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.

COVID-19 virus: the immune reaction to vaccines

The immune system is developed to preserve its hosts from an ever-expanding cluster of pathogenic microbes. The elimination of toxic substances, allergens, or any other harmful existences that come in, passing the mucosal surfaces, is as well the responsibility of this special system. Its ability to distinguish self (our bodies' functioning cells and tissues) from non-self is the key aspect to its ability to mobilize some reaction to an invasion initiated by the stranger substances listed above. To identify and kill unsafe microorganisms, the host applies both natural and versatile systems, our innate and adaptive immune systems. Vaccines are used to combat the current SARS-CoV-2 strain by utilizing immune system mechanisms, specifically the adaptive immune system. Vectored vaccines, protein vaccines, genetic vaccine, and monoclonal antibody for passive vaccination are among the vaccine platforms under consideration for SARS-CoV-2. Each vaccine has its own benefits and drawbacks. This paper is written to describe the three major forms of COVID-19 vaccines, as well as the unique mechanisms of elements of the immune system associated with the virus. © 2023 SPIE.

LONG-TERM AND BOOSTER VACCINATION RESPONSES IN PATIENTS WITH GIANT CELL ARTERITIS AND POLYMYALGIA RHEUMATICA

BackgroundVaccination remains essential in preventing morbidity of SARS-CoV-2 infections. We previously showed that >10mg/day prednisolone and methotrexate use were associated with reduced antibody concentrations four weeks after primary vaccination in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) [1].ObjectivesHere, we performed a follow-up study to measure the decay of antibody concentrations over time and the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination.MethodsGCA/PMR patients included in the primary vaccination (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1) study were asked again to donate blood samples six months after primary vaccination (n=24) and one month after booster vaccination (n=46, BNT162b2 or mRNA1273). Data were compared to that of age-, sex-, and vaccine-matched controls (n=58 and n=42, respectively).ResultsAntibody concentrations decreased faster over time in GCA/PMR patients than in controls, but this decrease was not associated with treatment during primary vaccination. Post-booster antibody concentrations were comparable between patients and controls. Antibody concentrations post booster vaccination associated strongly with antibody concentrations post primary vaccination, but not with treatment during booster vaccination. However, the fold-change of post-booster vaccination showed a slight negative correlation with the post-primary vaccine antibodies.ConclusionThese results indicate that patients with impaired vaccine responses after primary vaccination, have slightly stronger increases in humoral immunity after booster vaccination, but this is not enough to reach a similar protection. The decrease in humoral immunity, and subsequent increase after booster vaccination, is likely not impacted by prednisolone or methotrexate treatment. Rather, these treatments put the patients at an immunogenic disadvantage during primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which is not fully repaired by a single booster vaccination. This longitudinal study in GCA/PMR patients stresses the importance of repeat booster vaccination for patients that used >10mg/day prednisolone or methotrexate during primary vaccination.Reference[1]van Sleen Y, van der Geest, Kornelis SM, Reitsema RD, Esen I, Terpstra JH, Raveling-Eelsing E, et al. Humoral and cellular SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses in patients with giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. RMD open 2022;8(2):e002479.Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsYannick van Sleen: None declared, Kornelis van der Geest Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from Roche, Grant/research support from: Grant support from Abbvie, Annemarie Buisman: None declared, Maria Sandovici: None declared, Debbie van Baarle: None declared, Elisabeth Brouwer: None declared.

High seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the capital of Chad

Background. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chad has had 7,417 confirmed cases and 193 deaths, one of the lowest in Africa. Objective. This study assessed SARS-CoV-2 immunity in N'Djamena. Methods. In August-October 2021, eleven N'Djamena hospitals collected outpatient data and samples. IgG antibodies against SARSCoV- 2 nucleocapsid protein were identified using ELISA. "Bambino Gesu" Laboratory, Rome, Italy, performed external quality control with chemiluminescence assay. Results. 25-34-year-old (35.2%) made up the largest age group at 31.9 12.6 years. 56.4% were women, 1.3 women/men. The 7th district had 22.5% and the 1st 22.3%. Housewives and students dominated. Overall seroprevalence was 69.5% (95% CI: 67.7-71.3), females 68.2% (65.8-70.5) and males 71.2% (68.6-73.8). >44-year-old had 73.9% seroprevalence. Under-15s were 57.4% positive. Housewives (70.9%), civil servants (71.5%), and health workers (9.7%) had the highest antibody positivity. N'Djamena's 9th district had 73.1% optimism and the 3rd district had 52.5%. Seroprevalences were highest at Good Samaritan Hospital (75.4%) and National General Referral Hospital (74.7%). Conclusion. Our findings indicate a high circulation of SARS-CoV- 2 in N'Djamena, despite low mortality and morbidity after the first two COVID-19 pandemic waves. This high seroprevalence must be considered in Chad's vaccine policy.

