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

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

Changes in Kawasaki disease incidence and phenotype during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION. The aetiology of Kawasaki disease (KD) remains unknown. Changes in infectious exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic owing to infection prevention measures may have affected the incidence of KD, supporting the pathogenic role of an infectious trigger. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence, phenotype and outcome of KD before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark. METHODS. This was a retrospective cohort study based on patients diagnosed with KD at a Danish paediatric tertiary referral centre from 1 January 2008 to 1 September 2021. RESULTS. A total of 74 patients met the KD criteria of whom ten were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark. Alof these patients were negative for SARS-CoV-2 DNA and antibodies. A high KD incidence was observed during the first six months of the pandemic, but no patients were diagnosed during the following 12 months. Clinical KD criteria were equally met in both groups. The fraction of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) non-responders was higher in the pandemic group (60%) than in the in the pre-pandemic group (28.3%), although the rate of timely administered IVIG treatment was the same in both groups (>= 80%). Coronary artery dilation was observed in 21.9% in the pre-pandemic group compared with 0% in KD patients diagnosed during the pandemic. CONCLUSION. Changes in KD incidence and phenotype were seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients diagnosed with KD during the pandemic had complete KD, higher liver transaminases and significant IVIG resistance but no coronary artery involvement.Copyright © 2023, Almindelige Danske Laegeforening. All rights reserved.

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.

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

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

ADHERENCE TO BIOLOGIC THERAPIES IN INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES: INFLUENCE OF ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION

BackgroundInflammatory rheumatic diseases are a debilitating disease affecting the joints and periarticular structures and leading, more or less rapidly, to cartilage and bone destruction. It is a major source of chronic pain and physical, psychological, and social disability, it affect approximately 1% of the world's population [1]. For more than 20 years, biotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of these inflammatory diseases and have largely contributed to the improvement of their prognosis [2]. Adherence to biologic therapies conditions the effectiveness of the treatments then the improvement of patients' quality of life [3].ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare adherence to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) according to the route of administration and the molecule used (Infliximab, Tocilizumab, Etanercept, Adalimumab, Certolizumab, and Golimumab) in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.MethodsThis is a descriptive cross-sectional study with repeated data collection, bi-centric carried out in the rheumatology departments and outpatient clinics at Charles Nicolle Hospital and Rabta Hospital in Tunis and conducted over a period of 01 year and 02 months between 02/02/2021 and 30/04/2022. 71 adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis or juvenile idiopathic arthritis were recruited, their adherence rate in the last 3 months before inclusion should be ≥80%. The collection of socio-demographic, clinical and therapeutic data was established with the help of a pre-established form, from medical files completed by questioning the patients during a direct interview or through a telephone communication. Adherence rate was calculated by determining the ratio of treatments cures (number of biologic injections taken during a year divided by the number of annual biologic injections prescribed).ResultsWithin the study population, adherence was estimated at 85.9%;in the group of patients using intravenous biotherapy was 82.1% (Infliximab 86%, Tocilizumab 75% p=0.04) and in the group of patients using subcutaneous treatment was 89.9% (Golimumab 94%, Etanercept 92%, Certolizumab 89%, Adalimumab 87% p=0.3). Adherence to biologic therapy was significantly higher in the subcutaneous group than in the intravenous group (p=0.01). The causes of poor adherence presented by the patients in this study were: stock-outs of biological treatment and delay in renewal by the national health insurance (CNAM) in thirty-eight cases (54%p<0.001), intercurrent infections in thirty-three cases (46% p=0.005) and the COVID 19 pandemic and its consequences in thirty patients (42%,p=0.28).ConclusionAdherence to biologic treatment is influenced by the route of administration, drugs type, intercurrent infections and drugs availability. All this factors must be treated to improve therapeutic adherence then the efficiency of the biologic therapy which conditions the preservation of physical capacities and an improvement in the quality of life.References[1]Adhésion médicamenteuse et représentations des patients atteints de rhumatisme inflammatoire chronique sous biothérapie: étude ADREP'RI.: 84. Betegnie AL.[2]2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL, Akl EA et al. janv 2016;68(1):1‑26.[3]Adherence to biologic DMARD therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Opin Biol Ther. Koncz T, Pentek M, Brodszky V, Ersek K, Orlewska E, Gulacsi L. sept 2010;10(9):1367‑78.[4]Adherence of rheumatoid arthritis patients to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a cross-sectional study. Mena-Vazquez N, Manrique-Arija S, Yunquera-Romero L, Ureña-Garnica I, Rojas-Gimenez et al.. Rheumatol Int [Internet]. oct 2017 [cité 30 oct 2022];37(10):1709‑18.[5]Adherence to Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy Administered Subcutaneously and Associated Factors in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Salaffi F, Carotti M, Di Carlo M, Farah S, Gutierrez M. J Clin Rheumatol. déc 2015;21(8):419‑25.Acknowledgements:N L.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

