IMPAIRED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL E-SURVEY

BackgroundComprehensive and large-scale assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) worldwide is lacking. The second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey assessing several aspects of COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to outline patient experience in various autoimmune diseases (AIDs), with a particular focus on IIMs.ObjectivesTo investigate physical and mental health in a global cohort of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls), using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data obtained from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsDemographics, AID diagnoses, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments, and PROMs were extracted from the COVAD-2 database. The primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Secondary outcomes included PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores. Each outcome was compared between IIMs, non-IIM AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 1582 IIMs, 4700 non-IIM AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls, which accrued as of May 2022, were analysed. Patients with IIMs were older [59±14 (IIMs) vs. 48±14 (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45±14 (NRAIDs) vs. 40±14 (controls) years, p<0.001] and more likely to be Caucasian [82.7% (IIMs) vs. 53.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 62.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 34.5% (controls), p<0.001]. Among IIMs, dermatomyositis (DM) and juvenile DM were the most common (31.4%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (24.9%). Patients with IIMs were more likely to have comorbidities [68.1% (IIMs) vs. 45.7% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45.1% (NRAIDs) vs. 26.3% (controls), p<0.001] including mental disorders [33.4% (IIMs) vs. 28.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 28.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 17.9% (controls), p<0.001].GPH median scores were lower in IIMs compared to NRAIDs or controls [13 (interquartile range 10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (11–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 15 (13–17) NRAIDs vs. 17 (15–18) controls, p<0.001] and PROMIS PF-10a median scores were the lowest in IIMs [34 (25–43) IIMs vs. 40 (34–46) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 47 (40–50) NRAIDs vs. 49 (45–50) controls, p<0.001]. GMH median scores were lower in AIDs including IIMs compared to controls [13 (10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (10–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 13 (11–16) NRAIDs vs. 15 (13–17) controls, p<0.001]. Pain VAS median scores were higher in AIDs compared to controls [3 (1–5) IIMs vs. 4 (2–6) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 2 (0–4) NRAIDs vs. 0 (0–2) controls, p<0.001]. Of note, PROMIS Fatigue-4a median scores were the highest in IIMs [11 (8–14) IIMs vs. 8 (10–14) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 9 (7–13) NRAIDs vs. 7 (4–10) controls, p<0.001].Multivariable regression analysis in IIMs identified older age, male sex, IBM, comorbidities including hypertension and diabetes, active disease, glucocorticoid use, increased pain and fatigue as the independent factors for lower GPH scores, whereas coexistence of interstitial lung disease, mental disorders including anxiety disorder and depression, active disease, increased pain and fatigue were the independent factors for lower GMH scores.ConclusionBoth physical and mental health are significantly impaired in patients with IIMs compared to those with non-IIM AIDs or those without AIDs. Our results call for greater attention to patient-reported experience and comorbidities including mental disorders to provide targeted approaches and optimise global well-being in patients with IIMs.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42:2151–58.AcknowledgementsThe authors a e grateful to all respondents for completing the questionnaire. The authors also thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren's India Foundation, EULAR PARE for their contribution to the dissemination of the survey. Finally, the authors wish to thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsAkira Yoshida: None declared, Yuan Li: None declared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Consultant of: Corbus, Mochida, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Ashima Makol Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: CSL Limited, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Grant/research support from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra Consultant of: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Novartis, Consultant of: 4P-Pharma, AbbVie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi, Topadur, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Hector Chinoy Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Bristol Myers-Squibb, EMD Serono, Kezar, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Corbus, Janssen, Kyverna, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Abbvie, Scipher, Horizontal Therapeutics, Teva, Biogen, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceutical, Nuvig, Capella, CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Mallinckrodt, Janssen, Q32, EMD Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Latika Gupta: None declared.

REDUCED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE USING PROMIS IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COVAD-2 E-SURVEY

BackgroundThe second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey designed to evaluate several facets covering COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a variety of autoimmune diseases (AIDs), including systemic sclerosis (SSc). Detailed assessment of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and its drivers in patients with SSc is lacking.ObjectivesTo assess physical and mental health in a global cohort of SSc patients in comparison with non-SSc autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls) using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsThe COVAD-2 database was used to extract demographics, AID diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, current therapies, and PROMs. PROMIS global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH) scores, PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were compared between SSc, non-SSc AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Outcomes were also compared between diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) vs limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc). Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing GPH and GMH scores in SSc.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 276 SSc, 6006 non-SSc AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls as of May 2022 were included in the analysis. Respondents with SSc were older [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 55 (14) vs. 51 (15) vs. 45 (14) vs. 40 (14) years old, mean (SD), p < 0.001]. Among patients with SSc, 129 (47%) had dcSSc and 147 (53%) had lcSSc. SSc patients reported a significantly higher prevalence of ILD [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 30.4% vs. 5.5% vs. 1.5% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001], and treatment with MMF [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 26.4% vs. 9.5% vs. 1.1% vs. 0%, p < 0.001].Patients with SSc had lower GPH and PROMIS PF-10a scores [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 13 (11–15) vs. 13 (11–15) vs. 15 (13–17) vs. 17 (15–18), median (IQR), p < 0.001;39 (33–46) vs. 39 (32–45) vs. 47 (40–50) vs. 49 (45–50), p < 0.001, respectively] and higher Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores compared to those with NRAIDs or controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 3 (2–5) vs. 3 (1–6) vs. 2 (0–4) vs. 0 (0–2), p < 0.001;11 (8–14) vs. 11 (8–14) vs. 9 (7–13) vs. 7 (4–10), p < 0.001, respectively]. Patients with AIDs including SSc had lower GMH scores compared to controls [SSc vs. non-SSc AIRDs vs. NRAIDs vs. controls: 12.5 (10–15) vs. 13 (10–15) vs. 13 (11–16) vs. 15 (13–17), p < 0.001].Among SSc patients, GPH, GMH, and PROMIS PF-10a scores were lower in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [dcSSc vs. lcSSc: 12 (10–14) vs. 14 (11–15), p < 0.001;12 (10-14) vs. 13 (10-15), p<0.001;38 (30–43) vs. 41 (34–47), p < 0.001, respectively]. Pain VAS and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores were higher in dcSSc compared to lcSSc [4 (2–6) vs. 3 (1–5), p < 0.001;12 (8–15) vs. 9 (8–13), p < 0.001, respectively].The independent factors for lower GPH scores in SSc were older age, Asian ethnicity, glucocorticoid use, and higher pain and fatigue scales, while mental health disorders and higher pain and fatigue scales were independently associated with lower GMH scores.ConclusionIn a global cohort, patient-reported physical and mental health were significantly worse in patients with SSc in comparison to those with non-SSc AIDs and without AIDs. Our findings support the critical need for more attention to patient's subjective experiences including pain and fatigue to improve the HRQOL in patients with SSc.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42: 2151–58.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsKeina Yomono: None declared, Yuan Li: None dec ared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Akira Yoshida: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova Speakers bureau: Pfizer and AstraZeneca, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Ashima Makol: None declared, Dey Dzifa: None declared, Carlos Enrique Toro Gutierrez: None declared, Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Aarat Patel: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therepeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio, Latika Gupta: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, MBL, Mochida, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Consultant of: Astra Zeneka, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corbus, GSK, Horizon, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Vikas Agarwal: None declared.

