RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FLARE FOLLOWING COVID-19 VACCINATION IN MALAYSIAN POPULATION AND ITS ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS

BackgroundFlare of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) following COVID-19 vaccination has been reported with a low occurrence observed in those patients with disease remission. However, no local data is available in our multi-ethnic Malaysian population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of RA flare in Malaysian patients following COVID-19 vaccination and its associated risk factors.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study assessing RA flare based on patient-reported disease flare through self-administered questionnaires and physician-reported flare. Patient self-reported disease flare was defined as ‘a sudden worsening of rheumatology condition or arthritis within 1 month post-vaccination' while physician-reported flare was defined as ‘an increment of disease activity score 28-joint documented within 3 months post-vaccination‘ from either a scheduled or unscheduled clinic visit. A total of 186 RA patients attended the rheumatology clinic in Hospital Putrajaya from May to July 2022 who completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination under the Malaysian National Vaccination Programme were recruited. Demographic data, disease parameters including serology for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), cessation of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around vaccination, type of vaccines and adverse events were examined using descriptive and univariate analyses.ResultsMajority (93%) of RA patients enrolled were female with a mean age of 58 years old (standard deviation, SD 12.2) and mean disease duration was 12 years (SD 7.7). More than half were seropositive (66% RF, 63% ACPA) with 47.4% had double seropositivity (RF and ACPA positive). All patients received DMARDs with the majority (71%) were on methotrexate (MTX), 21.5% were on leflunomide, 17.7% on other DMARDs, with a small proportion (14%) of patients were receiving prednisolone. Only 4.8% of patients were on biologics or targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Half of the patients were in remission prior to vaccination. 62% of patients received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as the primary vaccine, followed by Sinovac-CoronaVac (24.6%) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (13.4%) vaccines. A booster dose had been administered to 80% of patients, of which 88.7% was Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. MTX therapy were discontinued in 39.4% of patients (n=52) post-vaccination for a week duration. The prevalence of RA flare was only 12.9% (n=24) in which 14 were self-reported and 10 were physician-reported flares (4 severe flare, 6 mild-moderate flare). Flare rates were higher during the first and second dose of vaccination with 29.2% respectively, and only 12.5% were reported after booster vaccination. Common vaccine adverse effects were fever (16.8%), myalgia (8.6%) and arthralgia (6.4%). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of flare post-vaccination between age, gender, disease activity prior to vaccination, types of vaccine, usage of MTX and prednisolone, and discontinuation of MTX post-vaccination. Although seropositivity did not exhibit statistically significant flare rate post vaccination, sub-analysis revealed four times higher rate of flare in those who has double positivity compared to seronegative RA patients (12% vs 4%).ConclusionPrevelance of RA flare post-COVID-19 vaccination in Malaysian RA population is low. No significant associated risk factors were identified although double seropositivity appeared to have higher number of flares.References[1]Bixio, R., Bertelle, D., Masia, M., Pistillo, F., Carletto, A. and Rossini, M. (2021), Incidence of Disease Flare After BNT162b2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission. ACR Open Rheumatology, 3: 832-833.[2]Li X, Tong X, Yeung WWY, Kuan P, Yum SHH, Chui CSL, Lai FTT, Wan EYF, Wong CKH, Chan EWY, Lau CS, Wong ICK. Two-dose COVID-19 vaccination and possible arthritis flare among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Hong Kong. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 Apr;81(4):564-568.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

IDDF2023-ABS-0032 Active inflammatory bowel disease is associated with severe covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IDDF2023-ABS-0032 Figure 1 IDDF2023-ABS-0032 Figure 2 IDDF2023-ABS-0032 Figure 3 IDDF2023-ABS-0032 Figure 4COVID-19 outcomes in moderate-severe vs mild or quiescent IBD[Figure omitted. See PDF]ConclusionsPatients with IBD, particularly UC had an increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. Active IBD is associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes, and the risk is increased with the disease activity of IBD.