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.

Complications Of A Severe Case Of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome In Children

Case Presentation: A 10 year old male with prior COVID-19 exposure presented with 7 days of fever, rash, cough, vomiting, and hypotension. Laboratory evaluation was notable for SARS-CoV2 antibodies, elevated cardiac enzymes, BNP, and inflammatory markers. Initial echocardiogram showed normal cardiac function and a small LAD coronary aneurysm. He was diagnosed with Multisystemic Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) and given methylprednisolone and IVIG. Within 24 hours, he developed severe LV dysfunction and progressive cardiorespiratory failure requiring VA-ECMO cannulation and anticoagulation with bivalirudin. Cardiac biopsy demonstrated lymphocytic infiltration consistent with myocarditis. On VA-ECMO, he had transient periods of complete AV block. With immunomodulator treatment (anakinra, infliximab) and 5 days of plasmapheresis, inflammatory symptoms and cardiac function improved. He weaned off ECMO, and anticoagulation was transitioned to enoxaparin. He had left sided weakness 5 days later, and brain MRI revealed an MCA infarct. Ten days later, he had focal right sided weakness and repeat MRI showed multiple hemorrhagic cortical lesions, thought to be thromboembolic with hemorrhagic conversion secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response to an MSSA bacteremia in the setting of MIS-C. Enoxaparin was discontinued. After continued recovery and a slow anakinra and steroid wean, he has normal coronary arteries, cardiac function, and baseline ECG but requires ongoing neurorehabilitation. Discussion(s): COVID-19 infection in children is often mild, but MIS-C is an evolving entity that can present with a wide range of features and severity. This case highlights two concepts. While first degree AV block is often reported in MIS-C, there is potential for progression to advanced AV block. Close telemetry monitoring is critical, especially if there is evidence of myocarditis. MIS-C shares features with Kawasaki disease, with a notable difference being a higher likelihood of shock and cardiac dysfunction in MIS-C. In MIS-C patients with cardiovascular collapse requiring ECMO, there is a risk for stroke. There should be a low threshold for neuroimaging and multidisciplinary effort to guide anticoagulation in these complex cases.

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.

Experiencia En Vida Real De La Eficacia, Seguridad Y Datos Farmacocineticos Del Cambio De Infliximab Intravenoso a Subcutaneo En Pacientes Con Enfermedad Inflamatoria Intestinal Inactiva. Resultados Del Registro Eneida

