari and 4(27%) on Upa. At 12 months, 27(46.6%) were still on Tofa and 12 on Bari(30.8%) and no patients were on upa.Table 1.TofaBariUpaMean age496047Male19%18%20%Female81%82%80%Time course of disease(years)81111Permanence 6 months62%56%27%Permanence 12 months46,6%31%0%Patients with corticotherapy62%64%60%Previous biological drugs2,3 SD 22,8 SD 2,34,4 SD 2,9Patients who discontinued the drug62%59%33%Mean CRP at the end of treatment172024Mean end-of-treatment ESR252644Repeated AEsUTI(7) Headache(5) Shingles(3) Nephritic colic(2) Gastrointestinal intolerance(2) Tachycardia(2)UTI(4) Headache(2)Serious AEsShingles (3)Varicella encephalopathy(1) Stroke(1) Shingles (1)1st failure28,8%20%18,7%2nd failure11,9%5%0%SuccessSARS-Cov2(2) Influenza(1) Stroke(1)Figure 1. Months stay pharmacoConclusionMost frequent adverse events with JAKinibs are mild infections, except gastrointestinal complaints with upadacitinib. Serious adverse events, including 3 deaths from viral infections, were observed, mostly in patients over 65 years. Most frequent cause of discontinuation was treatment failure. We believe that further observational studies are needed to stratify and profile the risk of infection with JAKinibs.References[1]Atzeni F, Popa CD, et al. Safety of JAK inhibitors: focus on cardiovascular and thromboembolic events. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2022 Mar;18(3):233-244. Doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2022.2039630 Epub 2022 Feb 17.PMID: 35129033[2]Alves C, Penedones A,et al. The Risk of Infections Associated With JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Mar 1;28(2):e407-e414 PMID:33902098Ackn wledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Comparison of Immediate Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccine (COVAXIN BBV152) in Pregnant vs Nonpregnant Women

Aims and objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the immediate adverse effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (COVAXIN) in a pregnant woman with that of a nonpregnant woman. Material(s) and Method(s): It is a prospective observational study done at Vanivilas Hospital, Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute (BMCRI) for 2 months. The sample size was 100 pregnant and 100 nonpregnant women. Telephonically, patients were followed-up, and details of the side/adverse effects were collected in a proforma after 2 and 14 days. Data collected from both groups were analyzed using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Result(s): The majority of women were in the age group of <=25 years (64.0% and 36.0%, respectively) with a mean age of 25.01 +/- 3.71 years among the pregnant and 28.52 +/- 6.00 years among nonpregnant women. About 25.0% of pregnant women and 38.0% of nonpregnant women reported side effects. About 15.0% and 22.0% had taken treatment for side effects among pregnant women and nonpregnant women, respectively. Among the pregnant women, the common side effects reported were injection site pain (17) followed by fever (5), fatigue (4), and myalgia (03). Whereas among the nonpregnant women, the common side effects reported were injection site pain (28) followed by fever (6), myalgia (3), headache (2), and fatigue (1). Conclusion(s): Side effects reported following the administration of Covaxin in pregnant and nonpregnant women are fever, fatigue, injection site pain, myalgia, and headache. The proportion of side effects was not significantly different in the pregnant and nonpregnant women following Covaxin administration. Clinical significance: Covaxin is an inactivated killed vaccine against COVID-19 by Bharat Biotech. The vaccine has been recommended for pregnant women by the Government of India during corona pandemic. Studies are lacking regarding the difference in adverse events in pregnant versus nonpregnant women, after vaccine administration.Copyright © The Author(s).