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.

Identifying Promise

Whilst vaccination is progressing at increasing speed, the virus will not disappear, and patients will need safe and effective treatments to reduce the burden of COVID-19," said Stella Kyriakides, commissioner for Health and Food Safety in a press release (3). Promising candidates The five candidates identified by the EC will be prioritized for review, and it is hoped that three of the therapies will gain authorization by October 2021, permitting the final data demonstrate safety, efficacy, and quality. EC, "Register of Commission Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities: High-Level Group on the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) and HERA Incubator (E03770)," ec.europa.eu [Accessed 5 July 2021].

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes After Monoclonal Antibody Use

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to evaluate whether the administration of monoclonal antibodies (MABs) in mildly symptomatic unvaccinated COVID-19-positive pregnant patients reduced the need for maternal hospitalization and to evaluate whether this medication affected the rate of adverse neonatal outcomes and severe maternal disease. We hypothesized that MAB use would reduce the need for hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was completed by obtaining electronic medical record data of all pregnant patients between August 2020 and January 2022 who met criteria for MAB therapy. The two comparison groups were patients who received outpatient MAB therapy during pregnancy and those who were eligible for therapy but declined. Demographic and hospitalization data were obtained. Exclusion criteria included severe illness upon diagnosis requiring hospitalization, or patients for whom delivery and neonatal data were not available. RESULTS: During the study period, 49 patients qualified for MAB therapy, of which delivery data were available for 39 patients. Twenty patients (51%) elected to receive MAB therapy and 19 (49%) declined. Among those who received MAB therapy, 10 (26% of the population) were vaccinated, and among those who declined, 6 (15% of the population) were vaccinated. The two groups were similar in gestational age at delivery (38 weeks 4 days versus 37 weeks 5 days) and gestational age at diagnosis (19 weeks 0 days versus 22 weeks 6 days). Among patients who did not receive MABs, both absolute and relative maternal hospitalization rate was higher (26.3% versus 5%, 12.8% versus 3%, P >.05). When stratified by vaccination status, those who were vaccinated had a 5% probability of hospitalization regardless of MAB therapy. The probability of hospitalization was highest among unvaccinated women who did not receive MAB therapy (67%) and lowest among unvaccinated women who received MAB therapy (0%). CONCLUSION: Unvaccinated patients who declined MAB therapy had a higher rate of hospitalization, although not statistically significant. These preliminary findings warrant further study with a larger cohort. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Obstetrics & Gynecology is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

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.

Association Between Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection and De Novo HLA Donor Specific Antibody Production in Lung Transplant Recipients: Single-center study

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients (LTR). Respiratory viral infections may be associated with de-novo HLA donor-specific antibody (DSA) production and impact lung transplant outcome. Since one of the immunomodulation strategies post-SARS-CoV-2 infection in LTR include decreasing or holding anti-metabolites, concerns have been raised for higher incidence of de-novo DSA production in LTR. Method(s): We performed a retrospective chart review of 80 consecutive LTR diagnosed with COVID-19 to investigate this concern. COVID-19 disease severity was divided into 3 groups: mild, moderate, and severe. Mild disease was defined as patients with COVID-19 diagnosis who were stable enough to be treated as out-patients. Moderate disease was defined as patients who required admission to the hospital and were on less than 10 liters of oxygen at rest. Severe disease was identified as patients who required hospitalization and were on more than 10 liters of oxygen with or without mechanical ventilation or extra corporal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Result(s): A total of 23, 47, and 10 LTR were diagnosed with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 respectively. De-novo HLA DSAwere detected in 0/23 (0%), 3/47 (6.3%), and 4/10 (40%) LTR with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 respectively (p = 0.0007) within 6 months post-COVID-19 diagnosis. Conclusion(s): Severe COVID-19 may be associated with increased risk of de novo HLA DSA production resulting in allograft dysfunction.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.