Poster con relevancia para la practica clinica Introduccion: Recientemente, se ha aprobado una formulacion subcutanea de infliximab biosimilar (CT-P13) (IFX- SC, dosis 120 mg) para la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII). Objetivos: Evaluar la eficacia, seguridad, farmacocinetica y experiencia de los pacientes tras el cambio a IFX-SC estando en remision clinica con tratamiento intravenoso. Metodos: Estudio multicentrico, descriptivo y observacional que incluyo a pacientes con enfermedad de Crohn (EC) y colitis ulcerosa (CU) que iban a ser cambiados de la via iv (IFX-IV) a la subcutanea (IFX-SC) a partir de datos obtenidos del registro ENEIDA (base de datos nacional, de recogida prospectiva por el Grupo Espanol de Trabajo en EII-GETECCU). Todos los pacientes estaban en remision clinica y biologica al menos 24 semanas antes del cambio. Se recogieron datos demograficos y de la enfermedad, actividad clinica (mediante indice de Harvey-Bradshaw para la EC e indice de mayo para la CU), datos analiticos (proteina C reactiva [PCR] y calprotectina fecal [CF]), asi como niveles valle al inicio, a las 12 y a las 24 semanas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 155 pacientes: 54 CU (35%) y 91 (65%) EC;44% mujeres;edad 45,5 anos (32-55). La indicacion del IFX-IV fue principalmente por enfermedad activa (72%) y perianal (7%), tratados durante 32 meses [14-56]. Pre- cambio, 78 (50,3%) recibian IFX-IV cada 8 semanas, 77 (49,7%) dosis intensificada. La mitad llevaban tratamiento inmunomodulador concomitante. El IFX-SC se cambio por mejorar adherencia durante la pandemia de COVID-19 (60%), para aumentar niveles (15%) o a peticion del paciente (25%). Permanecieron con dosis estandar 140 pacientes (90%), 8 (5%) requirieron intensificacion (120 mg semanal 4 y 240 mg cada 2 semanas 4) y en 7 (4,5%) se hizo una desescalada exitosa (120 mg cada 3 semanas en 4 y 120 mg cada 4 semanas en 3). Los indices clinicos, los niveles de PCR y la FC se mantuvieron sin cambios. Los niveles de IFXSC aumentaron significativamente de 4,5 μg/dl [2,6-9,2] basal a 14 μg/dl [9,5-16,2] a las 12 semanas y 13,2 μg/dl [10,4-19,7] a las 24 semanas. Ningun factor analizado (inmunosupresor concomitante, indice de masa corporal, localizacion de la enfermedad) se asocio con el aumento de niveles valle. Durante el seguimiento, suspendieron tratamiento inmunosupresor 16 de 78 (20,5%). Se registraron acontecimientos adversos en 9 pacientes (5,8%) y hubo 4 (2,6%) hospitalizaciones y 4 (2,6%) cirugias (1 de ellas perianal). Suspendieron tratamiento 9 pacientes (5,8%): 1 fracaso primario, 2 perdida de respuesta, 4 acontecimientos adversos, 1 voluntariamente y 1 cirugia. Conclusiones: El cambio de IFX IV a IFX SC mantiene la remision clinica de forma segura en la EII, ofrece mayores niveles de farmaco y una buena aceptacion por parte de los pacientes. El significado de los niveles mas altos con IFX-SC requiere una mayor exploracion.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. Todos los derechos reservados.

Two years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the population of Czech patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with biological therapy*experience of the tertiary IBD center.

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be associated with a more severe course of infections and a different response to vaccination, especially in complicated IBD course and in association with immune-modifying IBD treatment. The aim of this study was to describe COVID-19 pandemic during years 2020 2022 in IBD patients with long-Term biological therapy. Method(s): A retrospective analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence in the population of 1,177 IBD (Crohn s disease or ulcerative colitis) patients with long-Term biological therapy (IBD cohort) was performed. The incidence rate, crude incidence rate and standardized incidence ratio of COVID-19 in the IBD cohort, the odds ratio of infection depending on the type of biologic therapy administered, the dynamics of COVID-19 incidence depending on the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in the population and the current vaccination coverage of the IBD cohort were calculated. Result(s): From January 2020 to April 2022, 548 confirmed cases of COVID-19 (46.6%) were reported in the IBD cohort, with 39% share of PCR positivity in vaccinated individuals and with 95% occurrence of infection in unvaccinated part of the IBD cohort. Standardized incidence rate ratio of COVID-19 was 27% higher in the IBD cohort compared to the general Czech population. The dynamics of the development of the number of positive cases of COVID-19 in the IBD cohort was identical to the situation in the entire country. A higher odds ratio of the chances of infection was demonstrated in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, but not in patients treated with anti-integrins or monoclonal antibodies against interleukins. In the IBD cohort, 85.2% of patients were properly vaccinated, which was significantly more than the vaccination rate of the entire Czech population. Discussion and conclusion: During the two pandemic years, the incidence of COVID-19 in patients with severe IBD and long-Term biological treatment was higher compared to the general Czech population, despite the favorable vaccination coverage of this high-risk patients group. A higher risk was associated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy.Copyright © 2023 Galen s.r.o.. All rights reserved.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Related Search Trends