Re-humanisation, Recognising the person behind the patient

Submission content Introduction: At the end of a particularly hectic night shift on the intensive care unit (ICU) I found myself sitting in the relatives' room with the mother and aunt of a young patient, listening to their stories of her hopes and aspirations as she grew up. She had been diagnosed with lymphoma aged 14 and received a bone marrow transplant from her younger sister. Fighting through treatment cycles interposed with school studies, she eventually achieved remission and a portfolio of A-levels. Acceptance into university marked the start of a new era, away from her cancer label, where she studied forensic science and took up netball. Halfway through her first year she relapsed. Main body: When I met this bright, ambitious 20-year-old, none of this history was conveyed. She had been admitted to ICU overnight and rapidly intubated for type-1 respiratory failure. The notes contained a clinical list of her various diagnoses and treatments, with dates but no sense of the context. Rules regarding visitation meant her family were not allowed onto the unit, with next-of-kin updates carried out by designated non-ICU consultants to reduce pressures on ICU staff. No photos or personal items surrounded her bedside, nothing to signify a life outside of hospital. She remained in a medically-induced coma from admission onwards, while various organ systems faltered and failed in turn. Sitting in that relatives' room I had the uncomfortable realisation that I barely saw this girl as a person. Having looked after her for some weeks, I could list the positive microbiology samples and antibiotic choices, the trends in noradrenaline requirements and ventilatory settings. I had recognised the appropriate point in her clinical decline to call the family in before it was too late, without recognising anything about the person they knew and loved. She died hours later, with her mother singing 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow' at her bedside. Poignant as this was, the concept of this patient as more than her unfortunate diagnosis and level of organ failure had not entered my consciousness. Perhaps a coping mechanism, but dehumanisation none-the-less. Conclusion(s): Striking a balance between emotional investment and detachment is of course vital when working in a clinical environment like the ICU, where trauma is commonplace and worst-case-scenarios have a habit of playing out. At the start of my medical career, I assumed I would need to consciously take a step back, that I would struggle to switch off from the emotional aspects of Medicine. However, forgetting the person behind the patient became all too easy during the peaks of Covid-19, where relatives were barred and communication out-sourced. While this level of detachment may be understandable and necessary to an extent, the potential for this attitude to contribute to the already dehumanising experience of ICU patients should not be ignored. I always thought I was more interested in people and their stories than I was in medical science;this experience reminded me of that, and of the richness you lose out on when those stories are forgotten.

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.

ANTI-TNF TREATMENT MODIFIES PAIN MODULATION DESCENDING PATHWAYS. A PROSPECTIVE, 6 MONTHS STUDY IN ACTIVE CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATISM PATIENTS' NAÏVE OF BDMARD

BackgroundIn rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (Spa), persistent pain remains challenging. In active disease, diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (assessed through conditioned pain modulation (CPM)) are impaired [1]. Little is known regarding impairment of pain pathways in patients under bMDARD.ObjectivesThe main objective of the RAPID (Rheumatism Pain Inhibitory Descending pathways) study, was to assess descending pain modulation (through CPM paradigm) in patients with active RA or Spa, after introduction of first bDMARD with anti-TNF.MethodsWe included 50 RA and 50 Spa patients with active disease, naïve of bDMARD. We assessed clinical disease variables for patients, together with responses to various psychological questionnaires. All participants underwent QST with the determination of heat and cold pain thresholds (HPT-CPT) on dominant forearm and CPM. CPM paradigm require a conditioning stimulus, here applied to the non-dominant foot (cold circulating bath at 8°C during 1min). Descending pain control was assessed as the change in HPT (in °C) following the conditioning stimulus: the higher the CPM effect, the more efficient the inhibitory control. Patients were followed at 3 and 6 months after TNF inhibitor initiation. At both follow-up visits, clinical monitoring of the rheumatism and repeated thermal QST and CPM.ResultsOne hundred patients were included, 59 women, mean age 45.8 (± 14.6) and mean disease duration 7.93 (± 7.96) years. Due to COVID surge 87 patients initiated an anti-TNF, 74 patients completed the follow-up. At 6 months, 40 patients achieved a good therapeutic response (good EULAR response or ASDAS major improvement), 19 patients had a moderate therapeutic response (moderate EULAR response or clinically important improvement) and 15 patients had no therapeutic response. At the end of follow-up, 51 patients were in remission or low disease activity and 47 patients had a pain intensity <4/10. Thermal pain thresholds did not significantly change during follow-up. Mean HPT was at beaseline 42.35°C (+/- 3.68) and at 6 months 42.17°C (+/- 3.67). Mean CPT was at baseline 13.11°C (+/- 10.04) and at 6 months 12.86°C (+/- 9.45). Conditioned pain modulation was significantly changed during follow-up. Mean CPM effect was at baseline 0.25°C (±2.57), 2.64°C (±2.12) at 3 months and 2.96°C (±2.50) at 6 months. At the end of the 6 months follow-up, mean CPM effect was significantly higher in patients with residual mean pain intensity <4/10 compared to patients with persisting pain ≥ 4/10: 3,25°C (± 2,68) vs 2,47 (± 2,11) (p=0.04).ConclusionAfter TNF inhibitor initiation in active RA or SpA, impaired diffuse noxious inhibitory controls are significantly improved. Apart from their articular efficacy, TNF inhibitor have an action on the central nervous system and pain modulation pathways. In patients with persisting pain under bDMARD, diffuse noxious inhibitory controls are not as efficient as patient without residual pain.Reference[1]Trouvin AP, Simunek A, Coste J, Medkour T, Carvès S, Bouhassira D, Perrot S. Mechanisms of chronic pain in inflammatory rheumatism: the role of descending modulation. Pain. 2022 Aug 3. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002745.Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

