ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Patients undergoing treatment for haematological malignancies have been shown to have reduced antibody responses to vaccination against SARS-COV2. This is particularly important in patients who have undergone allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), in whom there is limited data about vaccine efficacy. In this retrospective single-centre analysis, we present data on serologic responses following one, two, three or four doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech (PB), AstraZeneca (AZ) or Moderna (MU) SARS-CoV- 2 vaccines from a series of 75 patients who have undergone allogeneic HSCT within 2 years from the time they were revaccinated. The seroconversion rates following post-HSCT vaccination were found to be 50.7%, 78%, 79% and 83% following the first, second, third and fourth primary post -HSCT vaccine doses, respectively. The median time from allograft to first revaccination was 145 days (range 79-700). Our findings suggest that failure to respond to the first SARS-CoV- 2 vaccine post-HSCT was associated with the presence of acute GVHD (p = 0.042) and treatment with rituximab within 12 months of vaccination (p = 0.019). A statistical trend was observed with the presence of chronic GVHD and failure to seroconvert following the second (p = 0.07) and third (p = 0.09) post-HSCT vaccine doses. Patients who had received one or more SARS-CoV- 2 vaccines prior to having an allogeneic stem cell transplant were more likely to demonstrate a positive antibody response following the first dose of revaccination against Sars-CoV- 2 (p = 0.019) and retained this seropositivity following subsequent doses. The incidence of confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis among this cohort at the time of analysis was 16%. 17% of these were hospitalised and there was one recorded death (8%) secondary to COVID-19 in a patient who was 15.7 months post allogeneic transplant. In summary, this study suggests that despite the initial low seroconversion rates observed postallogeneic transplant, increasing levels of antibody response are seen post the second primary vaccine dose. In addition, there seems to be lower risk of mortality secondary to COVID-19 in this vaccinated population, compared to what was reported in the earlier phases of the pandemic prior to use of SARS-COV2 vaccination. This adds support to the widely adopted policy of early full revaccination with repeat of primary vaccine doses and boosters post-HSCT to reduce mortality in this population. Finally, we have identified rituximab use and active GVHD as potential risk factors influencing serological responses to SARS-COV2 vaccination and further work should focus on further characterising this risk and optimum dosing schedule both pre-and post-transplant.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundAnti-MDA5 antibody positive dermatomyositis (MDA5-DM) is characterized by high mortality due to rapid progressive ILD. MDA5 is a cytosolic protein and a family of RIG-I like receptor, which functions as a virus RNA sensor and induces the production of such as type-1 IFN. Although little is known about the pathogenesis of MDA5-DM, it is notable that the similarities were reported between COVID-19 infection and MDA5-DM. It may suggest that there is a common underlying autoinflammatory mechanism. We reported that in MDA5-DM, (1) RIG-I-like receptor signaling is enhanced and (2) antiviral responses such as type 1 IFN signaling are also enhanced as compare with anti-ARS-antibody positive DM, and (3) the key for survival is suppression of RIG-I-like and IFN signaling (EULAR2022, POS0390). We also found that a significant role for uncontrolled macrophage in the pathogenesis of ILD by our autopsy case. Recently, it has been reported that tacrolimus (TAC) and cyclophosphamide (CY) combination therapy (TC-Tx) has improved the prognosis of cases with early onset of the disease, but there are cases that cannot be saved. Therefore, we devised BRT therapy (BRT-Tx). The Tx combines baricitinib (BAR), which inhibits GM-CSF and IFN-mediated signaling and effectively suppresses uncontrolled macrophages, with rituximab (RTX) and TAC, which rapidly inhibits B and T cell interaction and ultimately prevents anti-MDA5 antibody production.ObjectivesTo determine the differences in gene expression between BRT and TC-Tx for MDA5-DM in peripheral blood.MethodsTotal of 6 MDA5-DM (TC: 3, BRT: 3) were included and all of them had multiple poor prognostic factors. Peripheral whole blood was collected at just before and 2-3 months after the treatment. RNA was extracted, and quantified using a next-generation sequencer. Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) were identified by pre vs. post treatment. Gene Ontology (GO), clustering and Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA) were performed to DEGs. As one BRT case was added since our last year's report, we also reanalyzed the surviving vs. fatal cases. The IFN signature was scored separately for Types 1, 2, and 3, and the changes between pre- and post-treatment were investigated.ResultsTwo of three cases with TC died during treatment, while all three cases on BRT recovered. The cluster analysis of the DEGs separated deaths from survivors, not by type of treatment. Comparing surviving and dead cases, GO analysis revealed that the immune system via immunoglobulins and B cells was significantly suppressed in surviving cases. GO analysis of DEGs in each therapeutic group showed that expression of B cell-related genes such as lymphocyte proliferation and B cell receptor signaling pathway were significantly suppressed in BRT-Tx. On the other hand, TC-Tx significantly suppressed such pathways as cell proliferation and cell surface receptor signaling, and was less specific for the target cells than BRT-Tx. The changes in IFN signature score after treatment showed an increase in type 2 and 3 IFN scores in all fatal cases and an increase in type 1 IFN score in one fatal case.ConclusionBRT-Tx significantly suppressed gene expression associated with B cells, while TC-Tx was characterized by low specificity of therapeutic targets and suppression of total cell proliferation. Comparison of surviving and dead cases revealed that the combination of RTX contributed to the success of treatment, as suppression of the immune system mediated by immunoglobulins and B cells is the key for survival. Analysis of the IFN signature revealed an increase in IFN score after treatment in fatal cases, indicating that the combination of BAR is beneficial. The superiority of BRT-Tx seems clear from the fact that all patients survived with BRT-Tx while only one/three patients survived with TC-Tx.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsMoe Sakamoto: None declared, Yu Nakai: None declared, Yoshiharu Sato: None declared, Yoshinobu Koyama Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahikasei, Ayumi, BMS, Esai, Eli-Lilly, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, GSK.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundAlthough studies have quantified adherence to medications among patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) during the COVID-19, lack of direct pre-pandemic comparison precludes understanding of impact of the pandemic.ObjectivesOur objective was to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on adherence to disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) including conventional synthetic (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic (tsDMARDs).MethodsWe linked population-based health data on all physician visits, hospital admissions, and all dispensed medications, regardless of payer in British Columbia from 01/01/1996 to 3/31/2021. We identified prescriptions for csDMARDs (including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine) and tsDMARDs, namely anti-TNFs (including infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) and rituximab using drug identification numbers among indicated individuals with RD. We defined March 11, 2020, as the ‘index date' which corresponded to the date that mitigation measures for the COVID-19 pandemic were first introduced. We assessed adherence as proportion days covered (PDC), calculated monthly in the 12 months before and 12 months after the index date. We used interrupted time-series models, namely segmented regression to estimate changes and trends in adherence before and after the index date.ResultsOur analysis showed that the mean PDCs for all included DMARDs stayed relatively steady in the 12 months before and after mitigation measures were introduced (see Table 1). Adherence was highest among anti-TNFs, methotrexate, and azathioprine. Anti-TNFs were on a downward trajectory 12 months prior to the index date. Interrupted time-series modeling demonstrated statistically significant differences in the trends in PDCs post- vs. pre-mitigation measures for all anti-TNFS (slope [∂]: 1.38, standard error [SE]: 0.23), infliximab (∂: 1.35, SE: 0.23), adalimumab (∂: 0.82, SE: 0.25), and etanercept (∂: 1.07, SE: 0.25) (see Figure 1a). Conversely, the csDMARDs were on a flatter trajectory, and methotrexate (∂: -0.53, SE: 0.16), leflunomide (∂: 0.43, SE: 0.08), mycophenolate (∂: -1.26, SE: 0.48), cyclophosphamide (∂: 0.29, SE: 0.05), minocycline (∂: 0.04, SE: 0.02), chloroquine (∂: 0.02, SE: 0.00) showed statistically significant changes in