BACKGROUND: The novel SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic has had significant global impact on health care. The pandemic's effect on patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is unknown, and health care delivery to this largely immunocompromised population is of concern, as many patients refrained or were unable to seek in-person medical care. We noticed there was a decrease in IBD related Emergency Department (ED) visits. Thus, we aimed to explore if the pandemic influenced IBD specific search trends in the United States. We predicted more patients would search for symptoms or medications using Google in order to self-treat or self-care. METHOD(S): Using Google Trends (GT), we queried Crohn's Disease (CD) or Ulcerative Colitis (UC) in combination with IBD-related symptoms (i.e. bloating, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain and diarrhea) or medications (i.e. infliximab and prednisone) between January 1 and April 30 for the years 2018-2020 in the United States. Frequencies of the specific search terms were compared to the site's relative search volume over weekly and monthly intervals. IBD related ED visits were also collected from July 2018 to July 2020. Data was analyzed using monthly and weekly mean search scores compared across years and through 2020 using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons. RESULT(S): There were decreased search scores for bloating and rectal bleeding with IBD terms occurring during March and April of 2020 compared to years prior but not abdominal pain or diarrhea. The bloating plus CD/UC queries saw the largest variation in 2020 (CD: F = 19.18 with (2,89) df, P < 0.0001, UC: F = 14.08 with (2,89) df, P < 0.0001). For April 2020, medication search terms for infliximab + UC were significantly decreased (F = 47.73 with (2,89) df, P < 0.0001) but not for infliximab + CD (F = 3.08 with (2,89) df, P = 0.051) Prednisone searches also significantly decreased with CD and UC during this time period. In terms of IBD related ER visits, there were 84 in 2018, 99 in 2019, and 15 in 2020. The average quarterly visits in the 30 months preceding Covid was 22.5, while there was only one visit in quarter two of 2020. From March 2020 to July 2020 there were only 4 ED visits total. CONCLUSION(S): Assuming the global pandemic was the main influence of GT during March and April 2020, it appears that some IBD-related searches were significantly reduced compared to pre-pandemic levels, while others did not change. It is possible that patients utilized other services like patient portals and telehealth to communicate with providers instead of Google searches. Interestingly, IBD related ED visits were reduced during the peak of the pandemic, which raises the question and concern of how IBD patients managed their disease during this time. Limitations include the non-specificity of querying a search engine which may not reflect the habits of confirmed diagnosed IBD patients. Further research should investigate how patients cared for themselves during the pandemic. It will be important to continue to monitor the trends of IBD patient utilization of the healthcare system as cities and IBD centers start to reopen to safely and effectively deliver care.

Complete Remission in a Child With Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Treated With Infliximab.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can present with various dermatological manifestations, including (albeit rarely) severe mucocutaneous manifestations such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrosis. In contrast, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) commonly presents with mucocutaneous manifestations. The presentation of SJS in a child with MIS-C deserves increased attention from clinicians because of its potential fatality. Here we describe a 10-year-old boy with a history of exposure to confirmed COVID-19 who presented with fever, bilateral subconjunctival hemorrhage, cracked and red lips, oral ulcers, and generalized hemorrhagic skin lesions with targetoid lesions. Laboratory tests revealed leukocytosis, neutrophilia, lymphopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, sedimentation rate, ferritin, and B-type natriuretic peptide. A skin biopsy revealed patchy vacuolar interface dermatitis with subepidermal edema and superficial and deep perivascular predominantly histiocytic infiltrates with scattered eosinophils, lymphocytes, and neutrophils suggestive of SJS. In addition to supportive treatment, he was treated with IV methylprednisolone, immunoglobulins, and infliximab, after which his symptoms improved and gradually resolved.

