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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DO PATIENTS ON SUPPRESSIVE THERAPY HAVE A DECREASED HUMORAL RESPONSE TO SARS-CoV2 VACCINATION?

BackgroundSARS-Cov2 vaccination has been shown to be effective against severe forms of SARS-Cov2 infection. Several studies investigated the humoral and cellular response to SARS-Cov2 vaccines in patients followed for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases under immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatments. It has been shown that patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies have a poor humoral response to the vaccine[1]ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to investigate the humoral response in patients under conventional immunosuppressive and biotherapies compared to healthy controls.MethodsPatients followed for immuno-inflammatory diseases under immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs who received at least one dose of anti- SARS-Cov2 vaccines were included. Quantitative Anti- SARS-Cov2 antibodies (IgM and IgG assay) VIDAS ® were assessed for all patients. Patients were then compared with healthy controls.ResultsWe enrolled 93 blood samples (63 patients with autoimmune and inflammatory disease and 30 healthy controls), the median age was 52 years [Q1 43, Q3 56]. The immuno-inflammatory diseases were: Crohn's disease (n=28), Rheumatoid arthritis (n=9), Hemorrhagic rectocolitis (n=5), Behçet's disease (n=5), Systemic lupus erythematosus (n=4), Sjogren's syndrome (n=3), Sarcoidosis (n=2), Takayasu disease (n=1). All patients continued their treatment during and after vaccination. Nineteen patients were on biotherapies: Infliximab (n=12), Adalimumab (n=3), etanercept (n=2), Ustekinumab (n=1), tocilizimab (n=1). Forty-three patients were on conventional immunosuppressive: azathioprine (n=18), methotrexate (n=16), corticosteroids > 10 mg/d (n=12). All patients had received at least one dose of vaccine: the median number of doses in both groups was 2[1-4] with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (p=0.2). The vaccines received in the group of patients were mRNA vaccine (n=35) and other type of vaccine (n=28). In the healthy control group, type of vaccine were mRNA (n=13) other type vaccine (n=17). The patient had a lower mean level of Ig G against SARS-Cov2 antibodies (24.64 IU +/- 16.65) comparing to healthy controls (33.05+/- 10) with statically significant difference (p= 0.014). No difference between the 2 groups was noted in Ig G levels according to the history of SARS-Cov2 infection. No difference was found between conventional immunosuppressive drugs and biotherapies regarding to the level of antibodies.ConclusionOur study highlights that patients with autoimmune disease and under immunosuppressive therapy displayed a decrease of humoral response comparing to healthy controls. This finding was reported in several studies, Geisen et al[2] reported that patients with chronic inflammatory condition and receiving TNF alfa blockers had a decreased protection and a low level Ig A against spike. Based on these data, patients with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have decreased humoral immunity to SARS-Cov2 and should be encouraged to receive a booster dose of SARS-COv2 vaccine.References[1]Prendecki M, Clarke C, Edwards H, et al. Humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients receiving immunosuppression. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:1322–9. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220626[2]Geisen UM, Sümbül M, Tran F, et al. Humoral protection to SARS-CoV2 declines faster in patients on TNF alpha blocking therapies. RMD Open 2021;7:e002008. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002008AcknowledgementsMrs Hajer Mediouni.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Real-World Single-Centre Experience of Jak Inhibitor Use in Ra

Background/Aims The use of Janus Kinase Inhibitors (JAKi) has been gradually increasing overtime in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory arthritis and these appeal to patients. being oral agents. Nevertheless, rheumatologists have become cautious about their use since recent trials have shown safety concerns about VTEs, MACE and malignancies. Methods We decided to study use of JAKi at our centre in Princess of Wales Hospital Bridgend. The aim was to assess whether appropriate patients were selected (considering cautions about MACE, VTEs and malignancies). We also wanted to see whether all patients had required pretreatment safety testing and post-treatment monitoring performed. Results These were 70 patients;59 were females and 11 were males. All of them were diagnosed as RA. Average age was 61.1 years (20-85), average duration of disease 129.9 months (16-340) and average duration of treatment was 58.1 weeks. The most common JAKi being used was baricitinib (84%) followed by tofacitinib (12%) and upadacitinib (4%). 50% patient were on concomitant csDMARDs among whom two-thirds were on methotrexate. Looking at previous biologic use, 9 patients were biologic naive, 22 had one biologic, 15 had two biologics used in the past. All patients were appropriately selected (severe RA and no significant risk factors for MACE, VTEs and malignancies). All patients had pre-treatment Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, latent TB, FBC and LFTs checked. All patients had FBC and LFTs monitored post treatment. No patient developed VTE, MACE or cancer on treatment. 84.2% patients had lipids tested before starting JAKi. 22.8% patients had abnormal lipids before Rx initiation and 62.5% of these were on lipid lowering Rx. All patients had lipids tested post treatment, but the timing was quite variable and only 62.5% of patients had lipids tested on the recommended time. There were 2 deaths recorded in this cohort. One of those was an 80-year-old RA patient on baricitinib 2mg OD, who died due to chest infection on the background of ILD. He was not on steroids or csDMARDs. The second patient was 63 years' old (on baricitinib 4mg OD), and died due to respiratory sepsis, and was also on azathioprine. She had RA with advanced ILD. The reasons for discontinuing JAKi were inefficacy (46%), side effects (39%) and both inefficacy and side effects (15%). 41.4%of patient experienced side effects due to JAKi. These included infection 28%, deranged lipids 17%, cytopenia 14%, deranged LFTs 14%, GI side effects 10%, skin rash 7% and varicella zoster 3%. Conclusion There has been steady increase in the use of tsDMARDs for RA and other rheumatic conditions. Due to short half-life, these drugs became a popular choice during COVID-19 pandemic but on the other hand safety monitoring became extremely challenging during this time.