The evolution of a charity support services team

Our charity's mission is dedicated to beating blood cancer by funding research and supporting those affected. Since 1960, we have invested over 500 million in blood cancer research, transforming treatments and saving lives. Since 2015 there has been a Support Services team within the charity. This service was established to provide information that the blood cancer community can trust, in a language they can understand. By connecting and listening to our community they deepen our understanding and help shape our work. Research suggests that blood cancer patients are more likely than any other patients to leave their diagnosis appointment feeling they do not fully understand their condition. Our service can often consolidate the information given by clinicians. Patients also need advice and support on how to adapt to day-to- day life after their diagnosis. There are challenges that are unique to blood cancer, such as living with cancer as a chronic condition, being on 'watch and wait' or fluctuating remissions and relapses. In 2023 the Support Services team have a 7 day presence on our phone line, email and social media platform where people can communicate with one of our trained blood cancer support officers, or one of three Registered Nurses, all who can provide information about blood cancer diagnosis and help with emotional and practical support. We also run an online community forum where people affected by blood cancer can connect, share experiences and provide peer support. The highly experienced haematology nurses provide a clinical aspect to the support of the Blood Cancer Community that enhances the established patient centred support given historically by the charity. The nurses advanced knowledge and experience of haematological cancers, treatments, side effects, holistic care and NHS process can further guide the community. This is in addition to the invaluable information from their treatment teams. In 2023 the Support Services team are now reaching thousands of the blood cancer community. We understand that in the past 3 years the COVID-19 pandemic and the work of our charity around this will have influenced the significant increase in contacts but equally the robust and trusted services provided through this charity has contributed too.

HOLISTIC APPROACH IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RELAPSE OF DEPRESSIVE AND ANXIETY DISORDERS DURING COVID-19.

The aim of the current study was to assess the influence of the first wave of COVID-19 (March- June 2020) on individuals with depression and anxiety, evaluating the impact of different groups of factors in a complex (holistic) manner. Material(s) and Method(s): The study is cross-sectional, including outpatients with depressive and anxiety disorders in remission (n = 60), outpatients in relapse (n = 65), a group of healthy controls (n = 30), and a control group with relatives of the patients with depression and anxiety (n = 30) for the period July-October 2020. Socio-demographic factors, the presence of somatic comorbidity and risk factors related to it, and the need for medical care during the first COVID wave were analyzed. Result(s): Patients with deteriorated anxiety disorders have a significantly lower educational status (p < 0.001) in comparison to the other groups. Individuals with deteriorated major depressive disorder and controls-relatives have significantly more somatic comorbidity compared to healthy controls (p < 0.05). Individuals with anxiety disorders do not differ from healthy controls on this measure. Visits to medical specialists in those with worsening depression increased during the analyzed period but were comparable to the control groups. In persons with anxiety - worsened or in remission, there is a significant increase in this indicator compared to healthy controls (p < 0.05). Conclusion(s): In the conditions of the first COVIDwave, individuals with worsened depression, as well as relatives of anxious and depressed patients have significantly more somatic problems compared to healthy controls. However, individuals with anxiety but not depression seek significantly more healthcare consultations, despite the isolation. The holistic approach implies a complex assessment of somatic and mental comorbidity and the need for additional knowledge and resources in the service of persons with anxiety and depression, although there is relatively easy access to consultation care in our country.Copyright © 2023, Central Medical Library Medical University - Sofia. All rights reserved.