Multiple infliximab biosimilar switches appear to be safe and effective in a real-world inflammatory bowel disease cohort.

BACKGROUND: Switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to biosimilar IFX is effective and safe. However, data on multiple switching are scarce. The Edinburgh inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit has undertaken three switch programmes: (1) Remicade to CT-P13 (2016), (2) CT-P13 to SB2 (2020), and (3) SB2 to CT-P13 (2021). OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint of this study was to assess CT-P13 persistence following switch from SB2. Secondary endpoints included persistence stratified by the number of biosimilar switches (single, double and triple), effectiveness and safety. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study. All adult IBD patients on IFX biosimilar SB2 underwent an elective switch to CT-P13. Patients were reviewed in a virtual biologic clinic with protocol driven collection of clinical disease activity, C-reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin (FC), IFX trough/antibody levels, and drug survival. RESULTS: 297 patients (CD n = 196 [66%], ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified n = 101, [34%]) were switched (followed-up: 7.5 months [6.8-8.1]). This was the third, second and first IFX switch for 67/297 (22.5%), 138/297 (46.5%) and 92/297 (31%) of the cohort respectively. 90.6% of patients remained on IFX during follow-up. The number of switches was not independently associated with IFX persistence after adjusting for confounders. Clinical (p = 0.77), biochemical (CRP ≤5 mg/ml; p = 0.75) and faecal biomarker (FC<250 µg/g; p = 0.63) remission were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24. CONCLUSION: Multiple successive switches from IFX originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with IBD, irrespective of the number of IFX switches.

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab: Clinical and patient experience outcomes

Background: Intravenous (IV) infliximab (IFX) monotherapy is associated with significant loss of response. Therapeutic drug monitoring shows an association with low serum trough drug levels and development of anti-IFX antibodies. Combination therapy with immunomodulators is not always possible, and IFX dose escalation leads to higher drug costs and time pressure on infusion units. Both approaches have raised heightened patient safety concerns due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Subcutaneous (SC) IFX pharmacokinetics lead to improved drug trough levels, which could lead to better clinical outcomes. Method(s): The NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde biologics database was used to identify selected patients currently treated with IV IFX for IBD for suitability for SC switch. Patients were contacted to allow informed choice to opt in or out of switch. Baseline clinical data was collected, and patients were reviewed at week 8 and week 24 for assessment of clinical disease activity scores, IFX trough levels/anti-drug antibody levels, and faecal calprotectin. Patient experience outcomes were assessed using a quality of life questionnaire (CUCQ-8). Result(s): 31 patients consented to switch;F:M = 17:14. The majority of patients (16) had Crohn's disease, with 13 with UC and 2 IBDU. Mean duration of disease was 9.1 years and duration of prior IV therapy was 3.3 years. 28 patients were reviewed at week 8 and 24 at week 24. At week 24, 71% of patients were in clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw index score <5 or partial Mayo score <2), 96% had CRP <5 mg/Land 87% had FCP <250mug/g. 21% of patients had subtherapeutic IFX trough levels at baseline, all had increased by week 8 and there were no subtherapeutic levels measured by week 24. One patient had detectable antibodies at week 24, compared with 9 patients at baseline. Three patients required oral steroid therapy during the 24-week follow up period. There were no hospital admissions, significant infections or adverse reactions within the cohort. 15 patients submitted CUCQ-8 scores, of these 7 patients' scores had worsened at week 8 but by week 24 13/15 were stable or improved compared to baseline. Conclusion(s): Switching from IV to SC infliximab is welcomed by most patients. The efficacy, tolerability, increased drug level and safety which has previously been demonstrated is reproduced in our cohort. This study is the first to explore patient experience outcomes. The finding of initial worsening of the CUCQ-8 score, but overall improvement by week 24 opens further opportunity for engaging patient involvement in switch programmes.