GENE ANALYSIS REVEALED THE USEFULNESS OF TRIPLE THERAPY WITH BARICITINIB, RITUXIMAB AND TACROLIMS FOR ANTI-MDA5 ANTIBODY POSITIVE DERMATOMYOSITIS (MDA5-DM)

BackgroundAnti-MDA5 antibody positive dermatomyositis (MDA5-DM) is characterized by high mortality due to rapid progressive ILD. MDA5 is a cytosolic protein and a family of RIG-I like receptor, which functions as a virus RNA sensor and induces the production of such as type-1 IFN. Although little is known about the pathogenesis of MDA5-DM, it is notable that the similarities were reported between COVID-19 infection and MDA5-DM. It may suggest that there is a common underlying autoinflammatory mechanism. We reported that in MDA5-DM, (1) RIG-I-like receptor signaling is enhanced and (2) antiviral responses such as type 1 IFN signaling are also enhanced as compare with anti-ARS-antibody positive DM, and (3) the key for survival is suppression of RIG-I-like and IFN signaling (EULAR2022, POS0390). We also found that a significant role for uncontrolled macrophage in the pathogenesis of ILD by our autopsy case. Recently, it has been reported that tacrolimus (TAC) and cyclophosphamide (CY) combination therapy (TC-Tx) has improved the prognosis of cases with early onset of the disease, but there are cases that cannot be saved. Therefore, we devised BRT therapy (BRT-Tx). The Tx combines baricitinib (BAR), which inhibits GM-CSF and IFN-mediated signaling and effectively suppresses uncontrolled macrophages, with rituximab (RTX) and TAC, which rapidly inhibits B and T cell interaction and ultimately prevents anti-MDA5 antibody production.ObjectivesTo determine the differences in gene expression between BRT and TC-Tx for MDA5-DM in peripheral blood.MethodsTotal of 6 MDA5-DM (TC: 3, BRT: 3) were included and all of them had multiple poor prognostic factors. Peripheral whole blood was collected at just before and 2-3 months after the treatment. RNA was extracted, and quantified using a next-generation sequencer. Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) were identified by pre vs. post treatment. Gene Ontology (GO), clustering and Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA) were performed to DEGs. As one BRT case was added since our last year's report, we also reanalyzed the surviving vs. fatal cases. The IFN signature was scored separately for Types 1, 2, and 3, and the changes between pre- and post-treatment were investigated.ResultsTwo of three cases with TC died during treatment, while all three cases on BRT recovered. The cluster analysis of the DEGs separated deaths from survivors, not by type of treatment. Comparing surviving and dead cases, GO analysis revealed that the immune system via immunoglobulins and B cells was significantly suppressed in surviving cases. GO analysis of DEGs in each therapeutic group showed that expression of B cell-related genes such as lymphocyte proliferation and B cell receptor signaling pathway were significantly suppressed in BRT-Tx. On the other hand, TC-Tx significantly suppressed such pathways as cell proliferation and cell surface receptor signaling, and was less specific for the target cells than BRT-Tx. The changes in IFN signature score after treatment showed an increase in type 2 and 3 IFN scores in all fatal cases and an increase in type 1 IFN score in one fatal case.ConclusionBRT-Tx significantly suppressed gene expression associated with B cells, while TC-Tx was characterized by low specificity of therapeutic targets and suppression of total cell proliferation. Comparison of surviving and dead cases revealed that the combination of RTX contributed to the success of treatment, as suppression of the immune system mediated by immunoglobulins and B cells is the key for survival. Analysis of the IFN signature revealed an increase in IFN score after treatment in fatal cases, indicating that the combination of BAR is beneficial. The superiority of BRT-Tx seems clear from the fact that all patients survived with BRT-Tx while only one/three patients survived with TC-Tx.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsMoe Sakamoto: None declared, Yu Nakai: None declared, Yoshiharu Sato: None declared, Yoshinobu Koyama Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahikasei, Ayumi, BMS, Esai, Eli-Lilly, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, GSK.