AVASCULAR NECROSIS OF THE FEMORAL HEAD – NOT TO BE OVERLOOKED SEQUELA AFTER COVID 19 INFECTION

BackgroundCOVID 19 infection could lead to different sequelae in survivors, known as post-COVID or long COVID 19 syndromes. Some of them are thought to be due to the thrombophylic changes observed in COVID 19 infection, but some are thought to be caused by the administrated (especially high dose) corticosteroid treatment. Avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVNFH) is a multifactorial disease which leads to compromised vascular supply, ischemia and finally necrosis of the femoral head. As corticosteroids usage and thrombophylic states are among the main known risk factors for the development AVNFH [1], it could be presumed that the frequency of this disease will increase with the COVID 19 pandemic. The exact corticosteroid dose needed for the development of AVNFH is not clear, but it has been stated that a higher daily dose and a larger total cumulative dose increase substantially the risk for the development of osteonecrosis [2].ObjectivesTo describe in detail the characteristics of AVNFH diagnosed in patients after COVID 19 infection.MethodsThe study was done in a tertiary university rheumatological clinic. Data was extracted from the records of patients who have been referred to the clinic because of hip pain between June and December 2022. Inclusion criteria were: - a new onset of uni-or bilateral hip pain that started after a documented COVID 19 infection;and an MRI scan of the hip joints showing osteonecrosis of one or both femoral heads. Exclusion criteria were the presence of hip pain prior to the COVID 19 infection, anamnesis of traumatic injuries of the hips or pelvis, personal history of hypercoagulable states.ResultsNine patients (4 women and 5 men) with an average age 59.1 years (range 38-72) were included in the study. Four patients had been diagnosed with bilateral and five – with unilateral AVNFH, thus 13 hip joints were analysed in total (8 left and 5 right sided). The mean time lap between the COVID 19 infection and the start of the hip pain was 26.2 weeks (range 10-48 weeks). All patients had limited and painful movement in their symptomatic hip(s), especially internal rotation and four of the patients had also elevated CRP levels (mean 11.7 mg/L). The stage of the AVNFH was evaluated according to the Ficat-Arlet classification (0-IV stage). In four hips the AVNFH was stage I, five hips were classified as stage II and the remaining four joints - as stage III. All symptomatic hip joints exhibited effusion/synovitis on both ultrasound examination and the corresponding MRI scan. It should be noted that the presence of hip effusion was found to be related with a worse prognosis in AVNFH [1]. In three patients the amount of the effusion required arthrocentesis and fluid aspiration. The analysis of the joint fluid was consistent with a degenerative disease (i.e., low WBC count with predominant lymphocytes and no crystals). All patients included in our study had received corticosteroids during their COVID19 infection, while 6 of the patients had also been hospitalized due to more severe disease. According to the patients' documentation, the mean cumulative dose of the received corticosteroids was 936.2 mg prednisolone equivalent per patient (range 187-2272 mg).ConclusionAVNFH must not be overlooked in a new onset hip pain after COVID 19 infection. Our results show that corticosteroids administrated during the infection and the presence of hip joint effusion on ultrasound are especially suggestive for the development of osteonecrosis, as they were registered in all of our patients. The presence of these two factors necessitates patient referral for an MRI scan of the hips, in order that AVNFH be detected timely.References[1]Petek D, Hannouche D, Suva D. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head: pathophysiology and current concepts of treatment. EFORT Open Rev. 2019 Mar 15;4(3):85-97.[2]Kerachian MA, Séguin C, Harvey EJ. Glucocorticoids in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a new understanding of the mechanisms of action. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2009 Apr;114(3-5):121-8.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosur of InterestsPLAMEN TODOROV Speakers bureau: speaker at national level for AbbVie, Novartis and UCB, Lily Mekenyan: None declared, Anastas Batalov Speakers bureau: Speaker at national level for AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Stada, Elly Lilly.

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.

TYPE I INTERFERON SCORE IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEVERITY AND POOR PROGNOSIS IN ANTI-MDA5 ANTIBODY-POSITIVE DERMATOMYOSITIS PATIENTS

BackgroundAnti-MDA5 antibody-positive dermatomyositis (anti-MDA5+DM) is a rare autoimmune disease associated with a high mortality rate due to rapid-progressive interstitial lung disease (RP-ILD), particularly in East Asia[1]. MDA5, acts as a cytoplasmic sensor of viral RNA, thus activating antiviral responses including the type I interferon (IFN) signaling pathway[2]. The involvement of type 1 IFN in the pathogenesis of MDA5+DM has been proposed based on the significantly elevated expression of its downstream stimulated genes(ISG) in muscle, skin, lung, and peripheral blood[3;4]. Janus kinase inhibitor, which targets the IFN pathway, combined with glucocorticoid could improve the survival of early-stage MDA5+DM-ILD patients[5]. In clinical practice, there is still an urgent demand for sensitive biomarkers to facilitate clinical risk assessment and precise treatment.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the clinical significance of interferon score, especially IFN-I score, in patients with anti-MDA5+DM.MethodsDifferent subtypes of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, including anti-MDA5+DM(n=61), anti-MDA5-DM(n=20), antisynthetase syndrome(ASS,n=22),polymyositis(PM,n=6) and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy(IMNM,n=9), and 58 healthy controls were enrolled.. A multiplex quantitative real-time PCR(RT-qPCR) assay using four TaqMan probes was utilized to evaluate two type I ISGs (IFI44, MX1, which are used for IFN-I score), one type II ISG (IRF1), and one housekeeping gene (HRPT1). Clinical features and disease activity index were compared between high and low IFN-I score groups in 61 anti-MDA5+DM patients. The association between laboratory findings and the predictive value of baseline IFN-I score level for mortality was analyzed.ResultsThe IFN scores were significantly higher in patients with anti-MDA5+DM than in HC (Figure 1A). The IFN-I score correlated positively with serum IFN α(r = 0.335, P =0.008), ferritin (r = 0.302, P = 0.018), and Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Visual Analogue Scale (MYOACT) score(r=0.426, P=0.001). Compared with patients with low IFN-I scores, patients with high IFN-I scores showed increased MYOACT score, CRP, AST, ferritin, and the percentages of plasma cells (PC%) but decreased lymphocyte count, natural killer cell count, and monocyte count. The 3-month survival rate was significantly lower in patients with IFN-I score > 4.9 than in those with IFN-I score ≤ 4.9(72.9% vs. 100%, P=0.044)(Figure 1B).ConclusionIFN score, especially IFN-I score, detected by multiplex RT-qPCR, can be a valuable biomarker for monitoring disease activity and predicting mortality in anti-MDA5+DM patients.References[1]I.E. Lundberg, M. Fujimoto, J. Vencovsky, R. Aggarwal, M. Holmqvist, L. Christopher-Stine, A.L. Mammen, and F.W. Miller, Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Nat Rev Dis Primers 7 (2021) 86.[2]G. Liu, J.H. Lee, Z.M. Parker, D. Acharya, J.J. Chiang, M. van Gent, W. Riedl, M.E. Davis-Gardner, E. Wies, C. Chiang, and M.U. Gack, ISG15-dependent activation of the sensor MDA5 is antagonized by the SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease to evade host innate immunity. Nat Microbiol 6 (2021) 467-478.[3]G.M. Moneta, D. Pires Marafon, E. Marasco, S. Rosina, M. Verardo, C. Fiorillo, C. Minetti, L. Bracci-Laudiero, A. Ravelli, F. De Benedetti, and R. Nicolai, Muscle Expression of Type I and Type II Interferons Is Increased in Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Related to Clinical and Histologic Features. Arthritis Rheumatol 71 (2019) 1011-1021.[4]Y. Ye, Z. Chen, S. Jiang, F. Jia, T. Li, X. Lu, J. Xue, X. Lian, J. Ma, P. Hao, L. Lu, S. Ye, N. Shen, C. Bao, Q. Fu, and X. Zhang, Single-cell profiling reveals distinct adaptive immune hallmarks in MDA5+ dermatomyositis with therapeutic implications. Nat Commun 13 (2022) 6458.[5]Z. Chen, X. Wang, and S. Ye, Tofacitinib in Amyopathic Dermatomyositis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease. New England Journal of Medicine 381 (2019) 291-293.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81974251], and Shanghai Hospital Develop ent Center, Joint Research of New Advanced Technology Project [SHDC12018106]Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH A WORSE OUTCOME -EXITUS- IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND SEVERE INFECTION