estimated PDC trajectory after mitigation measures were introduced (see Figure 1b).ConclusionThis population-based study demonstrates that messaging and pandemic mitigation measures did not affect adherence to DMARDs.Table 1.Mean PDC 1 year before and after mitigation measures for the COVID-19 pandemic were introduced.MedicationMean PDC (%) 12 months before index dateMean PDC (%) 12 months after index datecsDMARDsmethotrexate28.926.8azathioprine21.819.5sulfasalazine16.214.9leflunomide14.313.0cyclosporine13.711.5hydroxychloroquine10.59.6mycophenolate4.52.9antimalarials4.43.9penicillamine3.53.4cyclophosphamide1.50.7chlorambucil1.20.4minocycline1.10.9gold0.50.2chloroquine0.10.0tsDMARDsanti-TNFs52.149.2infliximab41.838.3adalimumab40.336.8etanercept31.828.9rituximab3.42.9REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Background: People with chronic diseases of the immune system, such as multiple sclerosis (MS), are at risk for Covid-19 disease. However, more research is needed with long-term follow-up. The aim of the study was to follow up people with MS (PwMS) for up to three months after AstraZeneca vaccination for the recurrence of MS and Covid-19 infection. Method(s): This study was a case study (descriptive-analytical) of follow-up type. The study population was PwMS over 18 years of age in Kermanshah province who received both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine. This study was conducted from August to November 2021. Sampling was done with existing methods based on the National MS Registry of Iran (NMSRI). Demographic information of patients was extracted from NMSRI. A researcher-made form was used to collect information by telephone three months after vaccination about clinical characteristics, Covid-19 infection, and recurrence of MS. Data were analyzed using SPSS-25 software. Result(s): Study participants were 40 MS patients with a mean (SD) age of 39.27 (8.8) years, including 32 (80.0%) women. A mean of 9.39 (4.6) years had passed since The patients were diagnosed with MS, and 29 (76.4%) had RR type MS. Four patients (10%) relapsed between the second dose and three months later, of whom two (50%) had sensory symptoms, one (25%) had optic nerve involvement, and one (25%) had motor symptoms and pyramidal pathway involvement. The symptoms of Covid-19 were mild in three patients (10%), while severe symptoms developed in one patient (10%) who received rituximab. Among the patients, no cases of thrombosis were observed. Infusion therapy, a leg fracture, and kidney stones were the only hospitalized cases. Conclusion(s): Covid-19 and MS relapse prevalence did not differ significantly in the three months before and after vaccination. There is a need for further studies with a longer follow-up period.Copyright © 2022 Razazian et al. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Case: Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome (WAS) is a rare X-linked inborn error of immunity caused by mutations in the WAS gene. It is classically characterized by immunodeficiency, eczema, and micro-thrombocytopenia. It has been known since the 1960s that patients with WAS have an increased risk of lymphoproliferative disease though the exact incidence remains unknown in the American population. Limited case reports have discussed EBV-related lymphoproliferative disease in patients with WAS. We present a case of a 9-year-old boy with known WAS complicated by eczematous rash, thrombocytopenia, recurrent ear infections, and monoclonal gammopathy who was found to have submandibular EBV-associated lymphoid hyperplasia with associated lung and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. Family had been offered treatment with hematopoietic stem cell transplant but declined multiple times in the past. Earlier in the year, he presented with possible MIS-C with negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR. He presented to our hospital with mastoiditis and lymphadenopathy. Physical examination showed severe eczema on hands and tender right mastoid. Laboratory evaluation showed thrombocytopenia, elevated IgG of 6290, IgA of 744, IgE of 827, low IgM of 41, and 14% response to pneumococcal titers. He was empirically treated with intravenous antibiotics. ENT performed right postauricular incision and drainage and the culture grew Hemophilus influenza. Throughout his hospital stay, his submandibular lymphadenopathy became more prominent despite treatment. Core needle biopsy of right submandibular lymph node was suggestive of EBV-associated lymphoid hyperplasia. EBV PCR and antibodies were both positive. CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis revealed multifocal pulmonary lymphadenopathy and a diffuse, bilateral nodularity