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.

THE PREVALENCE AND INCIDENCE OF PSORIASIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IN ENGLAND FROM 2009-2019: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY USING PRIMARY CARE DATA

BackgroundPsoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can greatly impact quality of life and result in substantial personal and societal costs. Complete and up to date data on the prevalence and incidence of these conditions and whether these change over time and vary by age is important for healthcare service planning so that specialist care and funding can be appropriately allocated.ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and incidence of PsO and PsA in males and females from 2009-2019 across all age groups in England.MethodsWe used Clinical Practice Research Datalink AURUM, a primary care electronic health record database, including 20% of the English population. The codes used to identify patients with PsO and PsA were selected by rheumatologists and dermatologists and cross-checked with published code lists from other studies to ensure inclusion of all relevant codes. All included patients must have data for at least 1 year before their diagnosis. The annual incidence and point prevalence were calculated from 2009-2019 and stratified by age/sex. The study period ended in 2019 to avoid COVID-19 pandemic affecting results.ResultsThe prevalence of PsO and PsA in males and females increased annually, peaking in 2019 (PsO males 2.41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.40, 2.42];PsO females 2.60% [95% CI 2.59-2.61];PsA males 0.20% [95% CI 0.20-0.20];PsA females 0.21% [95% CI 0.21- 0.22]), as illustrated in Table 1. In 2019, the prevalence of PsO and PsA was highest in the over 65 years age group;PsO 4.25% [95% CI 4.22-4.28] and PsA 0.38% [95% CI 0.37-0.38]. The annual incidence (per 100,000 person years) of PsO has gradually decreased in males (from 168 (164-171) in 2009 to 148 (145-151) in 2019) but in females it has been stable with a slight annual decrease (from 180 (177-184) in 2009 to 173 (170-176) in 2019). The annual incidence for PsA has increased in both males and females (13 (12-14) in 2009 and 15 (14-16) in 2019 for males and 12 (11-13) in 2009 and 18 (17-19) in 2019 for females).ConclusionThe increasing prevalence of PsO and PsA highlights the importance of organising healthcare services to meet this need, particularly in the elderly population.ReferencesNIL.Table 1.Prevalence of PsO and PsA from 2009-2019 in EnglandYear20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Population (n)1073383110910802110318501118036711343299112249341137842211657996119336261223432512420998PsO (n)216841229106239819250667259988268032276804286499295712304568311104PsO prevalence (%, 95%CI)-Male1.98 (1.96-1.99)2.06 (2.05- 2.07)2.13 (2.12-2.14)2.19 (2.18-2.20)2.24 (2.23- 2.25)2.33 (2.32- 2.34)2.37 (2.36- 2.38)2.39 (2.38- 2.40)2.40 (2.39- 2.41)2.40 (2.39- 2.42)2.41 (2.40- 2.42)-Female2.07 (2.05- 2.08)2.14 (2.13- 2.16)2.22 (2.21- 2.23)2.29 (2.28- 2.31)2.35 (2.33- 2.36)2.45 (2.43- 2.46)2.50 (2.49- 2.51)2.53 (2.52- 2.54)2.56 (2.54- 2.57)2.58 (2.56- 2.59)2.60 (2.59- 2.61)PsO incidence (100,000 person years)-Male168 (164-171)158 (155- 162)161 (158-165)153 (150-157)161 (157- 164)156 (153- 159)155 (152- 159)154 (151- 157)153 (150-156)150 (147-153)148 (145-151)-Female180 (177-184)176 (172-179)181 (177-184)171 (167-174)175 (171-178)176 (172-180)179 (176-183)178 (174-181)177 (174-181)174 (170-177)173 (170-176)PsA (n)1444515443164681752218545196182072021994232572451425683PsA prevalence (%, 95%CI)-Male0.14 (0.14- 0.14)0.15 (0.14- 0.15)0.15 (0.15- 0.16)0.16 (0.16- 0.16)0.17 (0.16- 0.17)0.18 (0.17- 0.18)0.18 (0.18- 0.19)0.19 (0.18- 0.19)0.19 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.20- 0.20)-Female0.13 (0.13- 0.13)0.14 (0.13- 0.14)0.15 (0.14- 0.15)0.15 (0.15- 0.16)0.16 (0.16- 0.16)0.17 (0.17- 0.18)0.18 (0.18- 0.18)0.19 (0.19- 0.19)0.20 (0.19- 0.20)0.20 (0.20- 0.21)0.21 (0.21- 0.22)PsA incidence (100,000 person years)-Male13 (12- 14)12 (11- 13)13 (12- 14)12 (11- 13)13 (12-14)14 (13- 15)14 (13- 15)14 (13-15)1514-16)14(13- 15)15 (14-16)-Female12 (11- 13)13 (12- 14)13 (12- 14)14 (13-15)14 (13-15)15 (14-16)17 (16- 18)16 (15- 17)17 (16- 18)18 (17-19)18 (17-19)Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsArani Vivekanantham: None declared, Edward Burn: None dec ared, Marta Pineda-Moncusí: None declared, Sara Khalid Grant/research support from: SK has received research grant funding from the UKRI and Alan Turing Institute outside this work. SK's research group has received grant support from Amgen and UCB Biopharma., Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Grant/research support from: DPA's department has received grant/s from Amgen, Chiesi-Taylor, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Biopharma. His research group has received consultancy fees from Astra Zeneca and UCB Biopharma. Amgen, Astellas, Janssen, Synapse Management Partners and UCB Biopharma have funded or supported training programmes organised by DPA's department., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: LC has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: LC has worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Grant/research support from: LC has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer.