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.

Minimal Change Disease Secondary to Either COVID-19 Infection or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination

Introduction/Objective Kidney injury has now become one of the known complications following COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Only few cases of minimal change disease following administration of COVID-19 vaccination and infection have been reported. This study was to highlight incidence of minimal change disease following COVID-19 infection or vaccination. Methods/Case Report Case 1:15 year-old female with past medical history of asthma and hypercholesterolemia presented for evaluation of periorbital edema, nephrotic-range proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, elevated serum creatinine, elevated blood pressures, and hematuria after COVID-19 infection. Renal biopsy after 1 week of infection showed unremarkable glomeruli and negative immunofluorescent stains in glomeruli, and 20-30% fusion of foot processes. The biopsy was consistent with a minimal change disease with features of natural remission (her nephrotic-range proteinuria resolved soon after). Case 2: 18 year-old female with no significant past medical history presented with a chief complaint of generalized swelling, which started around the same time she received her 1st dose of Pfizer COVID vaccine (the 2nd dose 2 months later). She had a nephrotic range proteinuria and hypoalbuminemia, but normal level of serum creatinine. A renal biopsy after 4 months of vaccination showed unremarkable glomeruli by light microscopy, negative immunofluorescent study, but diffuse effacement of foot processes involving more than 80% of the examined loops by electron microscopy. This biopsy findings were consistent with a minimal change disease. Both patients did not receive any treatment before the renal biopsies. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) NA Conclusion Minimal change disease can be a rare complication following COVID-19 infection or Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination, raising a question if there are similar antigens induced by the infection or by the vaccination that trigger the minimal change disease. Further studies are needed to determine the incidence and pathophysiology of minimal change disease either post COVID-19 vaccines or following COVID-19 infections.

Case Report of Succesful Multidisiplinary Treatment for Patient with Metastatic Lung Cancer and Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma

Introduction: Croatian National Cancer Registry of Croatian Institute for Public Health reported that in year 2020 lung cancer was the second most common cancer site diagnosed in men with 16% and the third most common in women with 10% incidence among all cancer sites. Unfortunatelly lung cancer has the highest mortality in both men and women. Haematological malignancies had 7% share in all malignancies in both male and female cances cases. In 2020 190 newly diagnosed cases of lymphatic leukemia in men and 128 cases in women were reporeted, meaning 1.5 and 1.2% of all malignancies, respectively. Chronic lymphatic leukemia (CLL) is an advanced age disease and incidence increases with age. Impaired immunity, T and B cell dysfunction in CLL, chromosomal aberations, long-term immunosuppressive therapy and genetic factors can all cause secondary malignancies. Co- occurence of solid tumors and CLL is very rare. Although patiens with CLL have an increased risk of developing second primary malignancies including lung carcinoma, the data about their clinical outcomes are lacking. Parekh et al. retrospectively analyzed patients with simultaneous CLL and lung carcinoma over a 20-year period, and they found that ~2% of patients with CLL actually developed lung carcinoma. The authors claimed that up to 38% of patients will also develop a third neoplasm more likely of the skin (melanoma and basal cell carcinoma), larynx (laryngeal carcinoma) or colon. Currently there are no specific guidelines for concurrent CLL and non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treatment. Usually, when the tumors are diagnosed simultaneously, treatment is based to target the most aggressive malignancy, as the clinical outcomes depend on the response of the tumor with the poorest prognosis. For this reason, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory. Case report: A patient with history of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 2019 (at the age of 71) with B chronic lymphocytic leukemia with bulky tumor (inguinal lymph nodes 8x5 cm), stage B according to Binet, intermediate risk. He was treated with 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (rituximab/cyclofosfamid/fludarabine). In 10/2019 remission was confirmed, but MSCT described tumor in the posterior segment of upper right lung lobe measuring 20x17 mm and bilateral metastases up to 11 mm. Bronchoscopy and biopsy were performed, and EGFR neg, ALK neg, ROS 1 neg, PD-L1>50% adenocarcinoma was confirmed. He was referred to Clinical Hospital Center Osijek where monotherapy with pembrolizumab in a standard dose of 200 mg intravenously was started in 01/2020. Partial remission was confirmed in October 2020. Immunotherapy was discontinued due to development of pneumonitis, dysphagia and severe weight loss (20kg), but without radiologically confirmed disease progression. At that time he was referred to our hospital for further treatment. Gastroscopy has shown erosive gastritis with active duodenal ulcus, Forrest III. Supportive therapy and proton pump inhibitor were introduced. After complete regression of pneumonitis, improvement of general condition and resolution of dysphagia, no signs of lung cancer progression were found and pembrolizumab was reintroduced in 12/2021. Hypothyroidism was diagnosed in 01/2021 and levothyroxine replacement ther apy was started. In 03/2021 he underwent surgical removal of basal cell carcinoma of skin on the right temporal region with lobe reconstruction. From 02/2021, when pembrolizumab was reintroduced, regression in tumor size was continously confirmed with complete recovery of general condition. He was hospitalized for COVID 19 infection in 09/2021, and due to complications pembrolizumab was discontinued till 11/2021. Lung cancer immunotherapy proceeded till 11/2022, when Multidisciplinary team decided to finish pembrolizumab because of CLL relapse. CLL was in remission till August 2022 when due to B symptoms, lymphcytosis, anemia and generalized lymphadenopathy, hematological workup including biopsy of cervical lymph node was performed and CLL/SLL relapse was confirmed. Initially chlorambucil was introduced, but disease was refractory. Based on cytogenetic test results (IGHV unmutated, negative TP53) and due to cardiovascular comorbidity (contraindication for BTK inhibitors) venetoclax and rituximab were started in 01/2023. After just 1 cycle of treatment normal blood count as well as regression of B symptoms and peripheral lymphadenopathy occured, indicating the probability of complete disease remission. In our patient with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma excellent disease control is achieved during 41 month of treatment in first line setting. Furthermore, relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL is currently in confirmed remission. Conclusion(s): Successful treatment of patients with multiple primary malignancies is based on multidisciplinarity, early recognition and management of side effects, treatment of comorbidities with the aim of prolonging life, controlling symptoms of disease and preserving quality of life.

