COVID-19 virus: the immune reaction to vaccines

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

Certolizumab

Certolizumab is a Fab fragment of a humanized monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). Differing from the other TNF-alpha inhibitors due to the absence of Fc fragment and pegylation, it binds to both the soluble and transmembrane forms of TNF-alpha, creating a strong TNF-alpha blockage. Previously approved for psoriatic arthritis, certolizumab received another approval from FDA in 2018 for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis that does not respond to conventional systemic treatments or for which these treatments are contraindicated. Administered via subcutaneous injections, certolizumab also has a low-dose option for patients weighing less than 90 kg. Certolizumab is considered a safe biological drug that can be preferred during pregnancy and lactation.Copyright © 2022 by Turkish Society of Dermatology and Venereology.

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

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

Identifying Promise

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

Association of SARS-COV-2 viral RNAemia, IL- 6 gene polymorphism, serum IL-6 and peripheral blood lymphocytes and monocytes with disease severity in COVID-19 patients

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a fatal pandemic viral disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus type-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of this study is to observe the associations of IL-6, SARS-COV-2 viral load (RNAemia), IL- 6 gene polymorphism and lymphocytes and monocytes in peripheral blood with disease severity in COVID-19 patients. This study was carried out from March 2021 to January 2022. RT-PCR positive 84 COVID-19 patients and 28 healthy subjects were enrolled. Blood was collected to detect SARS-COV-2 viral RNA (RNAemia) by rRT-PCR, serum IL-6 level by chemiluminescence method, SNPs of IL-6 by SSP-PCR, immunophenotyping of lymphocytes and monocyte by flow cytometry. Serum IL-6 level (pg/ml) was considerably high among critical patients (102.02 +/- 149.7) compared to severe (67.20 +/- 129.5) and moderate patients (47.04 +/- 106.5) and healthy controls (3.5 +/- 1.8). Serum SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid positive cases detected mostly in critical patients (39.28%) and was correlated with extremely high IL-6 level and high mortality (R =.912, P < 0.001). Correlation between IL-6 and monocyte was statistically significant with disease severity (severe group, p < 0.001, and 0.867*** and critical group p < 0.001 and 0.887***). In healthy controls, moderate, severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients, IL-6 174G/C (rs 1800795) GG genotype was 82.14%, 89.20%, 67.85% and 53.57% respectively. CC and GC genotype had strong association with severity of COVID-19 when compared with GG genotype. Significant statistical difference found in genotypes between critical and moderate groups (p < 0.001, OR-10.316, CI-3.22-23.86), where CC genotype was associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. The absolute count of T cell, B cell, NK cell, CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells were significantly decreased in critical group compared to healthy, moderate and severe group (P < 0.001). Exhaustion marker CD94/NKG2A was increased on NK cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T cell among critical and severe group. Absolute count of monocyte was significantly increased in critical group (P < 0.001). Serum IL-6, IL-6 174 G/C gene and SARS-CoV-2 RNAaemia can be used in clinical practice for risk assessment;T cell subsets and monocyte as biomarkers for monitoring COVID-19 severity. Monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6 receptor and NKG2A for therapeutics may prevent disease progression and decrease morbidity and mortality.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes After Monoclonal Antibody Use

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

Mild COVID-19 clinical course among paediatric patients with primary immunodeficiency