COVID-19 VACCINE SAFETY DURING PREGNANCY IN WOMEN WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS

BackgroundVaccinations comprise a part of the antenatal care of pregnant women, including patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). While COVID-19 vaccination has been shown to be safe in patients with SLE, data on vaccine-associated adverse events (AEs) during the antenatal and lactation period are scarce or lacking.ObjectivesTo investigate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and AEs in pregnant SLE patients.MethodsA total of 9201 complete responses were extracted on June 21st, 2022 from the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 database, a global e-survey involving 157 collaborators from 106 countries. Among respondents, 6787 (73.8%) were women. We identified 70 (1.1%) women who were exposed to at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during pregnancy, among those 11 with SLE. Delayed onset (>7 days) vaccine-related AEs were extracted and triangulated with disease activity, treatment changes due to flare after vaccination, and COVID-19 infections in vaccinated pregnant women with SLE. Additionally, information on health-related quality of life and physical function was recorded using PROMIS at the time of survey completion.ResultsThe age of patients ranged from 28 to 39 years;5/11 women were of Asian origin. None of these patients reported major vaccine AEs, including four patients with self-reported active SLE prior to the vaccination. None of them reported any change in the status of their autoimmune disease, and no hospitalisation or special treatment was recorded. Six women experienced minor vaccine AEs;two of them had active disease prior to vaccination. Four patients reported COVID-19 infection;two of them while they were pregnant and post-vaccination and two prior to pregnancy and vaccination. All four patients experienced symptoms of their disease, but no overt SLE flare was reported. At the time of survey completion, all patients reported their general health as being good to excellent in all aspects evaluated. Importantly, no APOs were reported.None of the patients reported thrombotic events post-vaccination, which provides some reassurance regarding COVID-19 vaccination in a patient population with a high risk for cardiovascular comorbidity and thrombosis, especially in the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies or in patients diagnosed with the antiphospholipid syndrome, a considerable portion within SLE populations. Moreover, it was reassuring to note an absence of association between experienced vaccine AEs and active disease prior to vaccination. Although minor AEs were common, they did not impair daily functioning, and the symptoms resolved in all patients after a median of 3 (IQR: 2.5–5.0) days.ConclusionOur report adds relevant evidence concerning the sensitive issue of COVID-19 vaccine AEs and flares in SLE patients during the antenatal and lactation period. Despite the small sample size, the findings provide some reassurance and can contribute to informed decisions regarding vaccination in patients with SLE and high-risk pregnancies due to their background autoimmune disease. Based on the present data, the risk/benefit ration of COVID-19 vaccination appears favourable, with vaccines both providing passive immunisation to the fetus and active immunisation to the mother with no signals of exacerbation of the mother's autoimmune disease.Figure 1.Timeline showing COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination-related minor adverse events in relation to gestational and post-partum periods in eleven pregnant/lactating women with systemic lupus erythematosus.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all survey respondents, as well as patient associations and all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsNefeli Giannopoulou: None declared, Latika Gupta: None declared, Laura Andreoli: None declared, Daniele Lini: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Grant/research support from: R.A. has a consultancy relationshi with and/or has received research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therapeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio., Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Grant/research support from: I.P. has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG.

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

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

FREQUENCY OF VACCINE-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASE

BackgroundPatients with rheumatic diseases are at greater risk of developing serious infections due to dysregulation of the immune system and the use of immunosuppressants1. Therefore, preventing infection is crucial, with vaccination being the most important primary prevention intervention, leading to a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections. However, vaccine hesitancy among persons with rheumatic diseases is widespread due to concerns regarding the safety of vaccines2.ObjectivesDescribe the frequency of adverse events associated with vaccination in patients with rheumatic diseases.MethodsObservational, descriptive, cross-sectional and retrospective study was carried out in patients with rheumatic diseases from the Rheumatology Department of the Hospital Regional 1° de Octubre ISSSTE, from February to May 2022;it included patients over 18 years of age with an established diagnosis of rheumatic disease who had received a vaccine;the researcher applied the vaccine-associated adverse events survey to those patients who agreed to participate by signing the informed consent. The sample size was of 95 patients. Descriptive statistics and summary measures were employed for analysis. We used the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test (when <5) for the comparative analysis of the frequencies of nominal qualitative variables. P<0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThe survey was applied to 115 patients. 85.2% were women;mean age 57.9 years;61.7% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 13.9%. 55.6% of the patients were treated with steroids, 52.2% received bDMARDs and 48.7% csDMARDs. Patients received various vaccines, of which the most frequent was the one for COVID-19, with 99.1% of included patients having received at least one dose, followed by influenza in 30.4%. 78% of the patients who received at least one dose of a vaccine against COVID-19 presented ≥1 adverse events. The disease in which the highest frequency of adverse events occurred was RA, without this difference being statistically significant (Table 1). The adverse events according to the type of COVID-19 vaccine were the following: Sputnik-V 80%, Pfizer 76.6% and AstraZeneca 76.1%, without statistically significant difference between vaccine types. The most frequently occurring adverse events were injection site pain (80.1%), headache (30.7%), and fatigue (30.7%);In addition, the main vaccine-associated musculoskeletal symptoms were joint pain, myalgia, and morning joint stiffness (Figure 1), which on most cases improved after a NSAID use. Joint pain was more frequent after the second dose of certain vaccine types.Table 1.Frequency of AE after COVID-19 vaccination in patients according to disease.AE (%)pRA560.790SLE140.326Spondyloarthritis40.068Osteoarthritis60.614ConclusionVaccination-associated AE occurred more frequently than reported in international studies;however, they were not more serious. Providing this information to patients is important to improve vaccine acceptance. In addition, the administration of NSAID after the application of the vaccine could be proposed to reduce the presence of side effects.References[1]Rotondo, Cinzia, et. al. Preliminary Data on Post Market Safety Profiles of COVID 19 Vaccines in Rheumatic Diseases: Assessments on Various Vaccines in Use, Different Rheumatic Disease Subtypes, and Immunosuppressive Therapies: A Two-Centers Study. Vaccines, 2021;9(7):730-440.[2]Furer, Victoria, et. al. 2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:39–52.AcknowledgementsTo the residents and staff at HR 1 Octubre for their help in compilating data.Disclosure of InterestsDaniel Xavier Xibille Friedmann Speakers bureau: GSK, Lilly, UCB, Paid instructor for: GSK, Lilly, UCB, Consultant of: GSK, Lilly, UCB, Vanessa Balderas Reyes: None declared, María Olvera: None declared, María Alcocer León: None declared, ALFREDO ALEXANDRI REYES SALINAS Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Janssen, ovartis, Minerva Rodríguez Falcón: None declared, Sandra Miriam Carrillo Vazquez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, UCB, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Janssen, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Janssen, UCB.