Humoral Immune Response to Sars-Cov-2 Third Vaccine in Patients with Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases without Seroconversion after the Initial 2-Dose Regimen

Objectives: To evaluate the humoral immune response to the third dose (booster) of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who were seronegative after a two-dose regimen. Method(s): Observational study. Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who had not achieved seroconversion after a two-dose vaccine schedule against SARS-CoV-2 were included. To assess the humoral immune response, anti-RBD IgG (S protein receptor binding domain) neutralizing antibody titers were determined by ELISA (cutoff titer 200). The determination was made between 30 to 45 days after the third dose. Result(s): From 66 patients who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, 18 patients (29.5%) were seronegative after a two-dose schedule. 61% had SLE, 77% had comorbidities (61% with hypertension, p = 0.03). Patients were on treatment: 10 with prednisone (8 with doses greater than 10 mg/d, p = 0.01), 10 with hydroxychloroquine, one with methotrexate, one with leflunomide, four with azathioprine, five with my cophenolatemofetil and five with rituximab (they are the total number of non-responders on biological treatment, p = 0.03). Regarding the primary vaccination regimen, 11 received BBIBP-CorV (p = 0.01), 5 AZD1222, 1 Gam-COVID-Vac and 1 mRNA1273/Gam-COVID-Vac heterologous scheme. Of these 18 non-responders, 14 received a third dose;nine patients (62%) presented anti-RBD IgG detectable. Of the five patients who did not respond to the booster vaccination, three had received BBIBP-CorV as the initial schedule and the vaccines applied as a third dose were Ad5-nCoV (1), BNT162b2 (1), AZD 1222 (2) and Gam-COVID-Vac (1). They were being treated with: rituximab (2), azathioprine (2) and mycophenolate mofetil (1). Treatment with higher doses of prednisone was the only factor associated with non-seroconversion to the third dose (8 +/- 4.5;p 0.02). Conclusion(s): The third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allowed to improve the serological response to vaccination, achieving a seroconversion of 62% in this group of patients.

Analysis of Antibody Response to Sars-Cov-2 Vaccination and Natural Infection in a Tertiary Centre Cohort of Lupus Nephritis Patients

Background/Aims The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is known to be reduced in the immunocompromised. However, extent to which immunity is affected by immunosuppression in specific disease cohorts remains poorly characterised. Furthermore, implications of the ongoing vaccination booster programme require further study. Individuals with lupus nephritis (LN) require prolonged high-dose immunosuppression in order to maintain disease control, rendering them important to study in this context. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike antibody response in this cohort during the Spring/Summer 2022 booster vaccine campaign. Nucleocapsid antibody indicates previous infection whilst spike antibody indicates previous infection and/or vaccination response. Titre of spike antibody to prevent infection is not known, but presence of antibodies is likely to protect against severe disease. Methods SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antibody were measured in adult patients with LN attending a tertiary centre rheumatology clinic. Data was collected retrospectively on disease, immunosuppression, vaccine status and history of natural exposure. Results 35 cases of LN were investigated, of which LN III, IV and V were predominant biopsy diagnoses. Regarding immunosuppressants, the Eurolupus Cyclophosphamide protocol had been used in the majority of patients to achieve initial control, with 3/35 patients still receiving pulsed courses at data collection. 18/35 were on Mycophenolate Mofetil;a further 13/35 had previously received this. 31/35 took at least 5mg Prednisolone daily;25/35 took Hydroxychloroquine;7/35 took Azathioprine;7/35 had previously been on Methotrexate, 3/35 took Tacrolimus;1/35 took Ciclosporin. Regarding B-cell depleting monoclonal antibody therapy, 13/35 had received Rituximab and 8/35 were receiving Belimumab. Antibody levels were measured between 4 weeks and 13 months after last dose of vaccination;mean duration was 6 months. 11/35 had confirmed COVID-19 infection;a further 8/35 reported a possible history. Of the 35, 32 (91%) had mounted detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody above the bottom 10% of assay detection, indicating some immunity to vaccination or natural exposure. 20 (57%) had detectable nucleocapsid antibody, suggesting natural infection with antibody response. Only 2 (6%) had not mounted any antibody response. Of note, neither were fully vaccinated: one had 1 vaccination with blood test 8 months subsequent;one had 2 vaccinations with blood test 7 months subsequent. The latter was also notably on haemodialysis. All who received 3+ vaccinations had detectable spike antibody responses, as well as 75% of those who had received 2 vaccinations. Conclusion Our study is the first analysis, to our knowledge, of SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in a LN cohort. Whilst neutralising capacity and level of antibody providing protection remains under research, these findings provide at least some reassurance that individuals with LN on immunosuppression are capable of mounting an immune response against SARS-CoV-2. Further work is required to establish extent and duration of protection with serial vaccinations in this cohort.