Background: The clinical course of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) varies from those who are asymptomatic, experience mild symptoms such as fever, cough, and dyspnea, to more severe outcomes including acute respiratory distress, pneumonia, renal failure, and death. Early reports suggested severe outcomes in patients with primary immunodeficiency (PID), particularly those with type 1 interferon signalling defects. This prompted a rigid approach to social distancing to protect this patient population, particularly children. To date, real-world data describing the course and outcome of COVID-19 in paediatric PID patients remains scarce. Method(s): In this retrospective case series, we describe the clinical course of 36 paediatric patients with underlying primary immunodeficiency (PID) followed by SickKids Hospital (Toronto, Canada) who were symptomatic and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection between October 2020 to November 2022. Result(s): Our cohort consisted of patients with combined immunodeficiency (66.7%), antibody deficiency (22.2%), neutrophil dysfunction (8.3%), and immune dysregulation (2.8%). The median age was 7.5 years (range: 8 months - 17 years), with 21 male and 15 female patients. Three (8.3%) patients were post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and 12 (33%) patients were on immunoglobulin replacement. Nine (25%) patients had underlying lung problems including bronchiectasis (1), interstitial lung disease on home oxygen therapy (1), and underlying asthma (7). Most patients had mild clinical course and were managed at home. The most common symptoms were fever (80%), cough (75%) and other upper respiratory tract symptoms (72%). Nineteen (52.7%) patients experienced other symptoms which included headache, lethargy, or gastrointestinal upset. At the time of the infection, 13 patients (36.1%) had received 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 5 patients (13.9%) had received 1 dose, and 18 (50%) were not vaccinated. None of the patients received antiviral or monoclonal antibody as prophylaxis or treatment. Only 1 patient required hospital admission out of precaution given the close proximity to HSCT. All patients recovered without complications. Conclusion(s): The paediatric patients with PID followed by our centre experienced mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms and recovered fully without complications. These findings support the return of much needed social interactions among children, which were impacted severely during the COVID-19 pandemic.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminary results from phase 2 of CC-92480- MM- 001: Mezigdomide plus dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)

In phase 1 of CC-92480- MM- 001 (NCT03374085), the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of mezigdomide plus dexamethasone (MEZI-d) was selected at 1 mg once daily for 21/28 days. Here we report preliminary results from the MEZI-d dose-expansion cohort in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM. Key eligibility criteria were: RRMM;>=3 prior lines of therapy;disease progression <=60 days of last myeloma therapy;refractoriness to lenalidomide/pomalidomide, a proteasome inhibitor, a glucocorticoid, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. Oral mezigdomide 1 mg was given on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle, plus weekly dexamethasone (40 mg;20 mg if >75 years of age). Primary objective was to evaluate efficacy (overall response rate [ORR]);secondary objectives included safety/tolerability and additional efficacy assessments. Pharmacodynamics was an exploratory objective. As of 16/Sep/2022, 101 patients had received MEZI-d at the RP2D. Median age was 67 (range 42-85) years, median time since initial diagnosis was 7.4 (1.1-37.0) years;39.6% of patients had plasmacytomas and 37/101 patients had high-risk cytogenetics (56/101 not evaluable). Median number of prior regimens was 6 (3-15);prior therapies included stem cell transplantation (77.2%) and anti-BCMA therapy (29.7%). All patients were refractory to last myeloma regimen and triple-class refractory. Median follow-up was 7.5 (0.5-21.9) months, with a median of 4 (1-20) cycles;10.0% of patients continued treatment;progressive disease was the main reason for discontinuation (60.4%). ORR was 40.6% for all patients. Whilst data are not mature yet, median PFS was 4.4 (95% CI 3.0-5.5) months and median duration of response was 7.6 (95% CI 5.4-9.5) months. ORR was 30.0% in patients with plasmacytomas (N = 40) and 50.0% in patients with prior anti-BCMA therapy (N = 30). Ninety-one (91.1%) patients experienced a grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Most frequent hematologic grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (75.2%), anaemia (35.6%), and thrombocytopenia (27.7%);34.7% of patients had grade 3/4 infections, including grade 3/4 pneumonia (15.8%) and COVID-19 (7.0%). Occurrence of other grade 3/4 non-hematologic TEAEs was generally low. Due to TEAEs, 76.2% and 29.7% of patients had mezigdomide dose interruptions and reductions, respectively;90.1% of patients discontinued mezigdomide. Mezigdomide induced substrate degradation and increases in activated and proliferating T cells in patients, including those directly refractory to pomalidomide-based therapies. MEZI-d had a manageable safety profile with encouraging efficacy in patients with triple-class refractory RRMM, including patients with prior BCMA-targeted therapies. These results strongly support the continued development of mezigdomide in MM, and especially in combination.