COMPARATIVE DISEASE BURDEN IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS OR ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: DATA FROM COVAD PATIENT-REPORTED E-SURVEY

BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis, including either Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), are some of the most diagnosed autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) in rheumatologists' routine clinical practice [1]. Understanding patients' health and functional status is crucial to provide personalized management strategies to optimize disease control and enhance the quality of life.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare disease burden in patients with RA, PsA or AS by assessing Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Health, Global Mental Health, Physical Function and Fatigue 4a together with VAS Pain.MethodsData were obtained in the international COVID vaccination in autoimmune rheumatic diseases study second e-survey (COVAD study). Demographics, AIRD diagnosis, disease activity, PROMIS Global Physical health, PROMIS Global Mental Health, PROMIS Physical Function SF10 and PROMIS Fatigue 4a score were extracted from the COVAD study database. For this study, we only included patients with self-reported RA or spondyloarthritis (either PsA or AS) undergoing active treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs) and/or biologic DMARDs, who answered all the survey questions. Active disease was defined as the patient's perception of their disease as active in the four weeks before their first COVID-19 vaccine shot. Analysis of Variance with Bartlett's and Tukey's test was used to compare continuous variables between groups.ResultsFrom January to June 2022, n.1907 patients with RA, female 87.62% (1671/1907), with mean age (±SD) 50.95 ±13.67, n.311 patients with PsA, female 67.20% (209/311), with a mean age of 50.42 ±12.70, and n.336 patients with AS, male 51.31% (209/311), with a mean age of 43.13 ±12.75 years, responded to the COVAD e-survey.In those with active disease, neither physical health, global mental health, physical function, fatigue, nor pain were different among groups (Table 1, Figure 1). Patients with inactive AS had higher mean global physical health scores than RA patients (13.13 ±2.93 VS RA 12.48 ±2.90, p=0.01, Table 1). Those with inactive RA or PsA showed more severe fatigue (PsA 10.58 ±2.22, RA 10.45 ±4.08 VS 9.4 ±4.13, p =0.01 for both). Patients with inactive RA also reported poorer physical function and more residual pain than those with AS (37.79 ±8.86 VS 41.13 ±7.79, p<0.001;3.87 ±2.45 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01, respectively). Similarly, residual pain was perceived as higher in patients with inactive PsA than those with AS (4.04 ±2.50 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01)ConclusionDisease burden is roughly comparable in patients with active RA, PsA or AS. Patients with inactive RA and PsA suffer higher disease burden than those with inactive AS.Reference[1]Mease PJ, Liu M, Rebello S, Kang H, Yi E, Park Y, Greenberg JD. Comparative Disease Burden in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, or Axial Spondyloarthritis: Data from Two Corrona Registries. Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Dec;6(4):529-542.Table 1.Patient-Reported Outcome Measures between groups.Inactive diseaseAS (n.185)PsA (n.179)RA (n.1167)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health13.13*2.9512.433.2712.482.90p=0.01, VS RAPROMIS Global Mental Health13.313.3612.973.3312.843.17PROMIS Fatigue 4a9.44.1310.58*4.2210.45*4.08p=0.01, bothPROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score41.137.3939.279.0137.79*8.86p<0.001, VS ASVAS Pain3.342.394.04*2.503.87*2.45p=0.01, bothActive DiseaseAS (n.35)PsA (n.38)RA (n.189)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health11.053.1910.102.7611.243.41PROMIS Global Mental Health11.313.2610.843.6311.893.30PROMIS Fatigue 4a12.944.8712.844.4211.754.68PROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score35.829.6233.528.7634.909.80VAS Pain4.682.775.02.544.682.61Figure 1.Violin plots showing kernel densities, quartiles and median for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for patients with RA, PsA and AS, stratified by disease activity status.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVincenzo Venerito: None declared, Marc Fornaro: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Arvind Nune: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Chris Wincup: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Carlo Vinicio Caballero: None declared, COVAD Study: None declared, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Speakers bureau: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Latika Gupta: None declared.

COVID-19–RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS IN THE PHASE 3 POETYK TRIALS OF THE ALLOSTERIC TYROSINE KINASE 2 INHIBITOR, DEUCRAVACITINIB, IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE PLAQUE PSORIASIS

BackgroundDeucravacitinib is a first-in-class, oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor approved in multiple countries for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis. Deucravacitinib suppresses signaling of cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of immune-mediated diseases including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Deucravacitinib was efficacious compared with placebo in phase 2 trials in psoriatic arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.[1,2] In two phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (POETYK PSO-1 [NCT03624127], PSO-2 [NCT03611751]), deucravacitinib showed superior efficacy versus placebo and apremilast.[3,4] Upon completion of either psoriasis trial, patients could enroll in the POETYK long-term extension (LTE) trial (NCT04036435).ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence rate and severity of adverse events (AEs) due to COVID-19 with deucravacitinib treatment in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 trials and open-label POETYK LTE trial.MethodsIn PSO-1 (N=666) and PSO-2 (N=1020), adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized 2:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily, placebo, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. At Week 16, placebo patients in both trials switched to deucravacitinib. Based on their Week 24 PASI response, apremilast patients continued with apremilast or switched to placebo or deucravacitinib. In PSO-1, patients randomized to deucravacitinib continued treatment for 52 weeks;in PSO-2, some patients randomized to deucravacitinib had a randomized treatment withdrawal period. At Week 52, patients could enroll in the open-label LTE and receive deucravacitinib. Incidence rates and severity of COVID-19–related AEs in the POETYK trials (n=1364;2076.7 person-years [PY] of follow-up) were compared with the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine trial placebo group (n=19,544;3096.1 PY of follow-up). This reference population was selected due to the study design and timing of the trial, which occurred when variants were in circulation.ResultsAs of October 1, 2021, 1519 patients received ≥1 dose of deucravacitinib over a 2-year follow-up period;1364 patients met criteria for this analysis, with deucravacitinib exposure since the pandemic onset (estimated to be January 1, 2020). In total, 153 deucravacitinib patients reported a COVID-19–related AE, for an overall exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of 7.4/100 PY (95% CI, 6.2–8.6). Serious COVID-19–related AEs occurred in 43 patients (EAIR, 2.1/100 PY;95% CI, 1.5–2.8), including 30 with COVID-19 and 13 with COVID-19 pneumonia;this rate was within the margins of those for moderate to severe COVID-19 reported in the reference population (EAIR, 16.5/100 PY;95% CI, 15.0–17.9). Deaths due to COVID-19 occurred in 6 patients (EAIR, 0.3/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.6), with the COVID-19–related mortality rate being consistent with the reference population (EAIR, 0.23/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.5). Treatment was discontinued due to COVID-19 or COVID-19 pneumonia in 7 patients, including the 6 patients who died due to COVID-19.ConclusionCOVID-19 was among the most frequently reported AEs during the 2-year period of the pooled PSO-1, PSO-2, and LTE trials due to the temporal overlap of the pandemic with the trials. However, COVID-19 infection and death rates did not differ from the reference population;most infections were not serious and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. Based on this analysis, deucravacitinib did not appear to increase the risk of COVID-19 nor its progression to severe outcomes.References[1]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:815-822.[2]Morand E, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;Nov 11 (Epub ahead of print).[3]Armstrong A, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02256-3.[4]Strober B, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02643-3.AcknowledgementsThese clinical trials were sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of InterestsDiamant Thaçi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boeh inger Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Kenneth B Gordon Consultant of: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Melinda Gooderham Speakers bureau: Glenmark, Actelion, AbbVie, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Consultant of: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Andrew Alexis Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, L'Oreal, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Sol-Gel, UCB, Valeant, VisualDx, and Vyne, Grant/research support from: Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Menlo, Novartis, and Valeant (Bausch Health), Varsha Lalchandani Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Julie Scotto Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lauren Hippeli Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Matthew J Colombo Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Tamara Lezhava Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Almirall, AltruBio, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Arena, Aristea, Arrive Technologies, Avotres, BiomX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brickell Biotech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Castle Biosciences, CorEvitas' (Corrona) Psoriasis Registry, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Evelo Biosciences, Evommune, Forte Biosciences, Helsinn Therapeutics, Hexima, Leo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera, Pfizer, Seanergy, and Verrica, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Avotres, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, and UCB.