Safety of the Vaccine against Sars-Cov-2 in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Data from the Safer Study

Objectives: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease which presents infections as one of the most frequent complications, including more severe outcomes of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Immunization of these patients has been strongly recommended, however, data on safety are still scarce. In this study we evaluate the safety after vaccination against SARS-CoV2 in patients with SLE. Method(s): Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Disease - the 'SAFER' study, is a longitudinal Brazilian multicenter phase IV study. In this study patients with SLE (according to the 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria), older than 18 years who received vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 CoronaVac (Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine), ChadOx-1 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) were included. The evaluation of adverse events (AEs) was done by telephone contact, symptom diaries and a face-to-face visit on the 28th day after each dose. Patients were followed up also by disease activity, assessed using SLEDAI-2 K score. Result(s): A total of 367 individuals with SLE were included, 207 received CoronaVac, 128 received ChadOx-1 and 32 received BNT162b2. Ninety percent of the subjects were female with a mean age of 37 years. About 50% (182) of patients were using oral glucocorticoids and azathioprine was the most frequent immunosuppressive therapy. Regarding disease activity parameters, 38%(140) of patients had zero SLEDAI-2Kat baseline and 41%(147) had zero SLEDAI-2 K 28 days after the 2nd dose. After the first and second dose the most frequent AEs were pain at injection site (58%/44%), headache (48%/33%) and pruritus (42%/37%). Comparing the three vaccines, after the first dose, local symptoms, myalgia, and fever were less frequent in patients who received CoronaVac (p alpha 0.001) as well as headache, tiredness (p = 0.001) and arthralgia (p = 0.003). After the second dose, only local symptoms such as pain at the application site and thickening of the skin around the application site were less frequent in the CoronaVac group (p alpha 0.05). Headache, tiredness, musculoskeletal symptoms and fever were more common in patients receiving AstraZeneca. No serious adverse events were reported regardless of the vaccination schedule used. Conclusion(s): This study suggests that vaccines against SARS-COV-2 are safe in SLE patients. Neither severe AEs were reported nor worsening of disease activity were reported. Comparing the different vaccines, CoronaVac had fewer adverse events.

Immune Responses to Mrna Vaccines against Sars-Cov2 in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases

Background/Aims Patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) are commonly treated with immunosuppressors and are prone to infections. Recently introduced mRNA SARS-Cov2 vaccines have demonstrated extraordinary efficacy across all ages. Immunosuppressed patients were excluded from phase III trials with SARS-We aim to fully characterize B and T cell immune responses elicited by mRNA SARS-Cov2 vaccines in patients with rheumatic diseases under immunotherapies, and to identify which drugs reduce vaccine's immunogenicity. Methods Humoral, CD4 and CD8 immune responses were investigated in 147 SARS-Cov2-naive patients with selected rheumatic diseases under immunosuppression after a two-dose regimen of SARS-Cov2 mRNA vaccine. Responses were compared with age, gender, and diseasematched IMRD patients not receiving immunosuppressors and with healthy controls Results IMRD patients showed decreased seroconversion rates (63% vs 100%, p=0.04) and cellular immune responses (59% vs 100%, p=0.007). Patients on methotrexate achieved seroconversion in 62% of cases and cellular responses in 80% of cases. Abatacept deeply affected humoral and cellular responses. Rituximab (31% responders) and belimumab (50% responders) showed severely impaired humoral responses but cellular responses were often preserved. Antibody titers were reduced with mycophenolate and azathioprine but preserved with leflunomide. Conclusion IMRD patients exhibit impaired SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-immunogenicity, variably reduced with immunosuppressors. Among commonly used therapies, abatacept and B-cell depleting therapies show the most deleterious effects, while anticytokines preserved immunogenicity. The effects of cumulative methotrexate and glucocorticoid doses on immunogenicity should be considered. Humoral and cellular responses are weakly correlated, but CD4 and CD8 tightly correlate. Seroconversion alone might not reflect the vaccine's immunogenicity.