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.

Switch from intravenous to subcutaneous maintenance infliximab in real world IBD cohort

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been concern regarding patients attending hospitals for intravenous (IV) infusions due to increased COVID-19 exposure risk and demand on hospital resources. Data on switching patients from escalated dosing of IV infliximab (IFX) are limited. We describe a real-world experience of electively switching a cohort of patients on maintenance IV IFX for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), at both standard and escalated dosing, to subcutaneous CT-P13 (Remsima). Method(s): Adult patients with IBD on IV IFX at Royal Adelaide Hospital were invited to switch to fortnightly dosing of subcutaneous IFX. We collected demographic data using medical records, and prospectively measured clinical assessment scores (CDAI/HBI for Crohn's disease (CD) and partial Mayo/SCCAI for Ulcerative Colitis (UC)), faecal calprotectin (FCal), CRP and trough IFX levels prior to switching to subcutaneous IFX, and at 6 months post switch. Clinical remission was defined as CDAI<=150/HBI<=4 (CD) or partial Mayo<=3 (no subscore>1)/ SCCAI<=2 (UC). Result(s): 29 patients were switched from IV IFX to subcutaneous CT-P13 between March 2021 and May 2022 (see Table 1 for baseline demographics). 23 had Crohn's disease (79%). 10/29 patients (31%) were on intensified IV dosing at baseline prior to switch. The majority of patients, 25/29 (86%) were in remission pre-switch. Of 19 patients with paired trough IFX levels, these increased significantly from baseline to 6 months post-switch (5.9mg/ml to 13.9mg/ml, respectively (p=0.0003), see Fig 1). The median FCal did not change pre-vs post switch (73mcg/g vs 80mcg/g, p=0.540), see Fig 2). Median CRP did not change pre-vs. post switch (1 mug/ml vs 2 mug/ml). Clinical assessment scores remained stable pre-vs. post-switch (CDAI 31 vs 31, (p=0.316) see Fig 3;HBI. 1 vs 2 (p=0.940);partial Mayo 0 vs 0, (p>0.999);and SCCAI 1 vs 2 (p=0.5000)). Regarding the subset of patients on escalated dosing at baseline, all patients were in clinical remission at 6 months post-switch. There was no significant change in IFX levels (8.4 vs 13.3, p=0.253). FCal did not significantly change (76mcg/g vs 79mcg/g (p=0.563), nor did median CDAI (37 vs 21 (p=0.5312) and median HBI (2 vs 2 (p=0.750)). Overall, only 1/29 (3%) patients were not in remission at 6 month follow-up. No patients in required steroids or surgery. Of the 9 patients with perianal disease, none had a flare. All patients with weight>100kg (n=4) remained in remission. Conclusion(s): Switching patients from IV to subcutaneous IFX delivered stable clinical outcomes in this real world cohort, with no change in disease biomarkers and clinical indices. IFX levels increased overall and all patients on escalated IV dosing were in clinical remission at 6 months post-switch.

Neutralising antibody potency against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5 variants in infliximab and vedolizumab treated patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease after three doses of COVID-19 vaccine: A prospective multicentre cohort study