EBV-related lymphoproliferative disease in Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome patient

Case: Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome (WAS) is a rare X-linked inborn error of immunity caused by mutations in the WAS gene. It is classically characterized by immunodeficiency, eczema, and micro-thrombocytopenia. It has been known since the 1960s that patients with WAS have an increased risk of lymphoproliferative disease though the exact incidence remains unknown in the American population. Limited case reports have discussed EBV-related lymphoproliferative disease in patients with WAS. We present a case of a 9-year-old boy with known WAS complicated by eczematous rash, thrombocytopenia, recurrent ear infections, and monoclonal gammopathy who was found to have submandibular EBV-associated lymphoid hyperplasia with associated lung and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. Family had been offered treatment with hematopoietic stem cell transplant but declined multiple times in the past. Earlier in the year, he presented with possible MIS-C with negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR. He presented to our hospital with mastoiditis and lymphadenopathy. Physical examination showed severe eczema on hands and tender right mastoid. Laboratory evaluation showed thrombocytopenia, elevated IgG of 6290, IgA of 744, IgE of 827, low IgM of 41, and 14% response to pneumococcal titers. He was empirically treated with intravenous antibiotics. ENT performed right postauricular incision and drainage and the culture grew Hemophilus influenza. Throughout his hospital stay, his submandibular lymphadenopathy became more prominent despite treatment. Core needle biopsy of right submandibular lymph node was suggestive of EBV-associated lymphoid hyperplasia. EBV PCR and antibodies were both positive. CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis revealed multifocal pulmonary lymphadenopathy and a diffuse, bilateral nodularity as well as retroperitoneal and mesenteric lymphadenopathy. He was given four doses of weekly Rituximab, which successfully decreased EBV viremia below linear detectability. Immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) was initiated. Bronchoalveolar lavage and lung biopsy were performed and are results are currently pending. Discussion(s): We present a case of a 9-year-old boy with known WAS awaiting transplant who was found to have submandibular EBV-associated lymphoid hyperplasia with associated lung and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. While lymphoproliferative disease is a known complication of WAS, EBV-related lymphoproliferative disease in WAS patients has only been reported as case reports and remains a rare but known complication of patient with WAS.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.

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.

COVID Cholangiopathy Can Occur Despite Mild COVID

Introduction/Objective Post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy is a novel entity first noted in patients recovering from critical COVID-19 infection. Since its initial description in May 2021, all cases reported to date have been in patients with a history of critical COVID-19, defined as requiring ICU admission, the development of respiratory or circulatory failure requiring intubation or ECMO, or vasopressor support. Here we report three cases of post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy arising in patients who recovered from non-severe COVID-19. Methods/Case Report Six cases of COVID-19-related cholangiopathy were identified by retrospective review, three of which involved patients who verifiably did not develop critical COVID-19. Histology slides for each case were reviewed and all showed features of secondary sclerosing cholangitis. Patient 1 is a 41yo female who developed COVID-19 after liver transplant (LT). Despite administration of monoclonal antibodies, she required re-transplantation 6 weeks later. Explant histology showed bile infarcts, severe hepatocytic and canalicular cholestasis, ductular reaction, organizing portal vein thrombi, and necrotic bile ducts accompanied by bile lakes. Patient 2 is a 47yo male with alcoholic cirrhosis who was diagnosed with COVID-19 at the time of LT workup, and underwent LT 90 days later. In addition to alcohol-related cirrhosis, explant histology showed dilated bile ducts with periductal fibrosis, as well as severe ductular reaction with proliferating ductules containing thick, inspissated bile. Patient 3 is a 54yo male with history of LT for PSC who developed mild COVID-19 five years after LT. Allograft function subsequently worsened and biopsy 6 months later showed bile duct damage and loss of ~35% of bile ducts;repeat biopsy 14 months after his COVID diagnosis showed periportal fibrosis with edema, ductular reaction, marked hepatocellular and canalicular cholestasis, and ductopenia with loss of 60% bile ducts. Average time between COVID-19 diagnosis and onset of COVID-related cholangiopathy was 3 months (range: 6 weeks-6 months). These patients were also all immunocompromised with two due to prior LT and one being cirrhotic. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) NA. Conclusion Although previously reported only in patients with severe COVID-19, the cases described represent the first evidence that cholangiopathy, manifested by sclerosing cholangitis, can arise even in patients who were not critically ill, although this may require an immunocompromised state to develop.