BackgroundInfections constitute an important and frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic inflammatory and systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), this increased risk has been related to the immune system alterations inherent to the disease, the drugs used to control it (corticosteroids, DMARDs and immunosuppressants) and associated comorbidities. Most studies focus on the search for factors associated with the development of infections but do not explore the worst outcome: patient failure.ObjectivesTo identify factors that help to predict an unfavorable outcome (exitus) after a severe infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsThis study was a retrospective case-control study at a single institution over a 10-year period. Patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis with hospital admission for infection from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019 (pre-pandemic SARS-COV-2) were selected. The main variable was exitus due to the infectious episode. We collected: age, sex, time of evolution of RA, previous treatment and at the time of admission, number of admissions for infection, location of the infection, comorbidities, and other associated serious diseases. The statistics included a descriptive analysis of the different variables (expressed as median and interquartile range -IR- for quantitative variables and percentages for qualitative variables), and the association study using the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for qualitative variables, and t-student or Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis for quantitative variables.ResultsWe obtained 152 patients (71.7% female, 28.3% male), with a total of 214 episodes of admission for infection (115 patients with 1 episode (75.7%), 25 (16.4%) with 2 episodes, 6 being the maximum number of episodes recorded). The median age at admission was 77 years, and the median time of RA evolution was 8 years (IR 4-16). The location of the infection responsible for admission was mainly respiratory and urinary. Forty-eight patients died in the episode (31.6% of the sample, 15 males and 33 females, median age 81.5 years (IR 69.5-86.5)). Comparing the patients with unfavorable outcomes (exitus) with the rest, we only found a statistically significant difference in the number of previous admissions (p=0.011), and in the coexistence of some other serious disease (exitus 85.4%, rest 61.5% p=0.003). There were no differences by sex, age, time of RA evolution, drugs, location of the infection, or comorbidities.ConclusionA history of hospital admission due to infection, and having another serious disease, are factors associated with an unfavorable outcome (exitus) in patients with RA admitted for an infectious process.References[1] Listing J, Gerhold K, Zink A. The risk of infections associated with rheumatoid arthritis, with its comorbidity and treatment. Rheumatology 2013;52(1):53-61.[2] George MD, Baker JF, Winthrop K, Hsu JY, Wu Q, Chen L, et al. Risk for serious infection with low-dose glucocorticoids in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11):870-8.[3] Singh JA, Cameron C, Noorbaloochi S, Cullis T, Tucker M, Christensen R, et al. Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2015;386(9990):258-65.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

COVID-19 OUTCOME IN AN ITALIAN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS COHORT

BackgroundIt is known that rheumatologic patients often present a course of COVID-19 similar to that of the general population. Some factors are linked to a worse COVID-19 outcome, such as moderate glucocorticoid (GC) dose, high body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities.ObjectivesTo describe the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in terms of symptoms, therapy and need for hospitalization compared to a control group. Also, to evaluate the variation in disease activity before and after COVID-19.MethodsIn this monocentric prospective study, we recruited consecutive adult patients with RA classified according to ACR-EULAR 2010 criteria who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 through molecular or rapid antigen swab tests between September 2020 and December 2022. Demographic and clinical data, including age, BMI, smoking habit, comorbidities, treatment at the diagnosis of COVID-19, duration of COVID-19, symptoms related to the infection and therapy required, together with the vaccination status were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. We compared DAS28-CRP before the infection and at the first visit after the resolution. As controls (Cs), individuals with COVID-19 but with no referred diagnosis of rheumatic/autoimmune disease were recruited.ResultsWe enrolled 111 patients affected by RA (males 15%, median age 56 years, IQR 25) and 89 Cs (males 44%, median age 47 years, IQR 43), whose demographic and clinical characteristics are reported in Table 1. The median RA disease duration was 108 months (IQR 201). At the COVID-19 diagnosis, 62 patients (56%) were assuming csDMARDs, 67 (60%) bDMARDs, and 18 (16%) GC with a median prednisone equivalent dose of 4 mg/day (IQR 1). DAS28-CRP was available for 62 patients, with a median value of 1.67 (IQR 2.71);42 patients (60%) were in remission (Figure 1). Before developing COVID-19, only 35 (32%) RA patients and 42 (47%) Cs had completed the vaccinal cycle, which was performed by mRNA vaccine in all the patients and 87% of Cs. The median COVID-19 duration was 18 days (IQR 18) for RA patients and 14 days (IQR 13.5) for Cs (p>0.7). Cs reported a significantly higher frequency of constitutional symptoms (headache and asthenia) compared to RA patients (p<0.00001). When hospitalization was required, RA patients received heparin more frequently than Cs (p<0.039). Once COVID-19 was resolved, RA patients were evaluated after a median of 2 months (IQR 2). DAS28-CRP was available for 68 patients, with a median value of 1.61 (IQR 1.77);42 patients (68%) were in remission (Figure 1).No differences in terms of COVID-19 duration, clinical manifestations, and therapy emerged comparing RA patients in remission (40;58%) with patients with the active disease before COVID-19 (29;42%). Also, in vaccinated subjects, the outcome of COVID-19 was similar in RA patients and Cs, irrespective of RA activity.ConclusionCOVID-19's impact on patients with RA was not significantly different from the general population, even for patients with active RA. Patients did not suffer from reactivation of RA because of COVID-19. In our opinion, these positive results could be ascribed to the massive vaccination campaign.References[1]Conway R et al, Ir J Med Sci. 2023[2]Andersen KM et al, Lancet Rheumatol. 2022Table 1.Clinical characteristics, COVID-19 symptoms, and therapy of the two groups. Values in brackets are expressed as percentages unless specified. Musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.Rheumatoid arthritis N=111Controls N=89P value*ACTIVE SMOKERS13 (12)20 (22)BMI (IQR)24 (7)23(6)COMORBIDITIES64 (58)44 (49)Cardiovascular26 (23)18 (20)Endocrine24 (22)14 (16)Musculoskeletal11 (10)6 (7)Neoplastic12 (11)3 (3)CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS96 (86)74 (83)Fever50 (45)47 (53)Constitutional symptoms52 (47)75 (84)p <0.00001Respiratory symptoms100 (90)86 (97)Gastrointestinal symptoms12 (11)13 (15)THERAPY88 (79)74 (67)NSAIDs41 (37)31 (35)Glucocorticoids24 (22)21 (30)Antibiotics33 (30)27 (24)Oxygen6 (5)5 (6)Heparin8 (7)0 (0)p <0.039HOSPITALIZATION10 (9)6 (9)*Where not indi ated, p value >0.5Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