Background: Anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs such as infliximab are associated with attenuated antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination It is unknown how infliximab impacts vaccine-induced serological responses against highly transmissible Omicron variants, which possess the ability to evade host immunity and are now the dominating variants causing current waves of infection Methods: In this prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study we investigated neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5 variants after three doses of COVID-19 vaccination in 1288 patients with IBD without prior COVID-19 infection, who were established on either infliximab (n=871) or vedolizumab (n=417). Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to investigate the risk of breakthrough infection in relation to neutralising antibody titres Results: Following three doses of COVID-19 vaccine, neutralising titre NT50 (half-inhibitory neutralising titre) was significantly diminished in patients treated with infliximab as compared to patients treated with vedolizumab, against wild-type, BA.1 and BA.4/5 variants (Fig 1). Patients with Crohn's disease showed lower antibody NT50 compared to patients with ulcerative colitis against wild-type strain and BA.4/5 (Fig 2). Older age and thiopurine were independently associated with lower NT50 against wild-type strain and BA.4/5 (Fig 2). Non-white ethnicity was associated with higher NT50 compared to white ethnicity against wild-type strain, BA.1 and BA.4/5 (Fig 2). Breakthrough infection was significantly more frequent in patients treated with infliximab compared to patients treated with vedolizumab (Fig 3). Cox proportional hazards models of time to breakthrough infection after the third dose showed infliximab treatment to be associated with a higher hazard risk (HR) of 1.71 (95% CI [1.08 to 2.71], p=0.022) compared to vedolizumab (Fig 4). Higher neutralising antibody titres against BA.4/5 were associated with a lower hazard risk and a longer time to breakthrough infection (HR 0.87 [0.79 to 0.95] p=0.0028) (Fig 4) Conclusion(s): Following a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, patients established on infliximab treatment have significantly lower neutralising titres against SARS-CoV-2, which were especially low against Omicron variants. Increased breakthrough infection in infliximab recipients was associated with lower neutralising antibody titres against BA.4/5. These data underline the importance of continued COVID-19 vaccination programs, including second-generation bivalent vaccines, especially in patient subgroups where vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy may be reduced.

COVID-19 vaccine-induced neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/5 are diminished in patients with inflammatory bowel disease on anti-TNF or JAK-inhibitor therapy

Background: Patients with Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving anti-TNF or JAK-inhibitor therapy have attenuated responses to COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to determine how IBD treatments affect neutralising antibody responses against the currently dominant Omicron BA.4/5 variants. Method(s): We prospectively recruited 329 adults (68 healthy controls (HC) and 261 IBD) who had received three doses of COVID-19 vaccine at nine UK centres. The IBD population was established (>12 weeks therapy) on either thiopurine (n=60), infliximab (IFX) (n=43), thiopurine and IFX combination (n=46), ustekinumab (n=43), vedolizumab (n=46) or tofacitinib (n=23). Pseudoneutralisation assays were performed and the half maximal inhibitory concentration (NT50) of participant sera was calculated. The primary outcome was anti-SARSCoV-2 neutralising response against wild-type (WT) virus and the BA.4/5 variant after the second and third doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, stratified by immunosuppressive therapy, adjusting for prior infection, ethnicity, vaccine type and age. Result(s): Heterologous (two doses adenovirus vaccine, third dose mRNA vaccine) and homologous (three doses mRNA vaccine) vaccination strategies significantly increased neutralising titres against both WT SARS-CoV-2 virus and the BA.4/5 variants in HCs and IBD (fig 1). Antibody titres against BA.4/5 were significantly lower than antibodies against WT virus in both groups (Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) [95% CI], 0.11 [0.09, 0.15], P<0.0001 in healthy participants;GMR 0.07 [0.06, 0.08], P<0.0001 in IBD patients). Multivariable models showed that neutralising antibodies against BA.4/5 after three doses of vaccine were significantly lower in IBD patients on IFX (GMR 0.44 [0.20, 0.97], P=0.042), IFX and thiopurine combination (GMR 0.34 [0.15, 0.77], P=0.0098) or tofacitinib (GMR 0.37 [0.15, 0.92], P=0.032), but not in patients on thiopurine monotherapy, ustekinumab or vedolizumab. Breakthrough infection was associated with lower neutralising antibodies against WT and BA.4/5 (P<0.05). Conclusion(s): A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine based on the WT spike glycoprotein boosts neutralising antibody titres in patients with IBD. However, responses are lower against the currently dominant variant BA.4/5, particularly in patients taking anti-TNF or JAK-inhibitor therapy. Breakthrough infections are associated with lower neutralising antibodies and immunosuppressed IBD patients may receive additional benefit from bivalent vaccine boosters which target Omicron variants. .