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.

TOFACITINIB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS -WELL TOLERATED DRUG - REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE

BackgroundTofacitinib a small molecule JAK- inhibitors has been approved for use in psoriatic arthritis (PSA) since 2017 while it has shown to be effective in the clinical trials real life data is sparse.With increase in use there has been growing concern about the safety profiles and adverse events which makes it all the more important to have real life data.ObjectivesTo review patient records who were treated with tofacitinib for psoriatic arthritis and to assess the tolerance and continuation rate and also assess the occurrence of adverse events like infections, coronary artery disease.MethodsAll PSA patients who were prescribed tofacitinib from JAN-2021 to JUNE 2022 with minimum of 6 months followup were included for analysis. Demographics, weight recordings, lab parameters and occurence of adverse events were noted.ResultsThere were a total of 71 patients who were prescribed tofacitinib out of which 46 are continuing and 25 have stopped during this period. The mean age was 47.25 (10.9)yrs the mean disease duration was 4.182 (4.474)yrs The reason for stopping tofacitinib was better(52%) followed inefficacy(24%), and miscellaneous(24%)reasons..When analysing before and after tofacitninb one thing whihc was striking is the significant weight gain among patients with minimum of 3.52(3.06) kg weight gain and this weight gain was consistent even in stopped patients.in comparing the lab parameters before and after tofacitininb there was a significant redcution in CRP,ESR,PLATELET COUNT Table 1 and a minimal but insginificant rise in liver enzymes within the physiological range.When compared to before and after tofacitinib there was increased occurence of fatigue(18.3%), minor infections(11.2%), Gastrointerstinal adverse events (11.2%), alopecia (11.2%), Itching(10.4%), headache(9.8%), UTI(5.6%), cough (4.2%), transaminitis(2.8%), covid(1.7%), zoster(1.4%) and CAD(1.4%).ConclusionTofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis is well tolerated with significant reduction in the inflammatory markers and weight gain but serious adverse events in lesser percentage eventhough it leads to significant weight gain.Table 1.PARAMTERSBeforeAfterP valueWeight70.15 (14.19)72.31 (14.24)0.000249ESR45.29 (28.26)35.23 (28.33)0.037CRP21.56 (16.38)10.72 (11.98)<.0001PLATELET COUNT332.92 (88.77)307.09 (88.18)0.0046SGOT30.33 (9.99)35.69 (19.92)0.125SGPT22.57 (12.96)27.98 (20.17)0.116Reference[1]Ly K, Beck KM, Smith MP, Orbai A-M, Liao W. Tofacitinib in the management of active psoriatic arthritis: patient selection and perspectives. Psoriasis (Auckl) [Internet]. 2019;9:97–107. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2147/PTT.S161453Acknowledgements: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.

REFERRAL BEHAVIOUR OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS TO RHEUMATOLOGY CLINIC IN MALAYSIA

BackgroundThe workload at rheumatology clinics have been growing relentlessly and an audit on new.referrals helps to identify referral behaviour of primary care doctors and improvement can be done by providing further training.ObjectivesTo audit on new referral cases to rheumatology clinic from 2020-2022 and to identify new cases with misdiagnosis for future training purpose.MethodsThis was a retrospective study. The medical records of all new referral to rheumatology clinic Hospital Sultan Ismail and Hospital Pakar Sultanah Fatimah from 1st January 2020 to 31th November 2022 were reviewed. The referral diagnosis and final diagnosis were identified and analysed.ResultsThere were total of 927 new cases referral throughout the 35 months during Covid-19pandemic. Majority of them were diagnosed to have rheumatoid arthritis (217/927)followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (190/927), psoriatic arthritis (147/927),gout (62/927), osteoarthritis (58/927), systemic sclerosis (25/927), ankylosing spondylitis (25/927), soft tissue rheumatism (24/927), Sjogren syndrome (24/927),mixed connective tissue disease (14/927), vasculitis (11/927), fibromyalgia (10/927),polymyositis (7/927) and miscellaneous (39/927).45 out of the new cases were diagnosed as unlikely rheumatic diseases. There were 29pending cases awaiting final diagnosis.212 of the referrals were identified as misdiagnosis with the highest as nodal osteoarthritis.(55/212) followed by unlikely rheumatic disease (43/212), soft tissue rheumatism (24/212),psoriatic arthritis (20/212), Sjogren syndrome (14/212), gout (8/212), rheumatoid arthritis (7/212), fibromyalgia (6/212), systemic lupus erythematosus (5/212), ankylosing spondylitis (4/212), mixed connective tissue disease (3/212), systemic sclerosis (2/212), polymyositis (2/212) and others (19/212): diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis, hypermobility syndrome, RS3PE syndrome, idiopathic uveitis, graft versus host disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, antiphospholipid syndrome, hypothyroidism, post streptococcal arthritis, prolapsed intervertebral disc, cerebrovascular disease, traumatic sternoclavicular joint subluxation, ledderhose disease, paraspinal muscle spasm and viral myalgia).ConclusionNodal osteoarthritis and soft tissue rheumatism can be great mimicker for inflammatory.arthritis and if wrongly diagnosed will lead to unnecessary anxiety or wrong treatment. More training is needed to improve clinical skills amongst primary care doctors.ReferencesNA.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