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.

LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) improved symptoms in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD-IR) through week (wk) 104 or 2 years of treatment in SELECT-PsA 1 [1].ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) through wk 152 or 3 years from the ongoing long-term open-label extension of SELECT-PsA 1.MethodsPts were randomized to receive UPA 15 mg (UPA15) or UPA 30 mg (UPA30) once daily, ADA 40 mg (ADA) every other wk, or placebo (PBO). At wk 24, PBO pts switched to UPA15 or UPA30. Following approval of UPA15, the protocol was amended so pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest at wk 104). Efficacy was assessed through wk 152, and safety through June 13, 2022.ResultsOf 1704 pts randomized, 911 completed 152 wks of treatment. The proportions of pts achieving.≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50/70), minimal disease activity (MDA), and ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at wk 152 were generally consistent with those at wk 1041. UPA had greater ACR20/50/70 and MDA responses vs ADA, and a greater mean change from baseline (BL) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pt's assessment of pain, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index vs ADA. Change from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score were similar between UPA30 and ADA, and numerically higher with UPA15 (Table 1). The overall UPA safety profile remained unchanged (Figure 1) [1,2]. UPA had numerically higher rates of serious infection (SI), herpes zoster (HZ), anemia, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation, and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) vs ADA. Increases for SI, HZ, anemia, and CPK elevation with UPA were dose dependent. Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy excluding NMSC were low and generally similar across groups. The most common cause of death was COVID-19.ConclusionEfficacy of UPA in nbDMARD-IR pts with PsA was maintained through 3 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified.References[1]McInnes IB, et al. Rheumatol Ther 2022;1–18 [Epub ahead of print].[2]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open 2021;7(3):e001838.Table 1.Efficacy endpoints at wk 152UPA15 (n=429)UPA30a (n=423)ADA (n=429)Proportion of pts (%)NRIAONRIAONRIAOACR20/50/7064.6/52.0/35.9*89.8/71.6/ 48.263.1/54.1*/ 35.787.9/74.4/ 47.861.1/46.6/ 28.786.2/65.2/ 39.8Minimal disease activity37.555.143.5*60.335.950.2PASI75/90/100b50.5/42.5/32.269.2/58.5/ 43.458.1/46.7/3 7.678.6/63.5/ 50.954.0/40.8/ 30.379.6/59.9/ 44.6Resolution of enthesitis by Leeds Enthesitis Indexc50.475.248.973.846.077.0Resolution of dactylitis by Leeds Dactylitis Indexd65.495.266.197.965.497.1Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire- Disability Index-0.51-0.55-0.53*-0.58-0.45-0.49Pt's assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-3.3*-3.5-3.3*-3.6-2.8-3.0Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Indexf-3.09-3.27-3.16-3.54-2.81-2.71Modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score0.210.190.050.040.090.09aFollowing a protocol amendment, all pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest switch at wk 104);data are presented by originally randomized group. bPts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL. cPts with LEI >0 at BL;resolution LEI=0. dPts with LDI >0 at BL;resolution LDI=0. eData shown as MMRM (least squares mean) and AO (mean). fPts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL. n value ranges: UPA15 (99–429), UPA30 (95–423), ADA (89–429). Nominal *p<0.05 UPA vs ADA.ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria;ADA, adalimumab;AO, as observed;BL, baseline;MMRM, mixed effect model repeated measurement;NRI, non-responder imputation;PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index;pt, patient;UPA15/30, upadacitinib 15/30 mg once daily;wk, weekAcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Carl Davies, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsIain McInnes Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Causeway Therapeutics, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Marina Magrey Consultant of: BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Avotres, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Sorono, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB Pharma, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life Sciences, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB;and has received honoraria or other fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB Pharma, Yihan Li Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Yanxi Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Jianzhong Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Ralph Lippe Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Peter Wung Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options.