Evaluation of Homologous and Heterologous Vaccine against Sars-Cov-2 in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Patients: Data from Safer Study

Objectives: To evaluate the immunogenicity of ChAdOx1, Coronavac and BNT162B2 vaccines in SLE patients, including homologous and heterologous immunizations. Method(s): The 'Safety and efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Disease-SAFER study' is a Brazilian multicentric longitudinal phase IV study to evaluate COVID-19 Vaccine in immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) in real life, started on May 2021. SLE patients (according to the 2012 SLICC classification criteria), older than 18 years of age were recruited after 2 or 3 doses of vaccine against COVID-19 (ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac) and were evaluated at baseline and on the 28th day after each dose. Homologous immunization was considered if they received three doses of the same vaccine and heterologous if a different one was applied. IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain were measured by chemiluminescence (SARS-CoV-2-IgG-II Quant assay, Abbott-Laboratories) at baseline and 28 days after the first, 2nd and 3rd doses (Seropositivity IgGSpike>= 7.1BAU/mL). Statistical analysis: ANOVA and pairwise comparisons tests Results: 316 SLE patients were included (255 heterologous and 61 homologous immunization), 89.2% were female and the mean age was 37.6 +/- 11.2 years. The two groups were homogeneous regarding demographical data, disease activity and immunosuppressive treatment. 49.7% used corticosteroids (alpha 5 mg/day in 52.3%), 83.5% antimalarials, 22.8% azathioprine and 20.3% mycophenolate mofetil. 207 patients received the first two doses with CoronaVac, 128 ChadOx-1 and 32 BNT162b2. Regarding the first two doses of the same vaccine, there was no difference in IgG titers over time between CoronaVac or ChadOx-1 (p = 0.313). IgG titers increased in all vaccine groups, with difference only after 2nd dose: 4.96 +/- 1.71BAU/mL CoronaVac vs. 6.00 +/- 1.99BAU/mL ChadOx-1 vs. 7.31 +/- 1.49BAU/mL BNT162b2 (p alpha 0.001). There was no difference in IgG titers over time between homologous or heterologous vaccine schedule (p = 0.872). IgG titers also increased in all groups, with difference only after 2nd dose: 5.49 +/- 1.96BAU/mL heterologous vs. 6.30 +/- 2.10BAU/mL homologous (p = 0.009). Conclusion(s): Induction of immunogenicity occurred in different vaccine regimens in SLE patients. Future research to explore different heterologous schemes in IMRD must be performed.

Early infection risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with rituximab or belimumab from the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR): a prospective longitudinal study

Background: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are at an increased risk of infection relative to the general population. We aimed to describe the frequency and risk factors for serious infections in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE treated with rituximab, belimumab, and standard of care therapies in a large national observational cohort. Method(s): The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register (BILAG-BR) is a UK-based prospective register of patients with SLE. Patients were recruited by their treating physician as part of their scheduled care from 64 centres across the UK by use of a standardised case report form. Inclusion criteria for the BILAG-BR included age older than 5 years, ability to provide informed consent, a diagnosis of SLE, and starting a new biological therapy within the last 12 months or a new standard of care drug within the last month. The primary outcome for this study was the rate of serious infections within the first 12 months of therapy. Serious infections were defined as those requiring intravenous antibiotic treatment, hospital admission, or resulting in morbidity or death. Infection and mortality data were collected from study centres and further mortality data were collected from the UK Office for National Statistics. The relationship between serious infection and drug type was analysed using a multiple-failure Cox proportional hazards model. Finding(s): Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 23, 2021, 1383 individuals were recruited to the BILAG-BR. 335 patients were excluded from this analysis. The remaining 1048 participants contributed 1002.7 person-years of follow-up and included 746 (71%) participants on rituximab, 119 (11%) participants on belimumab, and 183 (17%) participants on standard of care. The median age of the cohort was 39 years (IQR 30-50), 942 (90%) of 1048 patients were women and 106 (10%) were men. Of the patients with available ethnicity data, 514 (56%) of 911 were White, 169 (19%) were Asian, 161 (18%) were Black, and 67 (7%) were of multiple-mixed or other ethnic backgrounds. 118 serious infections occurred in 76 individuals during the 12-month study period, which included 92 serious infections in 58 individuals on rituximab, eight serious infections in five individuals receiving belimumab, and 18 serious infections in 13 individuals on standard of care. The overall crude incidence rate of serious infection was 117.7 (95% CI 98.3-141.0) per 1000 person-years. Compared with standard of care, the serious infection risk was similar in the rituximab (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.68 [0.60-4.68]) and belimumab groups (1.01 [0.21-4.80]). Across the whole cohort in multivariate analysis, serious infection risk was associated with prednisolone dose (>10 mg;2.38 [95%CI 1.47-3.84]), hypogammaglobulinaemia (<6 g/L;2.16 [1.38-3.37]), and multimorbidity (1.45 [1.17-1.80]). Additional concomitant immunosuppressive use appeared to be associated with a reduced risk (0.60 [0.41-0.90]). We found no significant safety signals regarding atypical infections. Six infection-related deaths occurred at a median of 121 days (IQR 60-151) days from cohort entry. Interpretation(s): In patients with moderate-to-severe SLE, rituximab, belimumab, and standard immunosuppressive therapy have similar serious infection risks. Key risk factors for serious infections included multimorbidity, hypogammaglobulinaemia, and increased glucocorticoid doses. When considering the risk of serious infection, we propose that immunosupppressives, rituximab, and belimumab should be prioritised as mainstay therapies to optimise SLE management and support proactive minimisation of glucocorticoid use. Funding(s): None.Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