TELEDIDACTIC MUSCULOSKELETAL ULTRASOUND COURSE AND COMPARISON WITH CONVENTIONAL ON-CAMPUS TRAINING – INTERIM ANALYSIS OF THE TELMUS STUDY

BackgroundMusculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) is increasingly gaining importance as an imaging tool in rheumatology. Most training programs currently address resident doctors. However, several studies have demonstrated that teaching MSUS to medical students improves their palpation skills and understanding of musculoskeletal anatomy. With the development of portable ultrasound devices, MSUS education is lately getting more flexible and location-independent. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic raised awareness of telemedicine training as a powerful tool to ensure the teaching of practical skills under pandemic conditions.ObjectivesThe purpose of our study is to establish a telemedical MSUS course for medical students and to compare its effectiveness with a conventional on-campus course as a world-wide pilot study. In doing so, we aim to expand student educational opportunities in MSUS using innovative teaching options while ensuring quality maintenance of teaching.MethodsThirty medical students were randomized to either a virtual group being delivered only telemedicine instructions, or an on-campus cohort receiving the course in a conventional format. Each student was provided with a handheld ultrasound device. Prior to the start of the course, the students' skills were assessed with an Objective Clinical Structured Examination (OSCE). During the course, a DEGUM-III-certified course instructor taught the basic physics of ultrasound and standard sections of the MUDE ultrasound protocol[1]. In order to quantify the students' learning progress, a second OSCE was carried out after completion of the course. [1].ResultsAt the time of this analysis, data collection within the on-campus course has already been completed, whereas the virtual course is still ongoing. While the average score of the students in the PRE-course OSCE was 21,02% (SD ±6,78), the students were able to achieve an average of 90% (SD ±6,81) in the POST-course OSCE after the intervention.ConclusionWith the results obtained so far, it can be shown that an innovative course concept with hand-held ultrasound devices, originally developed for dermatologists to improve the detection of psoriatic arthritis, can be used very well in student teaching without major modifications and leads to a significant increase in MSUS skills among medical students. The TELMUS study thereby offers a successful example of extending an existing course concept to student teaching and thus promoting the next generation of rheumatologists.Reference[1]Grobelski J, Recker F, Wilsmann- Theis D, et al. Etablierung und Validierung eines didaktischen muskuloskelettalen Ultraschallkurses für Dermatologen unter Verwendung eines innovativen Hand-Ultraschallsystems – die MUDE-Studie (Muskuloskelettaler Ultraschall für Dermatologen). J Deutsche Derma Gesell 2021;19:1753–60. doi:10.1111/ddg.14614_gFigure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

CLINICAL COURSE IN COVID 19 DISEASE IN IMMUNOSUPRESSED PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES

BackgroundPatients with pre-existing rheumatic diseases may be exacerbated during SARS-CoV-2 infection, or may develop new autoimmune features. Furthermore, immunosuppressive agents used to treat autoimmunity-inflammation as well as comorbidities can also affect the disease outcome.ObjectivesTo evaluate the outcome of rheumatic diseases after Covid 19 infection in patients diagnosed with rheumatic diseases, under various immunosuppressive treatment, as well as the effects of vaccines against Covid or antiviral treatment in this sensitive population group.MethodsDuring the pandemic, 1493 patients with autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease who were continuously followed up in two tertiaries hospitals in northern and northwestern Greece were included in the current study. The patients were compared with 769 controls after adjustment for age, sex, weight, vaccination status and comorbidities. Of the 1493 patients, 648 had rheumatoid arthritis, 282 psoriatic arthritis, 173 ankylosing spondylitis, 122 systemic lupus erythematosus, 98 Sjogren's syndrome, 43 polymyalgia rheumatica, 34 mixed connective tissue disease or overlapping syndromes, 31 vasculitis, 27 systemic sclerosis, 18 myositis, 10 Behcet syndrome, 5 primary antiphospholipid syndrome and 2 had Familial Mediterranean Fever. The vast majority of patients and controls were fully vaccinated (82%) and 397 patients received antiviral treatment, 94% of them were fully vaccinated.ResultsCovid 19 disease in vaccinated patients with rheumatic diseases was shown to perform the same or about the same as those in the control group after adjustment for risk factors for severe disease. 19 of our patients required admission in the intensive care unit (62% full vaccinated) while a total of 12 died (66% non vaccinated). Major risk factors for severe disease were previous respiratory failure, chronic renal impairment, obesity, and failure to receive antiviral therapy. It was also shown that infection with Covid led to an exacerbation or induction of autoimmune disorders in 25 of the participants.ConclusionIn this large cohort, Covid 19 disease was shown to affect patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases the same or approximately the same way as the general population if they are fully vaccinated and if they start timely antiviral treatment where indicated. Further research and monitoring of the results after the multiple mutations of the virus is advisable.ReferencesNone.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

EVALUATION OF TELENURSING FOLLOW-UP IN A COHORT OF STABLE/LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIDES: A FEASIBILITY STUDY