ADVERSE EVENTS AFTER VACCINATION FOR SARS-CoV2 IN A CASE SERIES OF FIBROMYALGIA PATIENTS VERSUS HEALTHY CONTROLS

BackgroundFibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic widespread pain syndrome of unknown origin that leads to hypersensitivity for physical, chemical and/or psychic triggers. Vaccination, as an inflammatory stimulus and as a psychologically stressful act, could represent a challenge for these patients.ObjectivesWe aimed to investigate the incidence of adverse reactions after vaccination for Sars-Cov2 in a series of FM patients versus healthy controls.MethodsWe recruited 65 consecutive FM patients classified according to the 2016 ACR diagnostic criteria¹ (M/F: 5/60;mean age 53.6 +/-12.5 years), without other associated rheumatologic conditions, and 65 age/sex-matched healthy controls.All patients filled a questionnaire in order to investigate eventual adverse events occurring up to 6 months after administration of a Sars-Cov2 vaccine. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: the first part included the patient's demographic information, the vaccine type performed and the anamnestic data. In the second part, the individuals described all new symptoms or signs occurred after the first, the second or the third dose of Sars-Cov2 vaccine.ResultsOverall, FM patients reported a higher frequency of adverse events after Sars-Cov2 vaccination in comparison with healthy controls. In particular, 44/65 FM patients vs. 11/65 controls complained of exacerbation of diffuse pain (p<0.001). Fatigue, diarrhea, sweating, tingles, headache, dizziness, transient respiratory discomfort, and paroxysmal vision blurring were also more frequent in FM patients than controls (47/65 vs. 30/65, p=0.004;6/65 vs. 0/65, p=0.028;18/65 vs. 8/65, p=0.047;20/65 vs. 0/65, p<0.001;22/65 vs. 9/65, p=0.013;21/65 vs. 5/65, p<0.001;10/65 vs 1/65, p=0.009;17/65 vs. 2/65, p< 0.001, respectively).No significant difference between FM and the control group as regards fever was reported (24/65 vs. 30/65;p=0.7).Interestingly, swelling at the injection vaccine site was more commonly reported in controls (9/65 vs. 20/65;p=0.034).Finally, one case of Bell's palsy was registered in the FM series while one case of myocarditis in the control group.ConclusionFM patients showed an increased frequency of adverse events to Sars-Cov2 vaccination compared to healthy controls. In particular, all the symptoms reported seemed to be associated with the functional hypersensitivity that characterizes FM.Reference[1]Wolfe F, et Al. 2016 Revisions to the 2010/2011 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016 Dec;46(3):319-329.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Menstrual abnormalities post-COVID vaccination: a cross-sectional study on adult Lebanese women.

BACKGROUND: In the year 2020, the coronavirus pandemic invaded the world. Since then, specialized companies began to compete, producing many vaccines. Coronavirus vaccines have different adverse events. Menstrual disorders have been noticed as a common complaint post-vaccination. AIM: Our study fills an important gap by evaluating the relationship between coronavirus vaccines and menstrual disorders. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study between 20 September 2021, and 1 October 2021, using an online survey. The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions divided into 4 sections: demographics, COVID-19 exposure and vaccination, hormonal background, and details about the menstrual cycle. Sample t-test, ANOVA test, chi-square, and McNemar test were used in bivariate analysis. RESULTS: This study includes 505 Lebanese adult women vaccinated against COVID-19. After vaccination, the number of women having heavy bleeding or light bleeding increased (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively). The number of women having regular cycles decreased after taking the vaccine (p < 0.001). Irregularity in the cycle post-vaccination was associated with worse PMS symptoms (p = 0.036). Women using hormonal contraception method or using any hormonal therapy had higher menstrual irregularity rates (p = 0.002 and p = 0.043, respectively). Concerning vaccine adverse events, those who had headaches had a higher rate of irregularity (p = 0.041). Those having PCOS, osteoporosis, or blood coagulation disorders had higher irregularity rate (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSION: Vaccine adverse events may include specific menstrual irregularities. Moreover, some hormonal medications and diseases are associated with the alteration of the menstrual cycle. This study helps in predicting vaccines' menstrual adverse events, especially in a specific population prone to menstrual disorders.