HUMORAL AND CELLULAR IMMUNOGENICITY INDUCED BY THIRD BOOSTER OF SARS-CoV-2 VACCINES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES

BackgroundAmid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have benefited most people worldwide. While healthy people can acquire sufficient humoral immunity against COVID-19 even in the elderly by vaccination with three doses of vaccine., recent studies have shown that complex factors other than age, including the type of vaccines and immunosuppressive drugs, are associated with immunogenicity in patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (RMD). Identifying factors that contribute to the vulnerability of those patients to acquire not only humoral but also cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 despite multiple vaccinations is crucial for establishing an appropriate booster vaccine strategy.ObjectivesTo assess humoral,and T cell immune responses after third doses of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.MethodsThis prospective observational study included consecutive RMD patients treated with immunosuppressant who received three doses of mRNA vaccines including BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Blood samples were obtained 2-6 weeks after second and third dose of mRNA vaccines. We measured neutralizing antibody titres, which against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and seroconversion rates to evaluate the humoral responses. We also assessed T-cell immunity responses using interferon releasing assay against SARS-CoV-2.ResultsA total of 586 patients with RMD treated with mmunosuppressive treatments were enrolled. The mean age was 54 years, and 70% of the patients were female. Seroconversion rates and neutralizing antibody titres after third vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 were significantly higher compared to those after second vaccination (seroconversion rate, 94.5% vs 83.6%, p<0.001;titres of neutralizing antibody, 48.2 IU/mL vs 11.0 IU/mL, p<0.001, respectively). Interferon releasing assay after third vaccinations demonstrated that T cell reaction against SARS-CoV-2 was also increased from that of second vaccination (interferon for antigen 1, 1.11.9 vs 0.61.9, p=0.004,interferon for antigen 2, 1.72.6 vs 0.82.3, p=0.004). Humoral and cellular immunogenicity did not differ between the types of third vaccination including full dose of BNT162 and half dose of mRNA1273.(neutralizing antibody titers, 47.8±76.1 IU/mL vs 49.0±60.1 IU/mL, p<0.001;interferon for antigen 1, 1.12.0 vs 1.01.5, p=0.004, respectively). Attenuated humoral response to third vaccination was associated with BNT162b2 as second vaccination age (>60 years old), glucocorticoid (equivalent to prednisolone > 7.5 mg/day), and immunosuppressant use including mycophenolate, and rituximab. On another front, use of mycophenolate and abatacept or tacrolimus but not rituximab were identified as negative factors for T-cell reactions against SARS-CoV-2. Although 53 patients (9.0%) who had been immunised with third-vaccination contracted COVID-19 during Omicron pandemic phase, no one developed severe pulmonary disease that required corticosteroid therapy.ConclusionOur results demonstrated third mRNA vaccination booster of SARS-CoV-2 contributed to restore both humeral and cellular immunity in RMD patients with immunosuppressants. We also identified that certain immunosuppressive therapy with older RMD patients having BNT162b2 as a second vaccination may need additional booster vaccination.Reference[1]Furer V, Eviatar T, Freund T, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 Nov;81(11):1594-1602. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222550.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC IMMUNE-MEDIATED INFLAMMATORY DISEASES IN AMERICA: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MEXICO AND ARGENTINA

BackgroundPatients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IRD) have poorer outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population.ObjectivesTo assess and compare clinical course, severity and complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) from Mexico and Argentina.MethodsData from both national registries, CMR-COVID (Mexico) and SAR-COVID (Argentina), were combined. Briefly, adult IRD patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited between 08.2020 and 09.2022 in SAR-COVID and between 04.2020 and 06.2022 in CMR-COVID. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, and DMARDs were recorded, as well as clinical characteristics, complications, and treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Descriptive analysis. Chi square, Fisher, Student T, Mann Whitney U tests and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 3709 patients were included, 1167 (31.5%) from the CMR-COVID registry and 2542 (68.5%) from the SAR-COVID registry. The majority (82.3%) were women, with a mean age of 50.4 years (SD 14.4). The most frequent IRD were rheumatoid arthritis (47.5%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (18.9%). Mexican patients were significantly older, had a higher female predominance and had higher prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis, antiphospholipid syndrome, and axial spondyloarthritis, while the Argentine patients had more frequently psoriatic arthritis and ANCA-associated vasculitis. In both cohorts, approximately 80% were in remission or low disease activity at the time of infection. Mexicans took glucocorticoids (43% vs 37%, p<0.001) and rituximab (6% vs 3%, p<0.001) more frequently. They also reported more comorbidities (48% vs 43%, p=0.012).More than 90% of patients presented symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The frequency of hospitalization was comparable between the groups (23.4%), however, the Mexicans had more severe disease (Figure 1) and a higher mortality rate (9.4% vs 4.0%, p<0.0001). After adjusting for risk factors, Mexicans were more likely to die due to COVID-19 (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.5-3.1).ConclusionIn this cohort of patients with IRD from Mexico and Argentina with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the majority presented symptoms, a quarter were hospitalized and 6% died due to COVID-19. Mexicans presented more severe disease, and after considering risk factors they were two times more likely to die.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsCarolina Ayelen Isnardi Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi- sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or infuenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database, Deshire Alpizar-Rodriguez: None declared, Marco Ulises Martínez-Martínez: None declared, Rosana Quintana: None declared, Ingrid Eleonora Petkovic: None declared, Sofia Ornella: None declared, Vanessa Viviana Castro Coello: None declared, Edson Velozo: None declared, David Zelaya: None declared, María Severina: None declared, Adriana Karina Cogo: None declared, Romina Nieto: None declared, Dora Aida Pereira: None declared, Iris Jazmin Colunga-Pedraza: None declared, Fedra Irazoque-Palazuelos: None declared, GRETA CRISTINA REYES CORDERO: None declared, Tatiana Sofía Rodriguez-Reyne: None declared, JOSE ANTONIO VELOZ ARANDA: None declared, Cassandra Michele Skinner Taylor: None declared, INGRID MARIBEL JUAREZ MORA: None declared, Beatriz Elena Zazueta Montiel: None declared, Atzintli Martínez: None declared, Cesar Francisco Pacheco Tena: None declared, Guillermo Pons-Estel: None declared.