COVID-19 OUTCOME IN AN ITALIAN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS COHORT

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

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.

Whipple's Disease, An Overlooked Diagnosis

Whipple disease is a rare multisystem inflammatory disease. Because fewer than 1000 reported cases have been described, clinical experience with this disorder is sparse. We are reporting a case of a 46-year-old man who presented with fever, weight loss, and polyarthralgia for 2 months, and 1 month of diarrhea. The patient was thoroughly investigated for collagen diseases and COVID-19, with no definite diagnosis. A therapeutic trial by immunosuppressive drugs provided partial remission followed by a marked rebound of the symptoms. His occult blood in stool was positive and subsequent upper endoscopy with proximal small intestinal biopsies showed the pathological features of Whipple's disease. The patient showed a dramatic improvement following treatment with ceftriaxone and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Despite the rarity of Whipple's disease, its course mimics many rheumatological diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and COVID-19 disease. It should always be a part of the differential diagnosis of obscure polyarthralgia and chronic diarrhea.Copyright © 2023 The Author(s).

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.

COMPARISON OF HOMOLOGOUS AND HETEROLOGOUS BOOSTER SARS-CoV-2 VACCINATION IN AUTOIMMUNE RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL PATIENTS

BackgroundVaccine-induced immunity is very important for controlling the COVID-19 infection. The vaccination supports humoral and cellular immunity, and this is one of the main strategy for us. Various vaccines approved in the countries have been shown to reduce infection rates, severity, and mortality.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare humoral and cellular immune responses after homologous or heterologous vaccination among patients with aiRMDs at their third vaccination with BNT162b2 or with two vaccinations followed by COVID-19 infection. We detected the anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody levels and measured the SARS-CoV-2 reactive B-, or T-cell mediated immunity in aiRMDs receiving homologous (Hom.), heterologous (Het.) vaccines or became infected (Inf.).MethodsA single center observational study evaluated immunogenicity and safety of the third dose vaccines or after two-dose regimen of vaccine and COVID infection in patients with aiRMDs. Neutralizing anti-RBD antibodies and specific T-cell response were measured.ResultsWe showed that following 4 months of the booster vaccination with the third dose of mRNA-based vaccine or after COVID infection, the positive (>21.8 BAU/mL) neutralizing anti-RBD IgG antibody response was outstanding in all three patient groups, 95.5%, 100% and 100% of the homologous and heterologous as well as the SARS-CoV-2 infected groups. Taken together booster vaccinations or SARS-CoV-2 infection after completing 2 doses of the vaccination can lead to the production of neutralizing antibodies still protective in RMD cases after 4 months of the third antigen exposition. The booster vaccination reduces the frequency of hospital admissions and mortality with ai RMDs. The vaccinations are effective independently from the type of vaccine, the SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B-cell populations showed a statistically not significant but lower frequency in the infection group. Clinical activity of aiRMDs was not increased following booster vaccination.ConclusionPatients, who received a heterologous booster vaccine had a higher level of peripheral memory B-cells compared to those who had COVID-19 infection. Biologic therapy decreased the level of B-cells. Patients with a disease duration of more than 10 years had higher level of CD8+TNF-α+ and CD8+IFN-γ+ T-cells compared to patients who were diagnosed less than 10 years ago. The third booster mRNA-based vaccine was as much effective as in the homologous and heterologous patients groups compared who had COVID infection.References[1] Szebeni, G.J.;Gemes, N.;Honfi, D.;Szabo, E.;Neuperger, P.;Balog, J.A.;Nagy, L.I.;Szekanecz, Z.;Puskas, L.G.;Toldi, G.;et al. Humoral and Cellular Immunogenicity and Safety of Five Different SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Patients With Autoimmune Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases in Remission or With Low Disease Activity and in Healthy Controls: A Single Center Study. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 846248.[2]Honfi, D.;Gémes, N.;Szabó, E.;Neuperger, P.;Balog, J.Á.;Nagy, L.I.;Toldi, G.;Puskás, L.G.;Szebeni, G.J.;Balog, A. Comparison of Homologous and Heterologous Booster SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Autoimmune Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Patients. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11411Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS & OUTCOMES AMONG PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE RHEUMATIC DISEASES AND SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION: 2-YEAR DATA FROM A TERTIARY RHEUMATOLOGY CENTRE IN GREECE

BackgroundPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) under moderate/severe immunosuppression are considered a high-risk population to develop severe Covid-19 infection.ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to describe the clinical characteristics and the outcome of patients with ARD who contracted a Sars-Cov-2 infection.MethodsAmong patients with ARD being followed in our tertiary outpatient rheumatology clinic, we retrospectively identified those infected with SARS-CoV-2 between the beginning of the pandemic and August 2022. Patients' medical files were reviewed for demographics (age, gender and comorbidities) and disease-related characteristics, as well as coronavirus disease (COVID-19) characteristics, including vaccination status, treatment, and outcomes (covid-19 severity, hospitalization, death).ResultsA total of 209 cases of ARD patients with confirmed Covid-19 infection were recorded. Most of them were women (62.7%), with a mean age of 52.4± 13.8 years. The most prevalent ARDs were seronegative spondyloarthropathies (28.7%), systematic lupus erythematosus (21.5%), rheumatoid arthritis (16.5%), and systemic sclerosis (11.5%). More than half of the patients received corticosteroids (57.8%), while the most frequently used immunosuppressants were hydroxychloroquine (30.9%), TNF inhibitors (26.5%), mycophenolate mofetil (24.0%), methotrexate (19.1%) and rituximab (15.2%). One hundred and fifty-eight (76%) patients were either on remission or had mild disease activity. Most of the patients (131/209) had at least one comorbidity, more commonly arterial hypertension (48.5%) and pulmonary disease (45.2%). Most of the patients were vaccinated against Sars-Cov-2 (73.7%), either with two doses (38.0%), three doses (57.0%) or four doses (5.0%) of mRNA-based vaccines. The big majority of the patients (83.3%) were asymptomatic or had mild Covid-19 disease. About half of the patients (53.1%) reported to have received Covid-19 treatment. Thirty-two of them (15.3%) needed hospitalization, and five death cases were reported overall. Among the demographic characteristics, age (p<0.0001 for hospitalization) and comorbidities were associated with worse covid-19 outcomes. In particular, cardiovascular disease (OR 5.37, p=0.001 for covid-19 severity, OR 6.89, p=0.001 for hospitalization), pulmonary disease (OR 3.02, p=0.006 for hospitalization), and obesity (OR 3.46, p=0.044 for hospitalization) had the stronger associations. Non-vaccination status was also associated with a higher risk for hospitalization (OR 2.68, p=0.015). In relation to ARD-related factors, treatment with rituximab (OR 4.11, p=0.002 for hospitalization), systemic sclerosis diagnosis (OR 3.45, p=0.03 for Covid-19 severity) and myositis diagnosis (OR 4.91, p=0.033 for hospitalization) were associated with worse Covid-19 outcomes. On the other hand, spondyloarthropathies appear to be negatively associated with Covid-19 severity (OR=0.27, p=0.035).ConclusionAccording to our study, most ARD patients recovered uneventfully from Covid-19. However, there are several indications that we should be vigilant for patients who remain unvaccinated, are older, have a systemic sclerosis or myositis diagnosis, and/or receive intense immunosuppressive regiments such as rituximab.References[1]Papagoras C, Fragoulis GE, et al. Better outcomes of COVID-19 in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated patients with systemic rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Nov 10.[2]Strangfeld A, Schäfer M, et al. Factors associated with COVID-19-related death in people with rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Jul;80(7):930-942.Table 1.N=209ARD Diagnosisn (%)Rheumatoid arthritis34 (16.3)Seronegative spondyloarthropathies60 (28.7)Systemic lupus erythematosus45 (21.5)Systemic sclerosis24 (11.5)Sjogren's syndrome15 (7.2)Vasculitis19 (9.1)Myositis9 (4.3)Other3 (1.4)Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