Pulmonary sarcoidosis

The lung is the most common organ affected by sarcoidosis. Multiple tools are available to assist clinicians in assessing lung disease activity and in excluding alternative causes of respiratory symptoms. Improving outcomes in pulmonary sarcoidosis should focus on preventing disease progression and disability, and preserving quality of life, in addition to timely identification and management of complications like fibrotic pulmonary sarcoidosis. While steroids continue to be first-line therapy, other therapies with fewer long-term side-effects are available and should be considered in certain circumstances. Knowledge of common clinical features of pulmonary sarcoidosis and specific pulmonary sarcoidosis phenotypes is important for identifying patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment.Copyright © ERS 2022.

Dermatomyositis with Specific Autoantibodies Appearing after Sars-Cov-2 Infection or Mrna Vaccination: Hints at a Shared Pathogenetic Mechanism

Background. Environmental factors such as infections and vaccines are known to trigger dermatomyositis (DM), and during the recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic this has become even clearer. SARS-CoV-2 infection may share features with anti-MDA5 DM, such as rapidly progressive lung involvement, cutaneous lesions and cytokine release syndrome. A few case reports of DM following SARSCoV-2 vaccination have been published, suggesting the onset of an aberrant immune response leading to DM with specific autoantibody signatures and severe organ impairment. Methods. Clinical and laboratory data of the 2 case reports were obtained from electronic clinical charts in Humanitas Research Hospital (Rozzano, Milan, Italy). Autoantibody analysis was performed by protein-immunoprecipitation for anti-MDA5 and immunoblot for anti-Ro52 and TIF1gamma antibodies as per protocol. Results. Case report 1 is a 71-year-old woman who developed fever, cough, and anosmia, which resolved spontaneously in two weeks, but did not undergo a nasopharyngeal swab, while her relatives were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. When symptoms improved, she developed arthralgia and skin lesions on her face, chest, and hands for which she started topical treatment, with negative SARSCoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab and positive serum test for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. For the persistence of the skin rash and arthralgia, she was admitted to our Department in March 2021. Blood tests showed mild elevation of C reactive protein (2.1 mg/L -normal value NV<5), aspartate (84 UI/L) and alanine aminotransferase (133 UI/L -NV<35), ferritin (595 ng/ml -NV<306), troponin I (19 ng/L -NV<14), and BNP (251 pg/ml -NV<100) with normal complete blood cell count, creatine kinase, C3 and C4. IgG antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were confirmed to be elevated (96 AU/ml -NV<15). Autoantibodies associated with connective tissue diseases were tested and only anti-MDA5 antibodies were positive at immunoprecipitation. A punch biopsy of a Gottron-like lesion on the left hand showed leukocytoclastic vasculitis. We observed reduced capillary density with neoangiogenesis and ectasic capillaries at the nailfold capillaroscopy. EKG and ecocardiography were normal, while cardiac magnetic resonance detected abnormalities in the parametric sequences, consistent with signs of previous myocarditis. A lung CT scan revealed pulmonary emphysema while respiratory function tests demonstrated reduced volumes (FVC 82%, FEV1 64%, inadequate compliance CO diffusion test). Based on the biochemical and clinical findings, a diagnosis of anti-MDA5-associated DM with skin and heart involvement was made and treatment with low-dose methylprednisolone (0.25 mg/kg daily) and azathioprine 100 mg was started, then switched to mycophenolate because not effective on skin lesions. Case report 2 is an 84-year-old woman with history of colon cancer (surgical treatment) and oral lichen treated with low doses steroids in the last 2 years. After the 2nd dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, in March 2021 she developed skin rash with V-sign, Gottron's papules, periungueal ulcers, muscle weakness and fatigue, thus she performed a rheumatologic evaluation. Blood tests showed mild elevation of creatine kinase (484 UI/L, NV <167), CK-MB (9.6ng/ml, NV <3.4), BNP (215 pg/ml -NV<100) with normal values of complete blood cell count, C3 and C4. Anti-Ro52kDa and TIF1gamma were positive at immunoblot, thus we confirmed a diagnosis of DM. The clinical evaluation also showed active scleroderma pattern at nailfold capillaroscopy, normal echocardiography, bronchiectasia but not interstitial lung disease at lung CT, and normal respiratory function tests (FVC 99%, FEV1 99%, DLCO 63%, DLCO/VA 81%). A PET-CT scan was performed to exclude paraneoplastic DM, and treatment with steroids and mycophenolate was started. Conclusions. SARS-CoV-2 may induce mechanisms for escaping the innate immunity surveillance and causing autoimmune diseases, but more clinical and functional studies are needed to demonstrate this possible association.