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS AND EFFICACY OF DMARD USE IN GCA: RESULTS FROM THE PROSPECTIVE, LONGITUDINAL,MULTI-CENTRE HAS-GCA STUDY

BackgroundGCA is a critically ischemic large vessel vasculitis, varying in extent, severity and outcomes, hence requires disease stratification using clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters, for targeted management. Although DMARDs are used, the effectiveness in real life, such adjuvants remain un-elucidated. We performed a prospective, multi centre cohort study of new GCA stratified into remitting, relapsing, refractory, ischemic disease.ObjectivesWe assessed prognostic factors and compared critical outcomes such as remission with glucocorticoid (GC) monotherapy versus GC plus DMARDs in the first 12 months.MethodsHAS GCA study (1) recruited consecutive patients with new onset GCA from 7 centres (UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands). diagnosis was confirmed used a modified GiACTA criteria at 6 months follow up. All underwent ultrasound (bilateral common, parietal, frontal temporal arteries, and axillary arteries) using accepted standard cut-off values [2]. GCA patients had US at baseline,1,3,6,12 months and halo count (HC) and Halo score (Temporal TAHS, axillary AAHS, total THS) assessed [3]. The primary outcome- remission at 12 months (absence of signs/symptoms, CRP<5 mg/dl, prednisolone < 5 mg daily). Results are reported as descriptive statistics.Results229 participants included in the study (GCA- 84 (36.68 %) (Figure 1). Study recruited during Covid pandemic,73 completed,11 lost to follow-up (died -7, withdrawn-4). The deceased/withdrawn patients (compared to completers) were older (80 v74 yrs, p=0.018), preponderantly male (73% v 36%, p=0.043) with visual symptoms (91% v 49%, p=0.010) partial/total sight loss (55% v 21%, p=0.024), lower CRP (21 v 68, p=0.061) and ESR (42 v 62, p= 0.317).Of 73 completers 36 required early DMARDs (<12 weeks) for refractory/relapsing/ischemic/GC related AEs. This group had more LV involvement (50% v 11%, p=0.0003), Remission attained at 12 months 32/36 (89%) in DMARD group was comparable to the remitting GC monotherapy group 33/37 (89%) with comparable cumulative GC doses (Figure 1, Table 1).At 12-months follow up, median TAHS, AAHS and THS reduced from 13 to 3, 12 to 9 and 21.5 to 12, respectively.ConclusionOur study suggests, elderly males with visual symptoms, sight loss, lower CRP are a high-risk group with increased mortality within GCA. Difficult to treat disease is seen in half of all patients especially with LV involvement. This group responds well to early DMARD use achieving remission comparable to the remitting group at 12 months. Current therapies fail to achieve remission in 9.5 % of cases. HS and HC show significant improvement mirroring clinical outcomes during first 12 months of therapy.References[1]Sebastian A et al. BMC Rheum. 2020[2]Schafer VS et al. Rheumatology 2017[3]van der Geest KSM et al. ARD 2020Table 1.comparison between the DMARD-used group and only GC group in all the GCA completed the 12 months follow upPatients' characteristicsGCA with completed follow-up (n=73)GCA treated with DMARD=36GCA not treated with DMARD=37Age, median (range) years73.5 (60-89)76 (60-89)Sex, Females, n (%)23 (64)24 (65)US halo score (HS)/IMT median (range)Temporal artery HS11 (0-23)13 (1-22)Axillary artery HS12 (0-21)12 (0-18)Axillary artery IMT (mm)0.77 (0.33-2.6)0.82 (0.39-1.21)Total HS22.5 (2-41)21 (5-40)Clinical features, n (%)Temporal headache25(69)30 (81)Scalp tenderness17 (47)19 (51)Jaw & Tongue claudication22 (61)24 (65)Polymyalgic symptoms21 (58)13 (35)Constitutional symptoms21 (58)18 (49)Any visual disturbance15 (42)21 (57)Partial or complete vision loss8 (22)7 (19)History of PMR6 (17)3 (8)Exam findings, n (%)Temporal artery abnormality24 (67)30 (81)AION/ CRAO8 (22)6 (16)Ocular nerve palsy1 (3)3 (8)Lab markers at baseline, median (range)CRP mg/dL,72.2 (6.4-292)59 (6-206)ESR mm/hr67 (9-130)57 (2-120)GC treatment, median (range)GC starting dose, (baseline)45 (0-60)50 (0-60)GC dose at 12m,5 (0-25)2.5 (0-10)Cumulative GC dose at 12m4627.5 (2600-10260.5)4622.5 (944-10737.5)Remission with prednisolone dose ≤5 mg at 12m, n (%)32 (89)33 (89)Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsBhaskar Dasgupta Consultant of: Roche, Chugai, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Roche, Sanofi, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline, Kornelis van der Geest Speakers bureau: Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Alessandro Tomelleri: None declared, Pierluigi Macchioni: None declared, Giulia Klinowski: None declared, Carlo Salvarani: None declared, Abdul Kayani: None declared, Mohammad Tariq: None declared, Diana Prieto-Peña: None declared, Edoardo Conticini: None declared, Muhammad Khurshid: None declared, Sue Inness: None declared, Jo Jackson: None declared, Alwin Sebastian: None declared.