Surveillance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in plasma pools and in immunoglobulin medicinal products manufactured since 2020 has shown high neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 and current variants

Background: Patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiencies have shown an impaired humoral immune response to COVID-19 vaccination. It is therefore of paramount importance to investigate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in plasma pools and in immunoglobulin (IgG) products used to treat these patients. AIM: To assess the evolution of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (S protein) in plasma pools and IgG products and its neutralizing activity to original-type virus (Wuhan) and the variants of concern (VOC), including Omicron. Method(s): Healthy donors plasma pools collected in the US and Europe, and the subsequent intravenous (Flebogamma DIFand Gamunex-C, Grifols) and subcutaneous (Xembify, Grifols) IgG manufactured batches were followed from March 2020. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S protein IgG titers were determined in plasma pools and in IgG batches by ELISA. Neutralization assays analyzed the capacity of IgG products to neutralize original-type virus and VOC (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron BA.1 and BA.5), using pseudo viruses expressing S protein. Results were expressed as the dilution producing 50% neutralization (ID50). Result(s): In plasma pools, anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies continuously increased throughout the study period regardless of the geographic origin. In the US, the first positive plasma pools were collected at the end of 2020. Since July 2021, an exponential increase over 30-fold of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies was reported. This trend continued increasing until the end of study period. Similarly, IgG products showed a similar evolution of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies. As expected, IgG batches released at the end of 2020 presented low SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity. However, IgG products manufactured since August 2021 showed high neutralization activity against original-type virus and the rest of VOC. Regarding Omicron BA.5, a 5 to 10-fold increase was observed over time. Conclusion(s): This study reported the onset of elevated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers in plasma pools and IgG products since mid-2021, reflecting the evolution of the pandemic and vaccine campaigns. Intravenous and subcutaneous IgG products efficiently neutralized the current circulating VOC, Omicron BA.5. Further research is warranted to assess whether a clinical protective titer against SARS-CoV-2 and passive immunization is achieved in patients with immunodeficiencies treated with IgG products.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ADHERENCE TO ANTI TNF-Α THERAPY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

BackgroundRheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients are effectively treated with anti-TNF-α therapy. However, pharmacological non-adherence limits the achievement of the therapeutic objective. This is a multifactorial behavior where factors such as the route of administration, frequency, tolerance, perception of improvement, polypharmacy and social factors are involved [1,2].ObjectivesTo explore the factors associated with non-adherence to anti TNF-α in RA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis is a cohort of RA patients treated with anti TNF-α in Medicarte SAS, a Colombian center for Immune-Mediated Diseases, between January to December 2021. The program implements strategies such as pharmacotherapeutic support, informed dispensing, phone calls, text messages and home care services to increase adherence. Adherence was defined as dispensing at least 10/12 (>0.80) prescribed monthly doses for 1 year. Sociodemographic characteristics, time in the program, DAS28-CRP, HAQ and treatment were included as exposure variables. For continuous variables, median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with logistic regression were calculated, and a p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.Results565 patients were included, 85.8% (n=485) were women, median age 56 years (IQR: 49-65), disease evolution time 13.7 years (IQR: 7.7-20.8), 51% (n=288) had been in the program for more than 3 years, the median time in treatment with anti TNF-α was 3 years (IQR: 1-3) and DAS-28-CRP 2.4 (IQR: 1.6-3.4). The most frequently anti TNF-α prescribed was etanercept 46.0% (n=260), followed by adalimumab 23% (n=130), subcutaneous golimumab 13.3% (n=75), certolizumab 11.0% (n=62) and intravenous golimumab 6.7% (n=38). At the admission, 18.2% (n=103) of the patients had high activity, 38.6% (n=218) mild activity, 9.2% (n=52) low activity and 34% (n=192) were in remission. At the end of follow-up, 6.4% (n=36) of patients had high activity, 18.2% (n=103) mild activity, 14.3% (n= 81) low activity and 61.1% (n= 345) were in remission. The 51.5% (n=291) did not have pharmacological adherence. The use of etanercept (AOR 0.36 CI95% 0.23- 0.58, p < 0.001) and adequate functionality measured through HAQ (AOR 0.64 CI95% 0.42- 0.97, p < 0.04) were associated with a lower risk of non-adherence. Higher DAS28-CRP at the end of follow up was associated with non-adherence (AOR 1.29 CI95% 1.12 - 1.48, p < 0.001).ConclusionDuring COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of strategies in the home care patient program guaranteed adherence close to 50% in our cohort. Higher values of DAS28-CRP were associated with non-adherence, whilst etanercept use and a normal HAQ value were associated with a higher probability of adherence.References[1]Marengo MF, Suarez-Almazor ME. Improving treatment adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: what are the options? Int J Clin Rheumtol. 2015 Oct 1;10(5):345-356.[2]Smolen JS, Gladman D, McNeil HP, Mease PJ, Sieper J, Hojnik M, et al. Predicting adherence to therapy in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis: a large cross-sectional study. RMD Open. 2019 Jan 11;5(1):e000585.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsWilmer Gerardo Rojas Zuleta Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Jannsen Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli lilly, Mario Barbosa: None declared, Oscar Jair Felipe Díaz Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Jannsen Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli lilly, Adelis Enrique Pantoja Marquez: None declared, Jeixa Canizales: None declared, Carolina Becerra-Arias: None declared, Jorge Hernando Donado Gómez: None declared, Natalia Duque Zapata: None declared.

Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway Rats (Rattus norvegicus) from Southern Ontario

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from wildlife has raised concerns about spillover from humans to animals, the establishment of novel wildlife reservoirs, and the potential for future outbreaks caused by variants of wildlife origin. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are abundant in urban areas and live in close proximity to humans, providing the opportunity for spillover of SARS-CoV-2. Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and exposure has been reported in Norway rats. We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infection and exposure in Norway rats from Southern Ontario, Canada. From October 2019 to June 2021, 224 rats were submitted by collaborating pest control companies. The majority of samples were collected in Windsor (79.9%;n = 179), Hamilton (13.8%;n = 31), and the Greater Toronto Area (5.8%;n = 13). Overall, 50.0% (n = 112) were female and most rats were sexually mature (55.8%;n = 125). Notably, 202 samples were collected prior to the emergence of variants of concern (VOC) and 22 were collected while the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) was the predominant circulating VOC in humans. Nasal turbinate (n = 164) and small intestinal (n = 213) tissue samples were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR. Thoracic cavity fluid samples (n = 213) were tested for neutralizing antibodies using a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) (GenScript cPass);confirmatory plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) was conducted on presumptive positive samples. We did not detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in any samples tested. Two out of eleven samples positive on sVNT had neutralizing antibodies confirmed positive by PRNT (1 : 40 and 1 : 320 PRNT70);both were collected prior to the emergence of VOC. It is imperative that efforts to control and monitor SARS-CoV-2 include surveillance of rats and other relevant wildlife species as novel variants continue to emerge.

What's Next for C0VID-19 Vaccines and Variants?

Telma Lery Janssen EMEA therapeutic area lead for infectious diseases and vaccines at Johnson & Johnson, explains that the company's COVID-19 vaccine candidate (also known as Ad26.COV2.S, Ad26COVS1, VAC31518, JNJ-78436735, or Ad26-S.PP) is a monovalent, recombinant, inactivated/non-infective adenovirus vector (similar to a cold virus), which contains a transgene that codes for the coronavirus spike (S) protein. The vaccine technology, AdVac, is based on the development and production of adenovirus vectors (gene carriers). Adenovirus vectors (gene carriers) are genetically altered forms of an adenovirus and lack the DNA needed to replicate. Some of the main differences between a COVID-19 oral tablet vaccine from injectable COVID-19 vaccines, according to Tucker, include: * Immune responses are triggered in the mucosa and the serum with a COVID-19 oral tablet vaccine (based on preclinical and clinical testing), unlike the existing vaccines that are serum-only. * Ease of distribution and vaccination with a COVID-19 oral tablet vaccine, which eliminates the need for special accommodations to transport injectable vaccines that require cold chain infrastructure as well as the need for trained professionals to administer vaccines.

CLINICAL AND IMMUNOLOGICAL PROFILES OF PATIENTS WITH ANTI-SYNTHETASE SYNDROME: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY FROM A TERTIARY CENTRE