as well as retroperitoneal and mesenteric lymphadenopathy. He was given four doses of weekly Rituximab, which successfully decreased EBV viremia below linear detectability. Immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) was initiated. Bronchoalveolar lavage and lung biopsy were performed and are results are currently pending. Discussion(s): We present a case of a 9-year-old boy with known WAS awaiting transplant who was found to have submandibular EBV-associated lymphoid hyperplasia with associated lung and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy. While lymphoproliferative disease is a known complication of WAS, EBV-related lymphoproliferative disease in WAS patients has only been reported as case reports and remains a rare but known complication of patient with WAS.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious disease that resulted in 4533645 deaths until September first, 2021. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients receive immunosuppressive drugs. Thus, there is a concern that these drugs will reduce the patient's immune system resistance against COVID19. Objective(s): This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of COVID19 and its impact on MS patients in our university hospital in Tehran City, Iran. Material(s) and Method(s): A cross-sectional study was conducted based on hospital-based registry data from May 2020 to March 2021. Among more than 500 registered MS patients in Imam Khomeini Hospital in Tehran City, Iran, referring within our study period, 84 patients reported SARS-COV2 infection. The diagnosis of MS was confirmed by the McDonald criteria. Moreover, the diagnosis of COVID-19 in MS patients was established by the real-time-PCR technique and chest computed tomography. Result(s): Out of 84 MS patients with SARS-COV2 infection, 55(65.5%) were women, and their mean age was 37.48 years. The most commonly used medications by MS patients were Rituximab 20 (26.3%) and Dimethyl Fumarate 14(18.4%). Totally, 9(10.8%) of the patients needed to be hospitalized due to COVID-19, with a mean hospitalization duration of 5.88 days. A total of 1 (1.2%) death was reported. Conclusion(s): Compared to the healthy population, COVID-19 is not more serious in MS patients. Most MS patients with COVID-19 infection were not hospitalized and continued their medication during the infection.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. This is an open access article under the CC-By-NC license. All Rights Reserved.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundRheumatologic patients treated with Rituximab (RTX) are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 and death. The B-cell depletive treatment significantly affects B cell functions involved in anti-SARS-CoV-2 response, leading to relevant impacts on the clinical and serological course of infection, long-term immunity, and vaccine responses. In light of these observations, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of COVID-19 with Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) was recently approved in Italy for all patients treated with RTX in the previous year, independently of their serological status against SARS-CoV-2.ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TGM/CGM in a single-centre cohort of rheumatologic patients treated with RTX.MethodsFrom October 2022, all patients who had been treated with RTX in the previous 12 months and who underwent clinical assessment at our rheumatologic tertiary centre were screened for eligibility to PrEP of COVID-19 with TGM/CGM. According to the indications of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), we excluded subjects with major cardiovascular risk factors and/or coagulation abnormalities;those who reported a previous allergic reaction to any anti-COVID19 vaccine were referred to an allergologist for an evaluation before TGM/CGM administration. Patients who agreed to be treated with TGM/CGM signed an informed consent. Clinical and demographic features were collected at baseline, and follow-up phone assessment was performed the day after and 1 month after TGM/CGM administration, to assess treatment tolerability and new COVID-19- related events. A descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsFrom 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022, 90 subjects were screened for eligibility to TGM/CGM. Among them, 11 were excluded for contraindications due to comorbidities and 55 refused TGM/CGM administration. Among patients who agreed to receive PrEP of COVID-19, 21 received TGM/CGM before 31 December 2022 and 3 were scheduled for January2023. Patients treated with TGM/CGM had a mean age of 54 years (standard deviation: 17) and 