NEUTROPHIL TO LYMPHOCYTE RATIO (NLR) PREDICTS FRACTURE IN PATIENTS ON LONG-TERM GLUCOCORTICOID

BackgroundLong-term glucocorticoid (GC) exposure leads to systemic bone loss and fracture. In addition, GC is known to increase white blood cell (WBC) amount and change the distribution of differential count (DC). Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been studied as an optimal marker of subclinical inflammation, predicting the prognosis of cardiovascular diseases, cancers and even covid-19 infection. For patients under long-term GC exposure, the hemogram change might be a potential parameter to predict prognosis.ObjectivesThis pilot study aims to investigate if GC related WBC-DC change, including NLR, is associated with future fractures during 3 years follow-up.MethodsThis retrospective study is based on a registry, conducted in Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, from September 2014 till April 2021, aimed to monitor bone mineral density (BMD) changes and fractures in patients with autoimmune diseases. All recruited patients were followed at least 3 years and took X-ray images annually to capture new fragility fracture, including morphometric vertebral fractures. We screened participants who used GC continuously at least 3 months before the index day. We recorded the complete blood count (CBC) and WBC-DC values at least twice during the period of 3 months before and after the index day, and excluded patients who were febrile, under infection status, diagnosed as cancers or cardiovascular diseases at the index day. The NLR was calculated by the absolute neutrophil count divided by absolute lymphocyte count individually.ResultsA total of 346 participants were enrolled in current study, and 101 (29.2%) suffered from new fragility fracture in 3 years. Among patients with fracture and non-fracture, conventional fracture risk factors, such as age, BMD, and previous fracture remained significantly different, while the WBC revealed no difference (Table 1). Nevertheless, the absolute neutrophil and lymphocyte count were significantly higher and lower in the fracture group, respectively, and no difference in the monocyte, eosinophil, and basophil count. We compared different WBC ratio, and NLR is significantly higher in the fracture group, providing the odds ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.07-1.44, p=0.005). Figure 1 showed that the observed fracture risk raised as the NLR values increased.ConclusionIn patients under long-term GC, NLR might be a helpful marker to predict fracture, and higher NLR indicates higher fracture risks.Figure 1.Observed fracture rate is associated with baseline NLR[Figure omitted. See PDF]Table 1.Demographic characteristics of enrolled patients on long-term glucocorticoid.Fracture N=101No-Fracture N=245p-valueAge63.7 ± 9.056.5 ± 9.6<0.001*Sex(women)89(88.1)210(85.7)0.55BMI24.1 ± 3.923.4 ± 3.90.14Previous Fracture64(63.4)55(22.4)<0.001*Total hip BMD0.738 ± 0.1330.790 ± 0.1220.001*Femoral neck BMD0.575 ± 0.1130.626 ± 0.109<0.001*Lumbar BMD0.841 ± 0.2000.855 ± 0.1500.49WBC7.3 ± 2.16.9 ±1.70.14Hemoglobin12.8 ± 1.512.9 ± 1.40.33Platelet239.2 ± 64.7247.9 ± 71.40.30Neutrophil67.3 ± 9.764.3 ± 9.70.009*Lymphocyte24.3 ± 8.726.6 ± 9.50.04*Monocyte6.2 ± 1.86.3 ± 1.60.52Eosinophil1.8 ± 1.81.9 ± 1.30.77Basophil0.4 ± 0.20.4 ± 0.20.18NLR (Neutrophil to lymphocyte)3.3 ± 1.72.8 ± 1.40.004*NMR (Neutrophil to monocyte)11.9 ± 4.511.0 ± 3.60.04*LMR (Lymphocyte to monocyte)4.2 ± 1.74.5 ± 1.90.20AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by funding grant CMRPG8J0331 from the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (https://www.cgmh.org.tw).Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

PERSISTENCE OF SYMPTOMS AFTER SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BackgroundThe World Health Organization defined long-COVID or post-COVID-19 condition as "the continuation or development of new symptoms 3 months after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection, with these symptoms lasting for at least 2 months with no other explanation” [1]. Data on long-COVID in patients with inflammatory arthritis are very limited. The prevalence of this condition is 45% in the general population affected by COVID-19 who still experience symptoms after 4 months from the infection [2].ObjectivesTo investigate the persistence of symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of patients with inflammatory arthritis and the most common clinical manifestations.MethodsWe enrolled adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) classified according to standard criteria that received a diagnosis of COVID-19 through molecular, rapid or quantitative antigen swab tests between September 2020 and September 2022. Demographic and clinical data including age, body mass index (BMI), smoking habit, comorbidities, rheumatic treatment at diagnosis of COVID-19, date of COVID-19 diagnosis and clinical manifestations were collected through a questionnaire and recorded in a database.ResultsThirty-eight (40%) patients with RA, 49 (51.6%) with PsA, and 8 (8.4%) with AS [total: 95 patients;F:M=65:30, median age 56 years (IQR 15), median BMI 25.54 kg/m2 (IQR 5.58), active smokers 21 (22.1%), median rheumatic disease duration 96 months (IQR 120), median COVID-19 duration 13 days (IQR 7)] were recruited. Eighteen (19%) were only treated with csDMARDs, 38 (40%) only with bDMARDs, 29 (30.5%) with csDMARDs and bDMARDs, 8 (8.4%) were not taking any treatment and 2 (1%) were only taking glucocorticoids.Six (6.3%) patients were hospitalized (either in Day Hospital facilities for monoclonal antibodies infusion or in the emergency room). Twenty-six (27.3%) and 7 (7.3%) patients reported pre-existing cardiovascular or respiratory comorbidities, respectively. Ninety patients (94.7%) had a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seventy-five (79%) patients reported the persistence of symptoms after the end of the infection (negative swab), while 20 (21%) patients reported no symptoms. Among the former, 38 (50.7%) patients were symptomatic for ≤3 months and 37 (49.3%) were symptomatic for >3 months. In the hospitalized subgroup, 6 (100%) patients reported the persistence of COVID-19 symptoms, while this was reported by 69 (77.5%) patients in the non-hospitalized subgroup (p=ns).The clinical manifestations and their persistence after the infection are reported inFigure 1. The most common were cough and fatigue, which both lasted ≤3 months in 38 (42.2%) patients and >3 months in 3 (3.33%) and 21 (23.3%) patients, respectively. Headache (32 patients - 35.5%), arthralgias (28 patients - 31.1%), myalgias (27 patients - 30%) and shortness of breath (25 patients - 27.7%) were the most common symptoms that persisted in the first 3 months after the infection. Symptoms that persisted for >3 months in more than 20% of the patients were arthralgias (24 patients - 26.6%) and sleep disturbances (19 patients - 21.1%). However, it is difficult to assess whether arthralgias and myalgias were consequences of COVID-19 or secondary to the rheumatic disease. No COVID-19-related deaths were recorded.ConclusionOur data show the persistence of symptoms of COVID-19 after recovery in 79% of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis. 49.3% of patients were symptomatic for >3 months. Cough, fatigue, headache, arthralgias, myalgias and shortness of breath were the most represented symptoms in the first 3 months after the infection, while arthralgias, fatigue, and sleep disturbances were the most reported after 3 months from SARS-CoV-2 infection.References[1]https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/post-covid-19-condition updated: 7 Dec 2022[2]O'Mahoney LL et al. Lancet 2022Figure 1.Persistence of symptoms and signs after the end of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Data are represented as percentagesAcknowl dgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS HAVE BETTER SARS-CoV-2 OUTCOMES COMPARED WITH PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: DATA FROM THE NATIONAL SAR-COVID REGISTRY