BackgroundAnti-synthetase syndrome (ASS) is a rare auto-immune condition that combines autoantibodies and specifics clinical manifestations, including myositis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), polyarthritis, mechanic's hands, Raynaud's phenomenon, and unexplained fever. The hallmark of this syndrome is the presence of anti-aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetase (ARS) antibodies. Several anti-ARS antibodies have been described, anti-Jo1 being the most common, followed by anti-PL7, anti-PL12, anti-OJ, anti-EJ, anti-KS, anti-YRS, and anti-Zo. According to a recent epidemiological survey, the rising number of patients with autoimmune diseases, including idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) coincides with the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical characteristics of ASS patients with different anti-ARS antibodies from a tertiary rheumatology center.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-centered study on consecutive patients diagnosed with ASS from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2022. Clinical and serologic data were obtained by medical records review from hospital database. Myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) and myositis-associated antibodies (MAA) were tested using commercial ELISA kits. We included all patients fulfilling Connor's criteria for ASS.ResultsSixty-one patients (44 females) with mean age 54.4 (13.8) years were included. The most frequently reported clinical manifestation was arthralgia (68.8%), followed by Raynaud's phenomenon (67.2%), ILD (65.6%), myositis (46%), mechanic's hands (44.3%), arthritis (39.3%), and fever (18.0%). The typical triad for ASS, including myositis, arthritis and ILD was present in 17 patients. Twenty-eight (45.9%) patients were PL7+, 21 (34.4%) were Jo1+, 3 (4.9%) were PL12+, and 2 (3.2%) were OJ+. Seven patients were positive for more than two anti-ARS antibodies. The most frequently found MAA was anti-Ro52 (n=23, 37.7%). Of the 61 patients included, 41 (67.2%) patients were diagnosed in the last 3 years (COVID-19 pandemic). The most frequently detected MSA in ASS patients diagnosed during COVID-19 pandemic was anti-PL7 (25/28), while anti-Jo1 was the most common MSA in ASS patients diagnosed before 2020 (p<0.05) (Fig 1).The anti-Jo1+ patients were younger, have significantly more frequent muscle involvement and significantly higher levels of CK than anti-PL7+ patients (p<0.05). The co-occurance of anti-Ro52 antibodies was more frequently observed in anti-Jo1+ patients (n=11, 52.4%) than in anti-PL7+ patients (n=6, 21.4%) (p<0.05). We did not find statistically significant differences between ASS groups regarding sex, disease duration, clinical manifestations including dermatologic lesions, Raynaud's phenomenon, arthralgia/arthritis, ILD, fever, and cancers (all p>0.05).ConclusionASS patients have heterogenous manifestations, and different types of anti-ARS antibodies are associated to distinct clinical and immunological features. The COVID-19 pandemic led to increase prevalence of ASS cases and to a remarkable shift in the anti-ARS antibodies profile, with increased frequency of anti-PL7 antibodies. Further studies are needed to investigate the link between SARS-CoV-2 infections and myositis.References[1]Witt LJ, et al. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Antisynthetase Syndrome. Clin Pulm Med. 2016 Sep;23(5):218-226.[2]Gracia-Ramos AE, et al. New Onset of Autoimmune Diseases Following COVID-19 Diagnosis. Cells. 2021 Dec 20;10(12):3592.[3]Connors GR, et al. Interstitial lung disease associated with the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: what progress has been made in the past 35 years? Chest. 2010 Dec;138(6):1464-74.[4]García-Bravo Let al. Association of anti-SARS-COV-2 vaccine with increased incidence of myositis-related anti-RNA-synthetases auto-antibodies. J Transl Autoimmun. 2022 Jun 30;5:100160.Figure 1.ASS patients with positive anti-ARS antibodies per year (from 2015 to 2022). The green line shows the PL7+ patients;and the orange line shows the Jo1+ cases.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsI have no acknowledgements to declare.Disclosure of Inter stsNone Declared.

A serum interleukin-6-based analysis of patients with nasopharyngeal swab reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection with CO-RADS 4 and 5 on computed tomography of the chest

Background: Serum interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels have been studied in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19). Methods: We studied the utility of treatment with tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients (n=19) with a negative nasopharyngeal swab real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 who had suggestive computed tomography (CT) findings, namely, COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) 4,5. Results: Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that serum IL 6 at a cut-off of >56.9 pg/L was a predictor of mortality in nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR negative patients with suggestive CT findings. Tocilizumab had no significant effect on the mortality. Conclusions: In nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR negative patients with suggestive chest CT findings, elevated serum IL-6 levels > 56.9 pg/L predicted mortality. However, treatment with tocilizumab had no effect on mortality.