19 (90.5%) were female;9 were affected by rheumatoid arthritis and 12 by other rheumatologic diseases (3 systemic lupus erythematosus, 2 systemic sclerosis, 1 Sjögren syndrome, 1 juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 3 anti-synthetase syndrome, 2 vasculitides). Most of them had completed the vaccination schedule against COVID-19 (19, 90.5%) and 9 (42.8%) reported an infectious event by SARS-CoV-2 in the previous year. One month after TGM/CGM administration, no patient reported adverse events related to TGM/CGM nor COVID-19 related symptoms.ConclusionPrEP of COVID-19 with TGM/CGM was well tolerated in our population of rheumatologic patients treated with RTX in the previous year and no COVID-19 related symptoms were observed in the month of follow-up after TGM/CGM administration. Future observations may provide further data on long-term efficacy of TGM/CGM in preventing COVID-19.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsMaria Manara Speakers bureau: Novartis, Angelini, Consultant of: Lilly, MSD, Manuel Sette: None declared, Laura Giudice: None declared, Martina Biggioggero: None declared, Nicoletta Del Papa Speakers bureau: Janssen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Actelion, Ennio Giulio Favalli Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Maria Gerosa: None declared, Francesca Ingegnoli: None declared, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius, Galapagos, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundAmid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have benefited most people worldwide. While healthy people can acquire sufficient humoral immunity against COVID-19 even in the elderly by vaccination with three doses of vaccine., recent studies have shown that complex factors other than age, including the type of vaccines and immunosuppressive drugs, are associated with immunogenicity in patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (RMD). Identifying factors that contribute to the vulnerability of those patients to acquire not only humoral but also cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 despite multiple vaccinations is crucial for establishing an appropriate booster vaccine strategy.ObjectivesTo assess humoral,and T cell immune responses after third doses of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.MethodsThis prospective observational study included consecutive RMD patients treated with immunosuppressant who received three doses of mRNA vaccines including BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Blood samples were obtained 2-6 weeks after second and third dose of mRNA vaccines. We measured neutralizing antibody titres, which against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and seroconversion rates to evaluate the humoral responses. We also assessed T-cell immunity responses using interferon releasing assay against SARS-CoV-2.ResultsA total of 586 patients with RMD treated with mmunosuppressive treatments were enrolled. The mean age was 54 years, and 70% of the patients were female. Seroconversion rates and neutralizing antibody titres after third vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 were significantly higher compared to those after second vaccination (seroconversion rate, 94.5% vs 83.6%, p<0.001;titres of neutralizing antibody, 48.2 IU/mL vs 11.0 IU/mL, p<0.001, respectively). Interferon releasing assay after third vaccinations demonstrated that T cell reaction against SARS-CoV-2 was also increased from that of second vaccination (interferon for antigen 1, 1.11.9 vs 0.61.9, p=0.004,interferon for antigen 2, 1.72.6 vs 0.82.3, p=0.004). Humoral and cellular immunogenicity did not differ between the types of third vaccination including full dose of BNT162 and half dose of mRNA1273.(neutralizing antibody titers, 47.8±76.1 IU/mL vs 49.0±60.1 IU/mL, p<0.001;interferon for antigen 1, 1.12.0 vs 1.01.5, p=0.004, respectively). Attenuated humoral response to third vaccination was associated with BNT162b2 as second vaccination age (>60 years old), glucocorticoid (equivalent to prednisolone > 7.5 mg/day), and immunosuppressant use including mycophenolate, and rituximab. On another front, use of mycophenolate and abatacept or tacrolimus but not rituximab were identified as negative factors for T-cell reactions against SARS-CoV-2. Although 53 patients (9.0%) who had been immunised with third-vaccination contracted COVID-19 during Omicron pandemic phase, no one developed severe pulmonary disease that required corticosteroid therapy.ConclusionOur results demonstrated third mRNA vaccination booster of SARS-CoV-2 contributed to restore both humeral and cellular immunity in RMD patients with immunosuppressants. We also identified that certain immunosuppressive therapy with older RMD patients having BNT162b2 as a second vaccination may need additional booster vaccination.Reference[1]Furer V, Eviatar T, Freund T, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 Nov;81(11):1594-1602. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222550.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA) is rare but described after the SARS-CoV- 2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. We present a case of severe refractory warm AIHA after this vaccine, managed with emergency splenectomy and complement inhibition with eculizumab. A male in his teens with a history of liver transplant for biliary atresia (aged 2 years) and AIHA (aged 6 years) presented to his district general hospital with jaundice, dark urine, fatigue and chest discomfort 48 h after the first dose of SARS-CoV- 2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (BNT162b2 mRNA). Investigations revealed haemoglobin (Hb) of 70 g/L and bilirubin of 98 mumol/L, which was treated as AIHA. The patient initially responded to prednisolone (1 mg/kg, 60 mg) but subsequently deteriorated and failed to respond to second-line rituximab (375 mg/m2) and two units of packed red blood cells (PRBC). By day 29 the patient had developed life-threatening anaemia culminating in a Hb of 35 g/L (after transfusion), lactate dehydrogenase (LD) of 1293 units/L and bilirubin of 228 mumol/L. This necessitated an immediate transfer to our tertiary centre for specialist support. Further investigations revealed a haptoglobin <0.1 g/L and direct antiglobulin test (DAT) strongly positive for IgG (4+) and negative for C3d. The peripheral blood film showed severe anaemia, nucleated red cells, anisocytosis and spherocytes with no autoagglutination, schistocytes or platelet clumps. Thrombocytopaenia (platelets 49 +/- 109/L) was present. Differentials were ruled out, such as paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria and heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia. HIV and hepatitis serology were negative, as were adenovirus, cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus PCR assays. A CT showed splenomegaly of 15.5 cm. Urinalysis found urobilinogen and bilirubin at high concentrations and negative urinary haemosiderin. Together, the investigations were consistent with warm AIHA. On day 29, four units of PRBC were transfused alongside 100 mg methylprednisolone and 1 g/kg IVIG. On day 30 the patient deteriorated despite the escalated treatment: Hb had only increased to 54 g/L, bilirubin was 200 mumol/L and LD was rising. Considering this life-threatening fulminant haemolysis, an emergency splenectomy was performed. This slowed haemolysis but did not completely ameliorate it: by day 33 the patient had received 15 units of PRBC. Thus, eculizumab, a terminal complement pathway inhibitor, was trialled to arrest intravascular haemolysis, alongside rituximab, repeat IVIG 1 g/kg, prednisolone 40 mg and tacrolimus 2 mg. This showed a favourable response, requiring less frequent transfusions and settling haemolysis. This case highlights the rare complication of warm AIHA with the SARS-CoV- 2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the use of emergency splenectomy for disease control, and the potential of eculizumab for refractory cases.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: STAT1 gain-of-function (GOF) disease is associated with chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis (CMC) and a broad spectrum of infectious, inflammatory, and vascular manifestations. The Janus Kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib has been used successfully for CMC and autoimmune phenomena. We describe a case of warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (WAIHA) in a patient with STAT1 GOF disease after initiating ruxolitinib. Case report: A 36-year-old man with STAT1 c.850G>A (p.Glu284Lys) mutation presented with CMC as well as recurrent viral and bacterial infections, lymphadenopathy, enteritis, nodular regenerative hyperplasia (NRH) and splenomegaly. Immune workup confirmed a combined immunodeficiency with hypogammaglobulinemia and T-cell lymphopenia. Ruxolitinib was initiated at 5 mg twice daily (due to pre-existing thrombocytopenia) with up titration over 3 months to 20 mg twice daily. He improved with weight gain, increased energy, resolution of chronic anemia, and improved lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly on imaging. Serum CXCL9 only minimally decreased from 4660 pg/ml to 3990 pg/ml. Soon after reaching ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily, he developed JC viremia, prompting dose reduction to 15 mg BID. Within two weeks, he