BackgroundPeriodic follow-up (FU) is necessary for patients with Rheumatic Diseases (RDs). In the case of a stable clinical condition or low disease activity, FU can be carried out also by rheumatology nurses (RNs). Recent studies focusing on FUs led by RNs either in Rheumatology Clinics and with Telenursing (TN), showed promising results in terms of outcomes, cost reduction and users' satisfaction.ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a Telenursing FU in a Rheumatology Centre in Florence, Italy.MethodsIn this pilot study, patients with stable inflammatory arthritis or low disease activity were contacted, after their first visit, through TN (T0) and then assessed during the following in-person visit (V12) by RNs for treatment adherence, for pain, for mental and physical health, for workability, for perception of disease activity and satisfaction concerning the TN service.ResultsOut of 27 interviewed patients, 59.3% (n=16/27) was affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), 18.5% (n=5/27) by Spondyloarthritis (AS), 14.8% (n=4/27) by Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and 7.4% (n=2/27) by Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. The mean age was 57.5±13.1 (M± DS) years and the treatment adherence level was optimal. 11.1% (n=3/27) of patients was referred for medical consultation because of the urgent clinical situation assessed by the RNs according to the clinical multidisciplinary checklist. After specialist consultation, 1 patient was revalued in presence for a transient ischemic attack;1 patient was contacted by the rheumatologist following independent discontinuation of methotrexate therapy;1 patient was redirected to urgent dermatology consultation because of a suspected cutaneous drug reaction.During the TN period (12 months), 33.3% (n=9/27) of the patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection and 11.1% (n=3/27) contracted urinary or upper respiratory tract infections.RA patients showed a mean Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease-RAID score of 2.4 at T0 and 2.5 at V12 (Range 0-10);AS patients showed a mean Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society-ASAS score of 0.3 in both periods and PsA showed a mean Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease-PSAID score of 0.7 and 0.8 at T0 and V12, respectively. Among RA, AS and PsA patients, as a pain score of 3 was recorded in both periods.In order to attend the in-person FU visit, 68.4% (n=13/19) of the patients took work leave. 37% (n=10/27) of them waited 40.9±18.6 minutes at V12 control. The average distance between the Rheumatology Centre and patients' home was 29.3±25.6 km. 15.4% (n=5/13) of the respondents did not own a car and 23.1% (n=3/13) was accompanied to visit by their caregiver.All the included patients expressed high satisfaction for the TN service, corresponding to 5 point Likert scale.ConclusionThe data show that TN FU is a valuable model for maintaining an adequate level of therapeutic adherence, reducing the travel time and working day loss, intercepting remotely clinical issues, as well as registering a high level of user acceptance and satisfaction. Further studies on larger samples are needed to confirm our findings.References[1] Bech B et al (2020) 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases;79:61-68. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215458.[2] Alcazar B, Ambrosio L. (2019) Tele-nursing in patients with chronic illness: a systematic review. An Sist Sanit Navar;42(2):187-197. doi: 10.23938/ASSN.0645.[3] Larsson I et al. (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a nurse-led rheumatology clinic for monitoring biological therapy. Journal of Advanced Nursing;70(1), 164–175., 2013 doi:10.1111/jan.12183Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone 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.

COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS IN THE VINSCHGAU VALLEY IN SOUTH TYROL

BackgroundFor patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, the Covid-19 pandemic carried some implications in addition to those faced by the general population. In particular, the question whether these patients are at increased risk of contracting Covid-19 or have an unfavourable disease course has been and is a matter of concern.In autumn 2020, the population of the Vinschgau valley in South Tyrol, northern Italy was still largely spared from infection with SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, incidence of the disease in the upcoming winter was anticipated to be high.ObjectivesThis prospective observational study aimed at characterizing Covid-19 infections in a population of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) residing in the Vinschgau valley. The study was conceived as companion project to an analogously designed prospective cohort study in the general population of the Vinschgau valley, the CHRIS Covid-19 study.MethodsBetween september and december 2020, IA patients (i.e. previously diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA] or peripheral spondyloarthritis [SpA]) residing in the Vinschgau valley (n=394 based on national healthcare system database) were contacted. Those who consented to participate in the study underwent a clinical baseline visit including TJC, SJC, VAS and assessment of RAID, PsAID9 or BASDAI (range 0-10, respectively). In addition, a Covid-19 screening questionnaire was administered. Then, active and/or past infection with SARS-CoV-2 were determined by nasopharyneal swab (PCR) and serum antibody test. In positively tested subjects, Covid-19 disease severity was graded according to WHO criteria (range 0-8, with 0 = no evidence of infection and 8 = death). Patients were followed-up with regular telephone interviews including Covid-19 screening questionnaire and RAID/PsAID/BASDAI for up to 12 months.Results111 patients (72 RA, 29 PsA, 10 SpA) were enrolled (see Table 1 for demographics and comorbidities).A total number of 19 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in 17 patients (10 RA, 7 PsA) were observed. Mean ± standard deviation 7-day incidence (incident cases/study population) was 0.003 ± 0.007.Fatigue, fever, anosmia and sore throat (present in 57.9%, 47.4%, 42.1% and 36.8% of infections, respectively) were the most frequent symptoms. Median (min-max) disease severity was 2 [1-4]. Two infections led to hospitalization, in one case oxygen supply was necessary. Four infections were asymptomatic (Figure 1).One patient died during follow-up due to pre-existing non-small cell lung cancer.Median absolute difference between post- and pre-infection disease activity was 0.4 and -0.8 for RAID and PsAID, respectively (both markedly below the minimal clinically important difference of 3 and 3.6 points, respectively).ConclusionIncidence of Covid-19 in the analysed cohort of patients with IA was low. Symptoms and comorbidities of SARS-CoV-2-positive IA patients reflected those known from the general population. Covid-19 seemed to have no relevant impact on IA disease activity. Comparison of these preliminary data with those of the general population is planned.Figure 1.Spectrum of clinical symptoms reported by study patients during infection with SARS-CoV-2[Figure omitted. See PDF]Table 1.Demographic data and selected comorbidities of study patients. Age and body mass index (BMI) are given in means ± standard deviation, female sex and comorbidities are given in n (% of column totals).TotalSARS-CoV-2 positiveHospitalized111172Age at inclusion (years)59.7 ± 9.462.5 ± 10.076.3 ± 9.0BMI at inclusion (kg/m2)27.9 ± 17.126.1 ± 3.330.5 ± 1.6Female sex76 (68.5)10 (58.8)1 (50)Active smokers22 (19.8)1 (5.9)0 (0)Arterial hypertension44 (39.6)8 (47.1)2 (50)Diabetes mellitus4 (3.6)1 (5.9)1 (50)Hyperlipidemia27 (24.3)2 (11.8)1 (50)Cardiac arrhythmias12 (10.8)2 (11.8)1 (50)History of cancer5 (4.5)1 (5.9)0 (0)Chronic bronchitis4 (3.6)1 (5.9)0 (0)Asthma3 (2.7%)0 (0)0 (0)Hospitalized in previous 12 months21 (18.9)3 (17.6)0 (0)Surgery with general anaesthesia in previous 12 months11 (9.9)2 (11.8)0 (0)Ack owledgementsThe authors thank Elena Cannavò and the CHRIS study team, whose support was of invaluable importance for the conduction of the study.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