The Evolution of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Pediatric Patients with Sickle Cell Disease: From Alpha to Omicron

Background: Approximately two years ago, COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and through genomic surveillance, we have seen the emergence of variants of SARS-CoV-2. In the United States, over 78 million cases and >900,000 deaths attributable to COVID-19 have been reported. SCD was identified as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease in adults and pediatric patients. The emergence of novel SARs- CoV-2 variants has led to challenges in diagnosis, treatment, and prediction of long-term sequelae in individuals with SCD and COVID-19. Aim(s): We compare the overall seasonal variation of COVID-19 variants and patterns of healthcare utilization and clinical presentation over time in pediatric patients with SCD and COVID-19 at Children's National Hospital (CNH). Method(s): Our single-center, observational cohort study included 193 pediatric patients with SCD (0-21 years) with PCR-confirmed SARSCoV- 2 infection between March 31, 2020, and January 31, 2022. Per the SECURE SCD Registry definitions, clinical severity was classified as asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe. Result(s): A total of 193 unique patients with SCD and positive SARS-CoV-2 PCRs between March 2020-January 2022 were included in our registry. Most patients were female (51.8%), and the mean age was 11.2 years (SD 6.5 years). Most of the cohort resides in Maryland (N=135), and HbSS was the dominant genotype (69.4%). During the alpha dominant variant of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020- June 2021) there were 70 cases, followed by 40 cases during the Delta variant (July 2021- December 19, 2021), and 83 cases during the Omicron variant dominance (from December 20, 2021-January 31,2022). There were 149 patients (77%) that presented to the emergency department (ED) or were hospitalized. There were a total of 80 hospitalizations (41.5%), and a relative comparison showed that the percentage of hospitalizations was highest during the delta wave (47.5%) and lowest during the omicron wave (36.1%) (p= 0.407). ED-only utilization was highest in the era of omicron (43.4%, N=36), followed by delta (32.5%, N=13), and then alpha (30%, N=21)(p=0.197). The most common SCD-related complication was vaso-occlusive (VOC) pain (33%, N=64) which accounted for half of all hospital admissions (51%, N=41 of 80). Acute chest syndrome (ACS) was reported in 40% (N=32) of admitted patients and was highest in the alpha era (54.8%, N=17). The use of blood transfusion therapy was highest in the alpha (N=17) and delta (N=14) variants, while Remdesivir use was highest in omicron (N=15). A total of 6 patients received monoclonal antibodies (Delta, N=4;omicron, N=2). Throughout all the variants, there was a significant difference in COVID-19 clinical severity (p>0.005). Of the patients classified as asymptomatic (13%, N=25), seventy-two percent (n=18) were diagnosed during the alpha variant. Mild severity was the most prevalent (69%, N=134), with the omicron variant having the highest cases (51.5%, N=69). Severe cases were observed in all variants (6.7%, N=13) but were most prevalent during the alpha variant (46.2%, N=6). Summary - Conclusion(s): Interestingly, while the relative percentage of hospitalizations was lowest during the omicron wave, it saw the highest percentages of ER utilization. Overall, COVID-19 remains mild in pediatric patients with SCD, and notably, there was higher health care utilization in the omicron era.