BackgroundPatients with rheumatic diseases may present more severe SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population. However, in some studies, hospitalization and mortality due COVID-19 were lower in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) compared to other rheumatic diseases.ObjectivesTo assess the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with axSpA from the SAR-COVID registry, comparing them with patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to determine the factors associated with poor outcomes and death.MethodsPatients ≥18 years old from the SAR-COVID national registry with diagnosis of AxSpA (ASAS criteria 2009) and RA (ACR/EULAR criteria 2010) who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (RT-PCR or positive serology), recruited from August 2020 to June 2022 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data, comorbidities, treatments and outcomes of the infection were collected. Infection severity was assessed using the WHO-ordinal scale (WHO-OS)[1]: ambulatory [1], mild hospitalizations (2.3 y 4), severe hospitalizations (5.6 y 7) and death [8].Statistical analysisDescriptive statistics. Chi[2] or Fischer test and Student T or Mann-Whitney as appropriate. Poisson generalized linear model.ResultsA total of 1226 patients were included, 59 (4.8%) with axSpA and 1167 (95.2%) with RA. RA patients were significantly older, more frequently female, and had a longer disease duration. More than a third of the patients were in remission. 43.9 % presented comorbidities, arterial hypertension being the most frequent. At the time of SARS-Cov-2 diagnosis, patients with RA used glucocorticoids and conventional DMARDs more frequently than those with axSpA, while 74.6% of the latter were under treatment with biological DMARDs being anti-TNF the most used (61%).94.9 % of the patients in both groups reported symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although the differences were not significant, patients with RA presented more frequently cough, dyspnea, and gastrointestinal symptoms, while those with axSpA reported more frequently odynophagia, anosmia, and dysgeusia. During the SARS-CoV-2 infection, 6.8% and 23.5% of the patients with axSpA and RA were hospitalized, respectively. All of the patients with axSpA were admitted to the general ward, while 26.6% of those with RA to intensive care units. No patient with axSpA had complications or severe COVID-19 (WHO-OS>=5) or died as a result of the infection while mortality in the RA group was 3.3% (Figure 1).In the multivariate analysis adjusted to poor prognosis factors, no association was found between the diagnosis of axSpA and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection assessed with the WHO-OS (OR -0.18, IC 95%(-0.38, 0.01, p=0.074).ConclusionPatients with EspAax did not present complications from SARS-CoV-2 infections and none of them died due COVID-19.Reference[1]World Health Organization coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Therapeutic Trial Synopsis Draft 2020.Figure 1.Outcomes and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with axSpA and RA.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsAndrea Bravo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Tatiana Barbich Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carolina Isnardi Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretati n, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Emilce Edith Schneeberger Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Rosana Quintana Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Pisoni Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Mariana Pera Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Edson Velozo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Dora Aida Pereira Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Paula Alba Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Juan A Albiero Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Jaime Villafañe Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Hernan Maldonado Ficco Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Veronica Sa io Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Santiago Eduardo Aguero Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Romina Rojas Tessel Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Maria Isabel Quaglia Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., María Soledad Gálvez Elkin Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access tothe information collected in the database., Gisela Paola Pendon Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carolina Aeschlimann Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gustavo Fabian Rodriguez Gil Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Malena Viola Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Romeo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Carla Maldini Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Silvana Mariela Conti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor re istry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Rosana Gallo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Leticia Ibañez Zurlo Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Maria Natalia Tamborenea Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Susana Isabel Pineda Vidal Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Debora Guaglianone Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Jonatan Marcos Mareco Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Cecilia Goizueta Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Elisa Novatti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Fernanda Guzzanti Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Gimena Gómez Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Karen Roberts Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of t em participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database., Guillermo Pons-Estel Grant/research support from: SAR-COVID is a multi-sponsor registry, where Pfizer, Abbvie, and Elea Phoenix provided unrestricted grants. None of them participated or influenced the development of the project, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing the report. They do not have access to the information collected in the database.

Pathogenetic therapy of COVID-19: focus on glucocorticoids

The problem of preventing excessive production of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the case of COVID-19 remains unre-solved. The use of steroids in the treatment of coronavirus pneumonia remains controversial. To date, there is insufficient literature data for the routine use of steroids in COVID-19 intensive care programs, and this issue remains the subject of continuous research and endless debate. The review of the scientific literature focuses on one of the areas of pathogenetic therapy for COVID-19 — the pre- vention and elimination of hyperproduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines using glucocorticoid drugs. The review presents modern international recommendations on the use of glucocorticoid drugs in severe COVID-19, examines the pathogenetic mechanisms of their action and side effects. © 2022. The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published article, with the obligatory reference to the authors of original works and original publication in this journal.

COVID-19 VACCINE SAFETY DURING PREGNANCY AND BREASTFEEDING IN WOMEN WITH AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES: RESULTS FROM THE COVAD STUDY

Background:COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID) is often attributed to the fear of adverse events (AE) and disease flares (DF). No data are available regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety in this population.Objectives:We aimed at describing delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related AE (minor and major), DF, and related AID treatment modifications from the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study.Methods:Among complete responses from 9201 participants as of June 21, 2022, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Six subgroups were identified upon diagnosis of AID vs healthy controls (HC) and their pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of any dose of vaccine (Figure 1).Figure 1.Flowchart of the study. AID: autoimmune diseases;HC: healthy controls;rAID: rheumatic AID;nrAID: non-rheumatic AID.[Figure omitted. See PDF]ResultsForty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding AID patients were identified and their vaccination rates (at least one dose) was 100% and 96.2%, respectively (Table 1). Overall AE, minor AE, and major AE were reported significantly more frequently by pregnant than non-pregnant patients (45% vs. 26%, p=0.01;40% vs. 25.9%, p=0.03;17.5% vs. 4.6%, p<0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC. Post-vaccination DF were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18% of age- and disease-matched control patients (n=2315). All DF in pregnant/breastfeeding patients were managed with glucocorticoids and a fifth of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressive treatment.Table 1.Characteristics of female subjects according to groups. Percentages in parenthesis. *Pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of the survey and/or at the time of at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Chi squared test: ~ p=0.01;° p=0.03;§ p<0.01.Total Women (n=6787)Group A Non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding with AID (n=4862)Group B Pregnant with AID* (n=40)Group C Breastfeeding with AID* (n=52)Group D Non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding HC (n=1749)Group E Pregnant HC* (n=31)Group F Breastfeeding HC* (n=53)Age (median, IQR)47, 35-5850, 38-6134, 31-35.2533, 30-3539, 29-4934, 30-36.533, 30-36Caucasian3225 (47.5)2634 (54.1)12 (30)22 (42.3)538 (30.8)7 (22.6)12 (22.6)No comorbidities3027 (44.6)1815 (37.3)19 (47.5)36 (69.2)1102 (63)17 (54.8)38 (71.7)Number of vaccinated women, n (%)6632 (97.7)4753 (97.8)40 (100)50 (96.2)1710 (97.8)30 (96.8)49 (92.5)≥3 doses4850 (71.5%)3583 (73.7%)26 (65%)33 (63.5%)1155 (66%)23 (74.2%)30 (56.6%)No AE4950 (74.6)3517 (74)~22 (55)~36 (72)1312 (76.7)22 (73.3)36 (73.5)Injection site (arm) pain and soreness630 (9.5)471 (9.9)7 (17.5)7 (14)138 (8.1)2 (6.7)5 (10.2)Minor AE1614 (24.3)1232 (25.9)°16 (40)°12 (24)338 (19.8)7 (23.3)10 (20.4)Major AE285 (4.3)196 (4.6)§7 (17.5)§1 (2)77 (4.5)1 (3.3)3 (6.1)Hospitalization74 (1.1)51 (1.1)2 (5)0 (0)20 (1.2)0 (0)1 (2)ConclusionThis study provides the first insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the antenatal period in women with AID. While AEs were more commonly reported by pregnant patients with AID, these were no higher than among pregnant healthy controls without AID. These observations are reassuring, likely to strengthen physician-patient communication and overcome hesitancy as the benefits for the mother and fetus by passive immunization are likely to overweigh the potential risks of AE and DF.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, et al;COVAD Study Group. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int 2022;42:2151-2158.AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to all respondents, to all patients support groups, and to all COVAD Study Group collaborators from 106 Countries.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

CELLULAR AND HUMORAL IMMUNOGENICITY OF THE NEOANTIGEN S1 FROM SARS-COV-2 VACCINES IN PATIENTS WITH AUTOIMMUNE RHEUMATIC DISEASES