Disease-Modifying Therapies, Outcomes, Risk Factors and Severity of COVID-19 in Multiple Sclerosis: A MENACTRIMS Registry Based Study

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients have been considered a higher-risk population for COVID-19 due to the high prevalence of disability and disease-modifying therapy use;however, there is little data in our Middle East and North Africa region (MENA) identifying clinical characteristics of MS associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Material(s) and Method(s): This a nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted between March 2020 and February 2021 and included MS patients with a suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Using data collected from the MENACTRIMS registry and local COVID-19 registries, the association of patient demographics, MS disease characteristics, and use of disease-modifying therapies with outcomes and severity of COVID-19 illness were evaluated by multivariate logistic models. Result(s): A total of 600 MS patients with suspected (n=58) or confirmed (n=542) COVID-19 (mean age: 36.4 +/- 10.16 years;414 (69%) females;mean disease duration: 8.3+/- 6.6 years) were analyzed. Seventy-three patients (12.2%) had a COVID-19 severity score of 3 or more, and 15 patients (2.5%) died of COVID-19. The median EDSS was 2.0 (range, 0-9.5), and 559 patients (93.2%) were receiving disease-modifying therapy (DMT). There was a higher proportion of patients with a COVID-19 severity score of 3 or more among patients treated with DMTs relative to untreated patients (82.9% vs 17.1%;P < .001), from whom the majority (n=117;19.7%) were maintained on anti-CD20 therapies such as ocrelizumab and rituximab. Comorbidities mainly hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, progressive MS, disease duration, and EDSS were associated with severe or worse COVID-19 disease outcome. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that older age (odds ratio per 10 years, 1.5 [95%CI, 1.1-2.0]), male gender (OR, 2.1 [95%CI. 1.2-3.8]), obesity (OR, 2.8 [95%CI, 1.3-5.8]), and treatment ocrelizumab/rituximab (OR for ocrelizumab, 4.6 [95%CI. 1.2-17.7], OR for rituximab, 14.1 [95%CI, 4.8-41.3]) or off-label immunosuppressive medications such as azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil (OR, 8.8 [95%CI. 1.7-44.0]) were risk factors for moderate to severe COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Surprisingly, smoking and diabetes were not identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease in our cohort. Conclusion(s): In this registry-based cohort study of patients with MS, age, sex, EDSS, obesity, progressive MS were independent risk factors for severe COVID-19. Moreover, there was an association found between exposure to anti-CD20 DMTs and COVID-19 severity. Knowledge of these risk factors may help improve the clinical management of MS patients with COVID-19 infection.Copyright © 2022

Role of Type 1 Interferons therapy on Adverse Clinical Outcomes on COVID-19 in Hospitalized Multiple Sclerosis Patients