ASYNCHRONOUS TELECONSULTATION BY WHATSAPP CHATBOT IN CONTROLLED AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS PATIENTS UNDER BIOLOGICAL THERAPY: PATIENTS' PERSPECTIVE

BackgroundBefore COVID pandemic, rheumatologists were not confident with telehealth for the need to adquire new technology, need of specific training and poorer reimbursement [1]. Two groups of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients have been identified in a study of PROMS-based telehealth use (2): the keen and the reluctant. We proposed teleconsultation followup with a whatsapp platform chatbot to our axial spondyloarthritis (AxSPA) patients with controlled disease and we asked them for preferences at the end of the study.ObjectivesTo explore the degree of acceptance of asynchronous telehealth followup with whatsapp platform chatbot among our controlled AxSPA patients under biological therapy, and to search for a patient profile more prone to telehealth consultation.MethodsA prospective study with retrospective control was performed, chosing AxSPA patients under biological therapy with stable disease, visited in our centre from 01/01 to 30/11/2021. We recruited 62 patients, but finally include 60 (2 quit for home moving or personal reasons). We offered them two teleconsultation visits (using their personal mobile), every four months, and a presential final visit one year after inclusion. The chatbot sends PROMS (BASDAI, VAS for patient global disease assessment, ASDAS, and 3 questions for extraarticular disease), and feedback and schedule for the following visits. In the case of lab test or PROMs deviation or when the patient asks for contact, he/she is phoned by nurse/doctor who solves the question and/or arranges an additional presential visit. We collect patient and disease characteristics (age, gender, educational level, employment, disease activity, duration and treatments), and patient´s satisfation and preferences in the final visit.ResultsWe included 60 patients (83,3% men), mean aged 48,22 years (SD 12,128), 36% under 45 years at inclusion. 27% had received primary, 33.9% secondary and 39% tertiary education. 83.3% were active working and only 10 patients were jobless or retired. They were Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) (90%), HLA B27 positive (85%) with longstanding disease (mean 23 years, SD 12,8), and were receiving the first (71%), or the second (23%) biological therapy (51,7% tapered anti-TNF). 50% were never smokers and 70% presented no remarkable comorbidity;25% presented peripheral impairment, and over 40% extraarticular manifestations.At inclusion 93,3% were at remission/LDA by ASDAS/BASDAI-RCP and 4 patients were considered clinically controlled in spite of higher scores. At followup 3 patients with reduced dose needed to increase to standard dose of biological drug, with no other need of treatment change. There was no worsening from basal to final visits according BASDAI, BASFI, ASDAS-RCP or AsQOL.Patients final VAS score (1-10) assessment of telehealth consultation was very high: mean 9,14 (DS 1,498);91.7% ≥ 8 and 76.7% ≥ 9.83,3% preferred telehealth followup. There was a trend towards telehealth preferences in higher educational levels, and active working (86% vs 70%) but not statistically significant. We found no correlation with gender, age and disease characteristics tested.ConclusionAsynchronous teleconsultation seems promising, not inferior to presential consultation and preferred for follow-up by our AxSpa patients with stable disease with biological drugs. We met some "reluctant patients”, that were more inactive working and with lower educational levels, but the differences were not significant. Further reserarch is needed with this telehealth model in other age and disease populations (RA), in order to characterize the reluctant and keen patients.References[1]Muehlensiepen F, et al. Acceptance of Telerheumatology by Rheumatologists and General Practitioners in Germany: Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 29;23(3):e23742.[2]Knudsen LR, et al. Experiences With Telehealth Followup in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Interview Study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Sep;70(9):1366-1372.AcknowledgementsGrupo INNOBIDE.Disclosure of I terestsNone Declared.