Burnout, quality of life and perceived patient adverse events among paediatric nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: This cross-sectional, descriptive, correlational study aimed to measure burnout, quality of life (QOL) and perceptions of patient-related adverse events among paediatric nurses amid the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the relationships between these scores and participants' demographic and work-related characteristics. BACKGROUND: The mental health of most nurses may severely suffer due to the significant adversities that they struggle with while they care for their patients amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental distress negatively affects nurses' relationships and work performance, which may adversely influence the quality of care and patient safety. METHODS: A convenient sample of 225 Jordanian paediatric nurses completed a test batter comprising the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, the Brief Version of the World Health Organisation's Quality of Life questionnaire and the nurse-perceived patient adverse events' questionnaire. This study was prepared and is reported according to the STROBE checklist. RESULTS: Paediatric nurses reported high levels of burnout, low QOL and high occurrence of hospital-acquired infections. Participants' age and hospital/unit capacity were significantly associated with burnout and QOL. CONCLUSION: Personal traits, perceived salary insufficiency and hospital/unit capacity represent factors that aggravate burnout, lower quality of life and worsen perceived patient safety among paediatric nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Policymakers should promote nurses' mental integrity and patient safety by addressing issues of workload and financial sufficiency and by provide interventions aimed to increase nurses' resilience. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients or public were not involved in setting the research question, the outcome measures, the design or implementation of the study. However, paediatric nurses responded to the research questionnaires.

Assessment of long-term adverse events regarding different COVID-19 vaccine regimens within an 18-month follow-up study.

Early reports on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines presented the short-term adverse events (AEs). This follow-up study investigated a standard regimen based on protein subunit vaccines, PastoCovac and PastoCovac Plus, and the combinational vaccine regimens including AstraZeneca/PastoCovac Plus and Sinopharm/PastoCovac Plus. The participants were followed up to 6 months post the booster shot. All the AEs were collected through in-depth interviews using a valid researcher-made questionnaire and were evaluated regarding the association with the vaccines. Of the 509 individuals, 6.2% of the combinational vaccine participants had late AEs, of whom 3.3% suffered from cutaneous manifestations, followed by 1.1% arthralgia complaints, 1.1% with neurologic disorders, 0.3% ocular problems and 0.3% metabolic complications, with no significant difference between the vaccine regimens. For the standard regimen, 2% of the individuals experienced late AEs as (1%), neurological disorders (0.3%), metabolic problems (0.3%) and involvement of joints (0.3%). Notably, 75% of the AEs were persistent up to the end of the study. A low number of late AEs were captured in 18 months as 12 improbable, 5 unclassifiable, 4 possible and 3 probable associated AEs with the vaccine regimens. The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination far exceed the potential risks and late AEs seem to be uncommon.

Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

COVID-19 vaccine safety profile in Republic of Korea, February 26, 2021 through April 30, 2022.

Background: As of June, 2022, five coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine brands were used for the national immunization program. The Korea Diseases Control and Prevention Agency has enhanced vaccine safety monitoring through a passive, web-based reporting system and active, text message-based mornitoring. Purpose: This study described the enhanced safety monitoring system of COVID-19 vaccines, and analyzed the frequencies and types of AEs among five brands of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: AEs reports through the web-based Adverse Events Reporting System in COVID-19 Vaccination Management System and the text message-based among recipients were analyzed. AEs were classified as non-serious AEs and serious AEs (e.g., death and anaphylaxis). AEs were classified as non-serious AEs and serious AEs (e.g., death and anaphylaxis). AE reporting rates were calculated based on the number of COVID-19 vaccine dose administered. Results: A total of 125,107,883 doses were administered in Korea from February 26, 2021 to June 4, 2022. Among them, a total of 471,068 AEs reported, of which 96.1% were non-serious AEs and 3.9% were serious AEs. Among the 72,609 participants in the text message-based AE monitoring, a higher AE rate was reported in the 3rd dose compare to primary doses in both local and systemic reactions. A total of 874 cases of anaphylaxis (7.0 per 1,000,000 doses), four cases of TTS, 511 cases of myocarditis (4.1 per 1,000,000 doses) and 210 cases of pericarditis (1.7 per 1,000,000 doses) were confirmed. A total of seven fatal cases were associated with COVID-19 vaccination (1 TTS case and 5 myocarditis cases). Conclusions: Young adult and female sex were related with a higher reported rate of AEs with COVID-19 vaccines, most of the reported AEs of COVID-19 vaccines was non-serious AEs of mild intensity.