Objective(s): Type 1 Interferons (IFNs) modulate the antiviral immune response and have been used for the treatment of coronaviruses. This study aimed to determine any possible effects and safety concerns of the two most promising exogenously administrable interferons (IFNbeta1a and IFNbeta1b) on the severity outcomes of COVID-19 in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Material(s) and Method(s): Using the electronic health records systems;this is a cross-sectional study of two years of hospital admissions in terms of COVID-19 in Iran from March 2019 to August 2021. The severities of COVID-19 outcomes were admitted to ICU, hospitalization days, and in-hospital mortality. MS patients with positive results from PCR were included. The data included demographic information, admission, and discharge dates, initial and final diagnoses, hospital inpatient services, including all drugs, admitted wards, procedures, and hospital mortality. A questionnaire was filled out with information on their MS diagnosis, MS medications at the time of COVID-19 admission, history of other chronic illnesses, history of smoking, height and weight, co-morbidity, and MS course (MS type, EDSS, MS duration) and disease-modifying therapies (DMT) at the time of COVID-19 admission (Rituximab, Fingolimod, IFNs, Glatiramer acetate, Dimethyl fumarate, Teriflunomide, Tysabri, and Azathioprine). Result(s): A total of 993 hospitalized MS patients were included in the study. IFNs were used in 28.8% of patients for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection;26% IFNbeta1a and 3.5% IFNbeta1b. Among studied patients, 5.6% did not receive any DMT before their hospital admission. Almost half of the patients were under Rituximab(50.3%). The data were classified based on consuming DMTs. Except for patients who received Rituximab;there was not any significant association between taking IFNs and reducing the severity of COVID-19 outcomes in each DMT sub-group. In patients who were under Rituximab;taking IFNbeta1a for COVID-19 treatment had a significant association with longer hospitalization than patients not receiving it (median (IQR);8(7) vs. 6(4) days, respectively, p=0.000). In the logistic regression model, after adjusting confounding factors, there was a constant association between receiving IFNbeta1a and the risk of longer hospitalization (adjusted OR=2.46 95%CI: 1.46, 4.13). Conclusion(s): The current data suggest that MS healthcare providers should consider specific risks of exogenously IFNbeta1a for the treatment of COVID-19 based on MS medication therapies.Copyright © 2022

Corticosteroid-refractory autoimmune hepatitis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report and literature review.

Several vaccines have been developed for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and are used worldwide. Here we report a case of severe acute hepatitis induced by COVID-19 vaccination. A 54-year-old woman received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and an additional dose of the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Seven days after the third dose, she noticed fatigue, appetite loss and dark urine. Laboratory tests were consistent with severe liver injury and jaundice. Anti-smooth muscle antibody and HLA-DR4 were positive; thus, we suspected that she had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Intravenous methylprednisolone followed by oral prednisolone were administered. Because remission was not achieved, we performed percutaneous liver biopsy. Histologically, pan-lobular inflammation with moderate infiltration of lymphocytes and macrophages, interface hepatitis, and rosette formation were present. We regarded these findings as confirmation of the diagnosis of AIH. As she had not responded to corticosteroids, we added azathioprine. Liver biochemistry tests gradually improved, and prednisolone could be tapered without relapse of AIH. Dozens of cases of AIH after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported. Corticosteroids were effective in most cases, but some patients have died from liver failure after vaccination. This case illustrates the efficacy of azathioprine for steroid-refractory AIH induced by COVID-19 vaccination.

The impact of COVID-19 on patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A population-based study using artificial intelligence

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a pandemic that is still very prevalent. Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) represent a special population considering their already altered immune system and their exposure to several immunosuppressive therapies. We pretend to study the impact of COVID-19 on IBD patients in our community, Castilla-La Mancha (a region in central Spain). Method(s): Retrospective observational study using an artificial intelligence with natural language processing capability, the SAVANA manager, we analyzed data from 1 808 010 patients with Electronic Medical Records (EMR) within the public health system of Castilla-La Mancha from March 1st 2020 to January 1st 2021. Data on demographic characteristics, hospitalization, ICU admission and mortality were collected. We compared COVID outcomes between IBD and non-IBD patients. We compared COVID outcomes in IBD patients according to their treatment (comparing each treatment group to those IBD patients with no treatment);we considered: Immunomodulators (azathioprine, mercaptopurine, methotrexate), antiTNF alone or combined with immunomodulator, vedolizumab, ustekinumab and tofacitinib;mesalazine and corticosteroids were not analyzed. Result(s): 2 243 patients with IBD suffered COVID-19, compared to COVID-19 cases without IBD there were less females, they suffered more arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, obesity, or tabacco use (TABLE 1). And yet, despite these being proven risk factors for worse outcomes for COVID-19, no differences were appreciated in hospitalization rate, ICU admission, or mortality between those with or without IBD (TABLE 2). COVID-19 was more frequent in IBD patients (32.59 vs 13.28%). Comparing IBD patients with COVID-19 according to their treatments (TABLE 3), vedolizumab is the only treatment with a higher risk for COVID-19 infection, however the hospitalization risk for vedolizumab is lower than for those without it. Immunomodulators do also have a lower hospitalization risk both alone or in combination with antiTNF, no differences were found for antiTNF monotherapy, ustekinumab or tofacitinib. ICU rate and mortality are no different between treatments, except for tofacitinib (0.00% ICU rate, 10.00% mortality), however the small number of patients using this treatment may bias this result. Conclusion(s): COVID-19 in IBD patients is no different in hospitalization, ICU admission or mortality compared to non-IBD population. IBD patients exposed to immunomodulators and vedolizumab have less hospitalization risk than those not exposed, no differences were found for antiTNF alone or ustekinumab. The impact of tofacitinib in COVID outcomes requires further investigation.