ASYNCHRONOUS TELECONSULTATION BY WHATSAPP CHATBOT IN CONTROLLED AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS (SPA) PATIENTS UNDER BIOLOGICAL THERAPY: CLINICAL RESULTS OF A SINGLE CENTER

BackgroundThe use of telehealth in the control of rheumatic diseases had been scarce, but COVID pandemic forced to try alternatives to classic face-to-face consultation, and an overflow of telehealth consultations appeared, mainly synchronous (phone, video calls), and finally asynchronous. We try to demonstrate that asynchronous WhatsApp teleconsultation is a good alternative, at least for followup of patients that find it difficult to attend face-to-face visits. We chose axial spondyloarthritis (AxSPA) patients under biological therapy with controlled disease and we proposed teleconsultation with a WhatsApp platform chatbot created for this purpose. The chatbot sends PROMS (BASDAI, VAS for patient global disease assessment, ASDAs, and 3 questions for extraarticular disease), and receive feedback and schedule for the following visits.ObjectivesTo prove that teleconsultation through WhatsApp platform is not inferior to face-to-face consultation in terms of maintaining axial SPA patients disease controlled.MethodsProspective study with retrospective control of patients diagnosed of Axial SPA, fulfilling ASAS criteria and with stable disease under biological therapy for the previous year, recruited from 01 jan to 30 nov 2021. We recruited 62 patients, but two of them gave up (personal reasons, one moved to other region), so we finally include 60 patients. We offer them two teleconsultation visits with their personal mobile device, every four months, and a face-to-face final visit one year after inclusion. In the case of lab test or PROMs deviation or when the patient asks for contact (possible via WhatsApp) he/she is called up by the person in charge (nurse/doctor) that solves the question and arranges an additional presential visit if needed. We consider disease controlled if BASDAI <4, ASDAS < 2,1 or if in rheumatologist´s opinion there is no need to change treatment. We collect patient and disease information (age, gender, employment, characteristics of the disease, previous and actual treatment), activity (BASDAI, PCR, ASDAS), physical function (BASFI), and Quality of life (AsQol).Results60 patients (50 men, 83,3%) were included, mean aged 48,22 years (SD 12,128), 36% were under 45 years at the time of inclusion. They were mostly Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) (90%;only 6 non radiographic SPA), positive HLA B27 (85%) and with longstanding disease (mean 23 years, SD 12,8), and only 6 patients less than five years. 25% had peripheral impairment (arthritis/dactylitis/enthesitis), and more than 40% presented extraarticular manifestations, mainly psoriasis (26,7%) and uveitis (21%)71,7% were under their first biological (TNF inhibitor, mostly adalimumab), 23,3% were refractory to the first, and 3 patients to at least two biologicals. 51,7% of patients were treated with tapered dose of TNF inhibitors. At inclusion 93,3 % presented remission/LDA by ASDAS/BASDAI-RCP. Only 4 patients included presented higher activity scores but were considered clinically controlled.Table 1.We did not find meaningful clinical differences between basal to final visits in BASDAI, BASFI, ASDAS-RCP or AsQOL.3 patients with reduced dose of biological drug needed to increase to standard dose with no other need to treatment adjustment.ConclusionWe consider asynchronous teleconsultation is promising, and not inferior to face to face consultation in terms of keeping disease control and quality of life, especially for follow-up in patients with stable rheumatic disease, The clinical results presented here are consistent with this considerations.AcknowledgementsGrupo INNOBIDE.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

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

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

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

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