COVID-19 WAS NOT TRIGGER FOR RHEUMATIC DISEASE ACTIVITY AFTER 6 MONTHS FOLLOW-UP: RESULTS FROM REUMACOV BRASIL REGISTER

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought uncertainties to rheumatology practice, mainly related to the possibility of triggering disease activity after infection in immune mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD). To date, there are few data in the literature specifically evaluating this issue.ObjectivesEvaluate the disease activity in IMRD patients after 6 months of the infection, compared to pre infection status.MethodsReumaCoV Brasil is a longitudinal study performed at 35 study centers designed to follow-up IMRD patients for 6 months after clinical or laboratorial COVID-19 diagnosis (cases), comparing with patients with IMRD who had not had the infection at the time of inclusion (controls). Demographic data such as age, sex, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, treatment, evolution of COVID-19 and disease activity status were collected using a Research Eletronic Data Capture (REDCap) database on three consecutive visits (inclusion and 6 months). The analysis was carried out on the four diseases with the highest inclusion number in the study: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In addition to specific disease activity assessment metrics, we used patient's global assessment of disease activity (PGA), ranging from 0 to 10, at all visits, with 0 being no activity and 10 being intense activity. All conclusions were drawn considering the significance level of 5%. This study was registered at the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials—REBEC, RBR-33YTQC. All patients read and signed the informed consent form before inclusion.ResultsBetween May 2020 and January 2021, 2032 patients were included in the registry, and of these, 1322 patients (721 cases and 601 controls), completed 6 months of follow-up, being 550 SLE (42.0%), 497 RA (37.6%) and 176 SpA (13.3%) and 99 (7.4%) PsA. Most patients were female (82.0%);the median age was 46.7 (13.8). Disease activity at the time of enrollment, according to the PGA, was similar between cases and controls, except for patients with RA and AS, where it was higher in controls. After the follow up time, no worsening of activity was observed in any of the diseases evaluated in the case group (Table 1). Despite this, worsening of disease symptoms after COVID-19 was reported by 23.3%, 24.6%, 25.0% and 25.8% of patients with SLE, RA, AS and PsA respectively, not related with disease activity.ConclusionIn patients with IMRD, no worsening of disease activity was observed after COVID-19 in this cohort of Brazilian patients. Despite this, many patients noticed worsening of symptoms, possibly associated not with the triggering of the activity, but with the so-called long COVID syndrome.Table 1.Comparison of disease activity, according to PGA, comparing disease activity status at inclusion and after 6 months of follow up, in cases and controlsINCLUSIONAFTER 6 MONTHSCasesControlsp-valueCasesControlsp-valueSLE2 (0-4,5)2 (0-4)0,8102 (0-5)2 (0-4)0,172RA3 (1-5)4 (2-6)0.0013 (1-5)3 (1-5,5)0,731AS2 (0-5)4 (1-6)0,0022 (0-5)3,5 (1-6)0,044PsA2 (0-4)2 (0-5)0,8162 (0-5)2 (0-5)0,939*Median and interquatile range;Student t test;CI 95%AcknowledgementsReumaCoV Brasil researchers, Brazilian Society of Rheumatology and National Council for Ccientific and Technological Development.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

IMPROVEMENTS IN PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG PATIENTS WITH RESOLUTION OF ENTHESITIS AND/OR DACTYLITIS: POST HOC ANALYSES FROM THE KEEPSAKE 1 AND 2 TRIALS OF RISANKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

BackgroundEnthesitis and dactylitis are associated with greater disease activity and reduced quality of life. Results from the phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled KEEPsAKE 1 and 2 studies (NCT03675308;NCT03671148) of risankizumab in active PsA showed greater resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis with risankizumab 150 mg vs placebo at week 24.ObjectivesThis post hoc analysis evaluated improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients who had enthesitis (n=444), dactylitis (n=188), or both (n=128) at baseline and achieved resolution of enthesitis, dactylitis, or both with blinded risankizumab at weeks 0, 4, 16, and open-label risankizumab every 12 weeks thereafter.MethodsAssessments included achievement of minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in pain (≥10-mm decrease on visual analog scale), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI;≥0.35-unit decrease), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT-Fatigue;≥4-point increase). Nonresponder imputation (with multiple imputation for COVID-19–related missing data at week 24) was used.ResultsMany patients who achieved resolution of enthesitis at week 24;week 52 also achieved MCID in pain (66.4%;71.4%), HAQ-DI (58.2%;63.4%), and FACIT-Fatigue (59.0%;72.1%). Many patients who achieved resolution of dactylitis at week 24;week 52 also achieved MCID in pain, (72.2%;81.7%), HAQ-DI (56.3%;66.2%), and FACIT-Fatigue (67.7%;69.9%). Many patients who achieved resolution of both enthesitis and dactylitis at week 24;week 52 also achieved MCID in pain (82.1%;86.4%) HAQ-DI (66.7%;69.2%), and FACIT-Fatigue (71.4%;74.6%). PRO results for patients for who did not achieve resolution of enthesitis and/or dactylitis will be presented.ConclusionMajority of patients who achieved resolution of enthesitis and/or dactylitis with risankizumab also reported improvements in pain, disability, and fatigue.AcknowledgementsAbbVie and the authors thank the patients who participated in the study and all study investigators for their contributions. Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Lisa M Pitchford, PhD, of JB Ashtin.Disclosure of InterestsShawn Kwatra Consultant of: AbbVie, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Arcutis, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi., Grant/research support from: Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi., Saakshi Khattri Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer, Ahmad Amin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, Pfizer, and UCB, Ran Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Byron Padilla Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ahmed M. Soliman Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Blair Kaplan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dennis McGonagle Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Celgene.