Impact of major medication discontinuation during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic on the risk of early relapse in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A French observational retrospective study

Background: The prevalence of nonadherence to major treatments and the subsequent adverse outcomes in IBD patients during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic remain scarce Aim: To investigate the risk of early disease relapse in a cohort of IBD patients under immunosuppressants and/or biologics who decided themselves to discontinue their IBD-related major treatments without previous medical advice during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic Methods: All consecutive patients with inactive IBD under immunosuppressants and/or biologics who acknowledged having withdrawn their major therapy for IBD without previous medical advice during the first wave of COVID-19 (from March 2020 to December 2020) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the survival rate without disease relapse. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for time from inclusion to IBD relapse and a logistic regression model with uni- and multivariate analyses was performed to identify predictors of relapse after drug discontinuation Results: During the study period, among the 862 IBD patients followed as outpatients either treated with infliximab or vedolizumab (outpatient clinics n= 368) or treated with oral azathioprine, adalimumab golimumab or ustekinumab alone or in combination (n= 494), 54 patients (6.2 %) (42 CD, 12 UC, 28 F, median age 36 years) who had discontinued themselves their IBD-related major therapy without previous medical advice were included. The median duration of drug withdrawal was 7.0 weeks (range 2-24) and the median time to relapse was 9.0 weeks (range 4-20). The most treatments withdrawn were adalimumab (n=19), ustekinumab (n=19), azathioprine (n= 12), golimumab (n=1) and a lesser degree infliximab (n=7) eand vedolizumab (n=6). During the median follow-up period of 24 weeks (range 5-42), 22 out of 54 patients (40.7 %) who discontinued their IBD treatment experienced a relapse in whom 6 requiring administration of oral steroids, 4 hospitalization and 2 IBD-related surgery By univariate analysis, past IBD related surgery was identified as the only predictor of disease relapse after drug withdrawal (OR=3.3 CI 95 % [1.08-10.38] Conclusion(s): In IBD patients, major treatment discontinuation by the patients themselves without medical advices during the first wave of pandemic Covid-19 including the lockdown was associated with a substantial risk of disease relapse occurring in around 4 out of 10 patients and subsequent further risk of need for steroids, hospitalization and surgery. Strategies targeting the adherence to therapy and patient's informations about the real risks leading to drug discontinuation are of paramount interest, especially during health crisis to minimize such issues.

Clinical, Histological and Serological Features of Autoimmune-Like Acute Liver Injury after Sars-Cov-2 Vaccination

Introduction and Objectives: Acute autoimmune-like liver injury has been increasingly reported after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Pathogenesis, steroid requirement and long-term prognosis are unknown. This study aimed to evaluate clinical, serological and histological features, response to treatment and prognosis in patients with post-vaccination acute hepatitis. Material(s) and Method(s): We included patients without known pre-existing liver diseases with transaminase levels >= 2.5 upper limits of normal within 90 days after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine with an available liver biopsy. Clinical data and outcomes after a six months follow-up were collected. Result(s): 17 patients were included,12 females, median age 60 (51,5/66) exposed to vectorial (Sputnik V n=7, AstraZeneca n=6), inactivated (Sinopharm n=3) or ARNm Vaccines (Moderna=1). In 8 patients, liver injury developed after the first dose and in 7 after the second dose and in 2 after the third dose. The median time to the development of injury was 33(23,50/53,50) days. Eight patients had a history of extrahepatic autoimmune disease and five patients had metabolic syndrome and used statins. Immune serology showed anti-antinuclear antibody in 10 (58,8%), anti-smooth muscle antibody in 5(29,4%). 14/17 patients presented with elevated IgG levels. Liver histology showed lobular hepatitis in 13/17, portal hepatitis in 17/17 with plasmocytic lymphocytic infiltrate and 4/17 had eosinophils, 6/17 with severe interface hepatitis, and one patient had fibrosis Ishak stage >=3. 12/17 (70,5%) were treated with steroids. Transaminases improved in 17 cases and normalized in 6/12 by month 6. Only 1/17 developed liver function deterioration, yet no patient required liver transplantation. Most patients tolerated the tapering of steroids and in 6 azathioprine was started before month 3. Conclusion(s): Long-term follow-up might help to differentiate between induced classical autoimmune hepatitis, autoinflammatory self-limited events, or drug-induced liver injury in these patients.Copyright © 2023