Rates of hospital admission and mortality in patients with MGUS and COVID-19 infection

It was established early in the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV- 2) pandemic that patients with cancer, in particular haematological malignancy, have worse outcomes than non-cancer patients. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a premalignant condition, which may be linked with immune dysregulation, raising the possibility that patients with MGUS could also have worse outcomes from COVID-19 infection. Our aim was to identify all local patients with MGUS who had contracted COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. 120 cases of COVID-19 infection in 114 MGUS patients were identified. Pillar 1 (patients with clinical needs and healthcare workers, n = 35) and pillar 2 (wider population, n = 85) test results were compared to our patient database to identify cases. Patients were subdivided based on the time period when they acquired COVID-19: wave 1 (February 2020-June 2020, n = 2), wave 2 (July 2020-May 2021, n = 31) and wave 3 (June 2021-current [data to end April 2022], n = 87). No subgroup analysis was carried out for the wave 1 data due to small numbers. Our outcomes were hospital admission and 4-week mortality. We compared our patient outcomes to regional, age-matched, population data for the same time periods. For rates of hospital admission, we looked at patients aged 65+ years. When looking at all MGUS patients from waves 2 and 3, the rate of hospital admission was not significantly different to the regional population (30.1% vs. 24.1%, p = 0.11). In wave 3, the hospital admission rate fell in both groups but was significantly higher in the MGUS patients compared to the regional population (26.9% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.02). For patient mortality, we looked at patients aged 50+ years. The overall 4 -week mortality rate for MGUS patients was higher than the age-matched regional population (5.4% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.02). A higher mortality rate was seen in waves 2 and 3 of the pandemic, with wave 3 also showing a statistically significant difference (3.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.02). Comparing MGUS patient outcomes from wave 2 to wave 3, there was a modest reduction in hospital admission over this time period (38.1% to 26.9%), with a more notable reduction in COVID-related mortality (9.7% to 3.7%). In conclusion, patients with MGUS and COVID-19 seem to have higher rates of mortality, and possibly also hospital admission, compared to the age-matched regional population.

COVID-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in patients with haematological malignancy: A single-centre experience

Background: COVID-19 pandemic still pose a substantial threat worldwide despite increasing vaccine availability. Patients with haematological malignancies have been shown to have increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and are more susceptible to develop severe illness from SARS-CoV- 2 infection. The immune response to vaccines is impaired in patients with haematological malignancy due to underlying disease or antineoplastic therapies. The monoclonal-antibody combination, Evusheld is composed of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, two neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV- 2. It has been shown to be safe and have efficacy for the prevention of COVID-19. Our aim of study is to describe the incidence and outcome of breakthrough COVID-19 infection among patients who received Evusheld in our centre and analyse the factors that possibly increase the risk of breakthrough infection. Material(s) and Method(s): A retrospective review of all adult patients with haematological malignancy who received tixagevimab/ cilgavimab 150/150 mg injection in Hospital Pulau Pinang from 1 July 2022 to 31 August 2022 with a follow-up period to 30 November 2022 was conducted. Demographic data, clinical characteristics and outcome will be retrieved from patient's medical records. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (version 21.0). Result(s): A total of 96 patients (50 males and 46 females) received tixagevimab/cilgavimab injection during the study period with a median age of 61 years (range 19-82). Majority of them were diagnosed with multiple myeloma (42.7%), followed by lymphoma (33.3%) and leukaemia (24%). One third of them had history of therapy with monoclonal antibody and 20% had haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. No major adverse effects of tixagevimab/cilgavimab injection were noted among the study population. Of the 12 patients (12.5%) who had COVID-19 infection, all of them had mild infection;three were asymptomatic and six patients received Paxlovid antiviral therapy. The median time from tixagevimab/cilgavimab to the onset of COVID-19 infection was 35 days (range 5-97 days). The mean age of patients with breakthrough COVID-19 infection were older compared to those without breakthrough infection but was not statistically significant. The incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection was not affected by type of haematological malignancy, history of monoclonal antibody therapy or COVID-19 vaccination. Discussion and Conclusion(s): Our findings showed that tixagevimab/cilgavimab was safe and effective in preventing COVID-19- related morbidity and mortality among patients with haematological malignancy during the study period. However, the limitation is the lack of access to whole genome sequencing for detection of resistant variants for breakthrough infections.