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

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

DETECTION OF SARS COV-2 ANTIBODIES FOLLOWING VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE (DECODIR) – A REPORT FROM A DANISH PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused concerns whether patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (RMD) treated with conventional (cs) or biologic (b) disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) and/or prednisolone exhibit an adequate immune response to the applied SARS-CoV2 vaccines.ObjectivesWe established the DECODIR study to assess and compare the efficacy of the SARS-CoV2 vaccines administered as part of the national vaccine roll-out: BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna). The vaccines were offered as two doses four weeks apart;followed by a booster vaccination six months later. This national regimen included inflammatory rheumatic patients regardless of their respective anti-inflammatory treatment. We used patients' SARS-CoV2 IgG serum level as proxy for vaccination response (1).MethodsThe study was conducted as a longitudinal prospective cohort study. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthropathies (SpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving their outpatient treatment at the Danish Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Sonderborg, and monitored in the Danish DANBIO registry, were included.Blood samples, Disease activity and treatment information (cs/bDMARD, prednisolone) were collected at baseline (i.e. prior to vaccination), after six weeks, six and twelve months. SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels in serum were assessed by ELISA (Thermo-Fischer), and manufacturer's cut-off (>=10 EliA U/mL) selected as definition of sufficient IgG response. Antibody response was measured and compared at all four time points.Associations between antibody response, age, gender, disease (RA/PsA/SpA), treatment (none, cs/bDMARD or prednisolone) and disease activity were tested using proportional odds regression and bootstrapped tests of medians. Results were reported using mean, median (IqR) and bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI) of the median.ResultsA total of 243 patients were included at baseline and all were followed-up after six weeks;data from 233 patients were available at six months and for 229 patients at twelve months' follow-up. Those 229 patients had completed the national vaccination programme.The measurements performed 6 months after baseline demonstrated a per se decrease of IgG levels for the whole study population (median of 2.08 EliA U/mL at 6 months vs. 16 EliA U/mL at 6 weeks). The final measurements performed after twelve months demonstrated a significant increase of IgG levels. Thus, the completed vaccination programme, was followed by a significant increase in IgG levels (median of 100 EliA U/mL at twelve months vs. 16.5 EliA U/mL at six months, p < 0.001).Sufficient response rates were now recorded in all treatment scenarios, also in patients treated with prednisolone or combination of csDMARD and bDMARD. These two groups were at 6 months characterized by significant lower response rates, when compared with patients without any DMARD treatment.ConclusionCompleted vaccination programme defined as two doses plus booster vaccination resulted in a sufficient vaccination response as measured by IgG levels regardless of RA treatment.It is noteworthy that IgG levels increased markedly in patients treated with a combination of cs/bDMARD or oral prednisolone, who had low IgG levels (below manufacturer's cut-off >=10 EliA U/mL) after 6 months. Our results strongly support the efficacy of the complete vaccination programme including the 3rd booster vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.Figure 1.Serum IgG-levels at baseline, 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months;stratified by antirheumatic treatment. (Box plot showing median and interquartile range).[Figure omitted. See PDF]Reference[1]Schreiber K. et al. Reduced Humoral Response of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies following Vaccination in Patients with Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases— an Interim Report from a Danish Prospective Cohort Study. Vaccines 2022, 10(1), 35;https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10010035AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge all patients contributing to the DANBIO registry.The Danish Rheumatologic Biobank is a knowledged for handling and storage of biological material.Lab chieftechnician Charlotte Drachmann is acknowledged for her assistance.Disclosure of InterestsChristine Graversgaard: None declared, Karen Schreiber Speakers bureau: Lilly, UCB, Henning Jakobsen: None declared, Randi Petersen: None declared, Anders Bo Bojesen: None declared, Niels Steen Krogh: None declared, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Sandoz, Merete Lund Hetland: None declared, Oliver Hendricks Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis.

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

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

ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE FOR THE DETECTION OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IN A UK PRIMARY CARE PSORIASIS POPULATION VERSUS USUAL CARE: RESULTS AT 24 MONTHS FROM THE THE TOTAL BURDEN OF PSORIASIS (TUDOR) RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL

BackgroundDelay in the diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis may be associated with poorer outcome. However, the effectiveness of strategies to enable early detection of psoriatic arthritis in a primary care population with psoriasis have not been investigated in a prospective randomised control trial.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to determine whether early detection of undiagnosed PsA in people with psoriasis by an enhanced surveillance (ES) intervention compared to standard care (SC) improves outcome in physical function at 24 months post-registration. Secondary objectives were to compare disease activity and impact of disease between groups in those participants diagnosed with PsA.MethodsA multi-centre, prospective, parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial in patients with psoriasis with no prior diagnosis of PsA was conducted. GP practices were randomised in a 1:1 allocation ratio with stratification for GP practice list size and Central Commissioning Group (CCG). A total of 133 GP practices and 2226 participants were required to achieve a target sample size for the primary analysis population of 148 participants (74 per group) with a positive diagnosis of PsA;the latter corresponding to 80% power for detecting the MCID in the primary outcome measure of 0.35 units. Participants recruited were managed according to either SC, or ES by annual rheumatological assessment. Participants with suspected inflammatory arthritis were referred, via their GP, to the local rheumatology outpatient clinic at participating hospitals for an assessment of PsA by the ‘treating rheumatologist' (ES arm: at baseline, 12 and 24 months;SC arm: at 24 months). Participants diagnosed with PsA then entered the PsA-care pathway element of the trial. The primary outcome measure was the HAQ_DI at 24 months post registration in participants diagnosed with PsA. Secondary outcome measures, PASDAS and PsAID-12, were assessed over time in participants with a positive diagnosis of PsA.ResultsA total of 2225 participants across 135 GP practices were registered, corresponding to 1123 allocated to ES and 1102 to SC;primary analysis population consisted of 87 participants with a positive diagnosis of PsA: 64 in ES, 23 in SC (Figure one). Baseline characteristics were similar across both treatment groups. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for achieving a HAQ-DI score of 0 at 24 months post registration in ES compared to SC was 0.64 (95% CI (0.17, 2.38)), indicating no evidence of a difference between treatment groups (p=0.5075). Moreover, the adjusted OR of achieving a higher (non-zero) HAQ-DI score at 24 months post registration in ES relative to SC arm was 1.12 (95% CI: 0.67, 1.86), again indicating no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups (p=0.6612). There was high variability on the impact of the disease between participants over time, although the impact is generally low in this group of participants with an ‘early' diagnosis of PsA. Moreover, the overall PASDAS score and component scores over time post PsA diagnosis show high variability in PsA disease activity. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionThere was insufficient evidence that early diagnosis by ES and subsequent treatment improves physical function compared to SC in patients with psoriasis. Limitations included the trial being underpowered for demonstrating the pre-specified treatment effect;only 6.2% of participants recruited had a positive diagnosis of PsA, much lower than assumed (18%). The imbalance observed between treatment groups (~ 3:1 ratio (ES:SC)), is largely explained by the lower proportion of participants especially in the SC arm attending the screening visit at 24 months, and delays between referral and attending appointment with the treating clinician, all further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, a longer duration of follow-up may be necessary to detect differences in outcome and is planned.ReferencesNil.Figure 1.AcknowledgementsThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Programme rants for Applied Research programme.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

BURDEN OF COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES: INSIGHTS FROM A SWISS APP-BASED SURVEY

BackgroundCOVID-19 comes with a significant medical risk for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, with an increased risk of infection and severe outcomes[1]. The vulnerability of rheumatologic patients might also affect their quality of life[2], for example by keeping up protective measures (masking, restriction of social contacts, etc.) while the general Swiss public no longer does so.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to better understand the health-related burden of COVID-19 among patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and to investigate factors contributing to a different perception of the burden of COVID-19.MethodsWe included all patients registered in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management (SCQM) registry with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondylarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), undifferentiated arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica or giant cell arteritis who answered the questionnaire in the mobile My-SCQM app between the 4.11 and 11.12.2022. The questionnaire contained questions about the extent to which the pandemic is affecting patients' personal and social lives. We performed descriptive analysis on the whole population and also in subgroups according to 5 treatment groups, assigned in the following order: rituximab > JAK-inhibitors > other b/tsDMARDs > csDMARDs > none of these treatments. This means that someone taking e.g., both a JAKi and a csDMARD will be assigned to the JAKi category.ResultsThe questionnaire was answered by 1357 individuals with a median age of 57 years. 63% of participants were female. 33% are living in a household with children. 36% were diagnosed with RA, 34% with axSpA, 22% with PsA and 8% with another inflammatory rheumatic disease. A total of 100 patients were prescribed csDMARDs, 94 JAKi, 18 rituximab, 695 other b/tsDMARDs, and 450 patients received none of these treatments (Table 1). 10% of patients feel their general lives are affected by COVID-19 at a level of more than 7 out of a 10 scale. 3% of the participants report that COVID-19 impacts their social environment (family and friends) as a potentially dangerous disease at a level of more than 7 out of 10 scale. After being vaccinated against COVID-19, 33% of patients report no fear of the disease, however, 27% of participants still state that their anxiety against the virus remained unchanged. There is a trend towards persistence of fear in those taking rituximab (35%) compared to the participants in other groups (26% and 20% respectively in csDMARDs and JAKi takers). More than half of the population still wear masks, and rituximab users are the most likely to wear them (72% of these individuals still do), followed by individuals on JAKi (65%) (Figure 1).ConclusionOur study revealed that after around two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the burden of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in Switzerland is generally low, although it appears higher in patients with JAKi and rituximab, and that for a minority the quality-of-life still remains impacted.References[1]Conway, R., et al., SARS–CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19-19 Outcomes in Rheumatic Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. 2022. 74(5): p. 766-775.[2]Goldman, J.D., et al., COVID-19-19 in immunocompromised populations: implications for prognosis and repurposing of immunotherapies. 2021. 9(6).Table 1.Basic characteristics of study population.VariableLevelOverallRituximabJAKiOther b/tsDMARDscsDMARDsNone of the aboveUnclearn13571894695100161289Gender (%)Men508 (37.4)3 (16.7)19 (20.2)291 (41.9)39 (39)63 (39)93 (32)Age (median)57595956595558Diagnosis Group (%)RA498 (36.7)18 (100)67 (71.3)188 (27)69 (69)33 (20.5)123 (42.6)axSpA462 (34)011 (11.7)270 (38.8)10 (10)87 (54)84 (29)PsA296 (21.8)011 (11.7)187 (26.9)15 (15)19 (11.8)64 (22)RZA/PMR13 (1)003 (0.4)07 (4.3)3 (1)UA88 (6.5)05 (5.3)47 (6.8)6 (6)15 (9.3)15 (5.2)Figure 1.Participants' description of their current situation concerning COVID-19 (YES/NO option per criteria): a. overall b. by treatment group.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Di closure of InterestsChristoph Blapp: None declared, Shekoofeh Yaghmaei Employee of: AstraZeneca, Adrian Ciurea: None declared, Almut Scherer: None declared, Marco Kuster Employee of: AstraZeneca, Kim Lauper Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Viatris and Galapagos, Consultant of: Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Eli-Lilly.