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.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF COVID-19-SPECIFIC TREATMENTS IN SLE: A MULTICENTRE CASE-CONTROL STUDY

BackgroundCOVID-19 is associated with higher morbidity and mortality burdens in immunocompromised individuals, including patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE;1). These patients might benefit from treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antiviral agents and monoclonal antibodies, but clinical evidence is to date limited.Objectivesto comparatively assess the course of COVID-19 in patients with SLE treated or untreated with COVID-19-specific agents.MethodsPatients with SLE and COVID-19 treated with antivirals and/or monoclonal antibodies from February 2020 to December 2022 were identified within a three-centre cohort of tertiary referral centres and age-, sex- SLE extension- and SLE duration-matched 1:2 with patients with a history of untreated COVID-19. Data on COVID-19 presentation, course (including time to viral clearance) and sequelae, along with SLE treatment at COVID-19 onset and SLE course after COVID-19 were collected. COVID-19 severity at presentation was quantitated through a 0-4 analogue scale [2]. Data are expressed as median (interquartile range, IQR) unless otherwise specified.ResultsOver three years, 39% of patients with SLE had at least one COVID-19 event. Eighteen subjects (16 women) were treated with antivirals (n=12) or monoclonal antibodies (n=6) and were matched with 36 controls. There was no difference in the frequency of organ involvement between the two groups. Treated patients were receiving significantly higher prednisone daily doses at COVID-19 onset (6.25 (0-10) vs 0 (0-2.5) mg;p=0.005) and had a higher prevalence of previous high-dose steroid treatments (83% vs 47%;p=0.019) compared to controls. SLE disease activity index (3 (0-5) vs 1 (0-4)) and SLE International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index scores (1 (0-3) vs 0 (0-1)) were also numerically higher in treated patients at COVID-19 onset. Patients in the treated group had more severe COVID-19 at presentation but showed no significant differences with control subjects in terms of COVID-19 resolution, prevalence of sequelae and viral clearance (Table 1). There was also no difference in flare occurrence between the two groups (Log-rank=0.02, p=0.889). Two patients reported mild adverse events with monoclonal antibodies (muscle cramps and chest pain, both self-resolving).ConclusionThese data support the safe use of COVID-19 specific treatments in patients with SLE. Patients treated with antivirals and monoclonal antibodies had a favourable COVID-19 course, despite a more severe presentation and a higher risk of deterioration due to SLE and corticosteroid treatment burden, suggesting the potential efficacy of COVID-specific treatments in preventing severe COVID-19 in patients with SLE.References[1]Strangfeld A et al, Ann Rheum Dis, 2021[2]World Health Organization. Clinical management of COVID-19;Interim guidance 27 May 2020.Table 1.COVID-19 presentation and courseTreated (n=18)Untreated (n=36)Number of vaccine doses3 (2-3)3 (2-3)Time from last vaccine administration (days)118 (53-184)134 (30-210)COVID-19 featuresWHO class at presentation1 (1-1)**0 (0-1)Symptoms at presentation: n(%)Dyspnoea3 (17)3 (8)Fever10 (56)22 (61)Upper Respiratory Symptoms16 (89)29 (81)GI symptoms1 (6)2 (6)Pneumonia3 (17)3 (8)COVID-19 courseTime to symptom resolution (days)5 (4-8)7 (3-8)Time to viral clearance (days)10 (7-14)9 (7-14)Any complication: n(%)1 (6)6 (17)Hospitalisations: n(%)1 (6)0 (0)Long COVID: n(%)3 (17)6 (17)Deaths: n(%)0 (0)1 (3)AcknowledgementsWe thank Dr. Giordano Vitali and his staff for assisting and treating patients with SLE and COVID-19 from IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital in the local mild COVID-19 clinic.Disclosure of InterestsGiuseppe Alvise Ramirez Consultant of: Astrazeneca, Maria Gerosa: None declared, Daniel Arroyo-Sánchez: None declared, Chiara Asperti: None declared, Lorenza Maria Argolini: None declared, Gabriele Gallina: None declared, Chiara Bellocchi: None declared, Martina Cornalba: None declared, Isabella Scotti: None declared, Ilaria Suardi: None declared, Lorenzo Beretta: None declared, Luca Moroni Consultant of: strazeneca, Enrica Bozzolo: None declared, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius, Galapagos, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Lorenzo Dagna Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Swedish Orphan Biovitrium (SOBI), and Takeda, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merk Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and SOBI.