BackgroundData on cellular and humoral immunogenicity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are limited. While current vaccine efforts have focused on the induction of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, T-cell immunity may also provide protection against infection. Experimental data suggest that CD8+ T cell responses may have a protective role in the presence of decreasing or sub protective antibody titers [1].ObjectivesThe aim of this project is to describe the serological and T cell responses to the third dose of vaccine (either with BNT162b2 mRNA or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 replication-deficient adenoviral vector vaccines) in a cohort of patients with ARDs (rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathies) treated with biologic therapies, to describe the impact of these treatments on vaccine response in this patient population. As a second objective, we will describe the characteristics of patients who did not present an adequate immunogenic response.MethodsCase-control study. We studied in 79 patients with ARDs and in 31 healthy controls, anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) production measured by IGRA between 8-12 weeks after the third dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In addition, humoral response was measured by anti-S1 IgG antibody production measured by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Statistical comparison between categorical variables was performed by Fisher's or χ2 test. For quantitative variables by Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney test.Results79 patients with ARDs (48 women, 31 men;mean age 58±11.4) 43 (54%), with rheumatoid arthritis and 36 (45.6%) with spondyloarthropathies. 32 (49.5%) of them were on glucocorticoid treatment (mean dose 4.92 mg/day), 25 (31.6%) on methotrexate and 56 (70.9%) on anti-TNF. Post-vaccination results showed positive T-cell immune responses in 68 of 79 (86.1%) ARDs patients with mean IFN- γ anti-SARS-CoV-2 titers of 1,606.85 mUI/ml. 7 (8.9%) of ARDs patients showed negative IFN-γ SARS-CoV-2 levels, while 4 (5%) had borderline titers. 100% of patients with previous COVID 19 disease had positive cellular responses. Within the group of negative or borderline cellular responses, 7 of 10 were men (70%), with no significant differences in terms of diagnosis, comorbidities or immunosuppressive treatments used. In the control group, 100% presented positive cellular responses. Anti-Spike IgG antibodies were detectable in all patients with ARDs as in the control group.ConclusionOur preliminary data show that most patients with ARD were able to generate an adequate specific cellular response after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, emphasizing the relevance of vaccination in this group. Specific antibody responses secondary to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were detected in all patients with ARD. Our data could support the relevance of these immune responses to personalize prevention, vaccination decision-making and treatment in this subgroup of patients.References[1]Sieiro Santos C, Calleja Antolin S, Moriano Morales C, Garcia Herrero J, Diez Alvarez E, Ramos Ortega F, et al. Immune responses to mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases. RMD Open. 2022 Jan 5;8(1).Figure 1.Specific anti-SARS-CoV-2-IFN- γ responses measured by IGRA. Dotted lines represent positivity cut-off: ≥200mUI/ml. HC: Healthy controls. AIRDs: Autoimmune rheumatic diseases.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ANTI-SARS-CoV-2 VACCINATION IN PEOPLE WITH RMDs: RESULTS FROM A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

BackgroundAs the third year of the pandemic begins, over 13 billion doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been administrated worldwide and growing evidence on their efficacy and safety in people with RMDs has accrued.ObjectivesTo update our previous systematic literature review (SLR)[1] on efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)MethodsA literature search according to the PICO framework was conducted on July 22, 2022 to identify references in seven databases published after June 1, 2021 (end date of previous SLR). Title and s were independently screened by 3 investigators (AA, AN and FK). Eligibility criteria were stricter in terms of requirement of the inclusion of control group or undertaking a multivariable analysis. However, for some outcomes (e.g., RMD flares), descriptive studies were also included due to the paucity of data. Data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment were performed as in the previous SLR.ResultsOf 1583 references, 219 were included for full text assessment and 30 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Recent studies confirmed that a full vaccination cycle was generally immunogenic, though the seroconversion rate and the anti-spike antibody (Ab) titre were lower in patients with RMDs compared to healthy controls. Vaccination was also able to induce neutralising antibodies (NAb) but the seroconversion rate and the neutralising activity were lower than in controls. Glucocorticoids, mycophenolate mofetil, rituximab and abatacept were negatively associated with Ab and NAb seroconversion. Two studies specifically investigating RTX-treated RMD patients identified an association between lower dose and longer period of time after the last RTX infusion before vaccination and higher likelihood of Ab seroconversion. The majority of breakthrough infections (B-INFs) were asymptomatic and, if symptomatic, mild to moderate. A higher number of vaccine doses was associated with a lower incidence and severity of B-INFs, although B-INF incidence rate was generally higher in the post-delta variant period. Higher disease activity was associated with higher likelihood of severe/critical B-INFs. Regarding safety, in general, patients with RMDs showed higher rates of mild AEs compared to the general population, however severe AEs were rare, if any. Disease flares have been observed in/reported by less than 10% of patients in the various cohorts and although often requiring treatment with glucocorticoids or change of the ongoing immunosuppressive therapy, hospitalization was generally not needed. Pre-vaccination colchicine prophylaxis seemed useful to prevent gout flares in the post-vaccination trimester.ConclusionOverall anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is immunogenic and safe in patients with RMDs. However, careful and individualised assessment of the ongoing therapy and disease activity when planning the vaccination schedule is necessary to minimise the risk of reduced immunogenicity, post-vaccination disease flares and breakthrough infections.Reference[1]Kroon FPB, Najm A, Alunno A, Schoones JW, Landewé RBM, Machado PM, Navarro Compán V. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(3):422-432Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Impact of Post-Visit Outreach on Inhaled Corticosteroid Refill Persistence in Children and Young Adults With Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are a fundamental pillar of most regimens for long-term control of persistent asthma. Poor adherence to ICS medication is a common problem in the asthma population that can lead to poor asthma control. We hypothesized that conducting a follow-up telephone call after general pediatric clinic visits for asthma would improve refill persistence. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort analysis of pediatric and young adult subjects followed in our pediatric primary care clinic for asthma on ICS medication found to have poor ICS refill persistence. This cohort received a follow-up telephone outreach call 5-8 weeks after the clinic visit. The primary outcome measure was refill persistence with regard to ICS therapy. RESULTS: There were 289 subjects who met the inclusion criteria and did not meet any exclusion criteria for the study (n = 131 in the primary cohort, n = 158 in the post-COVID cohort). The mean ICS refill persistence increased significantly for subjects in the primary cohort (39.4 ± 30.8% post intervention vs 32.4 ± 19.7% pre intervention) (P = .02) but not in the post-COVID cohort (36.4 ± 25.6% post intervention vs 38.9 ± 21.0% pre intervention) (P = .26). There was not a statistically significant change in hospitalizations after the intervention in either the primary or the post-COVID cohorts (P = .08 and .07, respectively). Systemic corticosteroid courses and emergency department visits decreased significantly post intervention (P = .01 and P = .004, respectively) in the primary group but not in the post-COVID group (P = .75 and P = .16, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that telephone outreach after out-patient clinic visits for asthma may have short-term benefit in ICS refill persistence; however, the effect size was small.