developed a non-COVID upper respiratory tract infection followed by fatigue, shortness of breath with ambulation, and dark urine. Emergency evaluation revealed warm antibody positive hemolytic anemia with a hemoglobin of 5 g/dL, and worsened thrombocytopenia. He was treated with blood transfusions, pulse steroids, and high-dose IVIG with stabilization but continued hemolysis. Due to the JC viremia, there was concern to give rituximab with increased PML risk. Bone marrow showed trilineage hematopoiesis, a mild increase in megakaryocytes and RBC precursors, and a loss of B-cell progenitors with retention of mature B cells. His B and T lymphocyte numbers had increased since prior to ruxolitinib, with a predominance of Tfh1-cells (58.7% of total Tfh-cells). He was started on sirolimus with a slow taper of prednisone with continued stable hemoglobin and platelets, and resolution of hemolysis after 3 months. Conclusion(s): To our knowledge, this is the first case of a STAT1 GOF patient developing WAIHA while receiving ruxolitinib therapy. Treatment choices were complicated by the risks of PML. Sirolimus combined with ruxolitinib allowed wean of corticosteroid and subsequent resolution of hemolysis.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundComplete peripheral B cell depletion has been considered as a relevant indicator of short-term response to rituximab (RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [1,2]. However, no information is available to validate this observation in RA patients long-term treated with RTX.ObjectivesTo determine whether sustained complete B cell (BC) depletion is associated with a better clinical response in RA patients long-term treated with RTX.MethodsRetrospective routine care study conducted in the Rheumatology department of Cochin hospital. We included consecutive patients fulfilling the ACR/EULAR 2010 classification criteria for RA hospitalized in 2021 for a new RTX infusion. All recruited patients had received at least 3 prior RTX infusions and had disease activity assessment (DAS28 and DAS28-CRP) and CD19 counts (Aquios, Beckman Coulter) available during each of the 4 last infusion visits. The primary endpoint was the course of DAS28 and DAS28-CRP, calculated the day of the last 4 infusion visits according to sustained complete (mean CD19 counts <18/µL) or incomplete (mean CD19 counts ≥18/µL) BC depletion. Secondary endpoints were the frequency of end-of-dose effect and patient self-reported RA flares at each infusion visit, as well as the course of pain/fatigue VAS, CRP and gammaglobulin levels according to complete or incomplete B cell depletion.ResultsWe included 126 patients (105 women, 83%) with a mean age of 64±12 years and a mean disease duration of 22± 5 years. Only 43 patients (34%) had maintained complete BC depletion during the last 4 infusions (mean CD19 counts 13±4/µL) (Figure 1A-B). Patients with incomplete BC depletion (n=83, mean CD19 counts: 77±73/µL, p<0.001) did not differ from those who maintained complete BC depletion in terms of age, gender, disease duration, structural damages and concomitant treatment.Patients with incomplete BC depletion had a higher frequency of rheumatoid factor (92% vs. 77%, p=0.018) and ACPA (84% vs. 72%, p=0.11);these patients had received RTX for a longer period (99±57 months vs. 69±47 months, p=0.003), with significantly higher number of infusions (14±7 vs. 12±6 infusions, p=0.037) and increased cumulative dose (10±6 g vs. 8±5 g, p=0.10) compared to patients with sustained complete BC depletion. On the other hand, their interval between 2 infusions was significantly longer (8±3 months vs. 6±1 months, p<0.001).The course of DAS28 and DAS28-CRP during the last 4 infusions was not different between the 2 groups (Figures 1C-D). The mean DAS28 and DAS28-CRP calculated at the time of last 4 infusion visits did not differ between patients with incomplete or sustained complete BC depletion (DAS28: 2.71±1.06 vs. 3.01±1.10, p=0.33 and DAS28-CRP: 2.53±0.88 vs. 2.88±0.84, p=0.095). The frequency of an end-of-dose effect and self-reported flares was similar between the 2 groups, as well as the evaluation of pain VAS, asthenia VAS, CRP and gammaglobulin levels (Figures 1E-H).ConclusionMaintaining complete BC depletion is not a therapeutic target to achieve in RA patients in long-term maintenance therapy with RTX. These results show that it is possible to space out RTX infusions to 8 months without loss of clinical benefit, which remains identical to that of patients treated every 6 months with sustained BC depletion. This result may have clinical implications during the COVID-19 pandemic since the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is preferentially obtained in patients with detectable B cells [3].References[1]Vital EM et al. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:603–8.[2]Dass S et al. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58(10):2993–2999.[3]Avouac et al, Rheumatology 2022Figure 1.Course of mean (±SD) CD19, DAS28, DAS28-CRP, pain and fatigue VAS, CRP and gammaglobulins at the last 4 RTX infusion visits according to sustained complete or incomplete B cell depletion (CBCD and IBCD respectively).[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundData on serological immunity after three doses and the long-term immunogenicity (persistence) of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) treated with different immunomodulating drugs are still limited.ObjectivesTo elucidate if 1) a third dose COVID-19 vaccine improves antibody responses, compared to two doses, in patients with IRD treated with biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD (b/tsDMARDs) treatment given as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) compared to controls, and 2) the persistence of antibody response after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine in IRD patients.MethodsAntibody levels to two antigens representing Spike full length protein and Spike S1 and a Nucleocapsid C-terminal fragment (used to confirm previous COVID-19 infection) were measured in serum samples collected 2-12 and 21-40 weeks after the second vaccine dose and 2-12 weeks after the third dose using a multiplex bead-based serology assay. A sufficient antibody response (seropositivity) was defined as having antibodies over the cut-off level for both spike antigens (1). WT (wild type) anti-Spike IgG and omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants were measured. Patients with IRD receiving immunomodulating treatment, regularly followed at a rheumatology department and a group of controls were recruited from five Swedish region.ResultsIn total, 323 of 414 patients with IRD and 36 controls who received three vaccine doses participated in this part of the study. Following treatment groups were included: rituximab (n=118;68% female;mean age 67 years), abatacept (n=18;72% female;mean age 64 years), IL6r inhibitors (n=60;73% female;mean age 64 years), JAK-inhibitors (n=44;80% female, mean age 52 years), TNF-inhibitors (n=59;70% female;mean age 47 years;), IL12/23/17 inhibitors (n=24;46% female;mean age 54 years) and controls (n=36;75% female, mean age 51 years). b/ts DMARD treatment was given as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARD, methotrexate (MTX) being the most frequently used csDMARD (32.5%). Compared to results after two vaccine doses, proportion (%) of seropositivity after three vaccine doses increased significantly in groups rituximab +/- DMARD (p=0.003 and p=0.004, respectively), IL6r inhibitors +DMARD (p=0.02), and abatacept+DMARD (p=0.01). However, the proportion of seropositivity after three vaccine doses was still significantly lower in rituximab treated patients (52%) compared to other treatment groups or controls (p<0.001) (Figure 1A/B). Antibody response to WT, omicron sBA.1 and sBA.2 showed similar pattern with the lowest levels among patients treated with rituximab.When antibody response was compared between 2-12 weeks and 21-40 weeks after second dose, the proportion of seropositive rituximab treated patients decreased from 34.9 % to 32.6%. All patients with JAK inhibitors and with JAK-inhibitors and IL6r-inhibitors seropositive 21-40 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Patients treated with other bDMARDs were not included in this analysis due to limited number participants.ConclusionIn this Swedish study including IRD patients receiving different b/t DMARDs, a sufficient immunogenicity of the third dose of COVID-19 vaccine was observed in all treatments with exception for rituximab. However, the increased proportion of seropositivity after the third COVID-19 vaccine doses in rituximab and other patients with insufficient response to two doses including response to the omicron variants, supports the current recommendations on additional booster doses. The immunogenicity of two vaccine doses was preserved to 40 weeks in majority of patients treated with different immunomodulating treatment with exception for rituximab.Figure 1.AcknowledgementsThe study has been supported by the independent research grants from Roche.Disclosure of InterestsMartina Frodlund: None declared, Per Nived: None declared, Katerina Chatzidionysiou Consultant of: consultancy fees from Eli Lilly, AbbVie and Pfizer., Grant/research support from: Research grand from Galapagos, Anna ödergren: None declared, Eva Klingberg: None declared, Monika Hansson: None declared, Elisa Pin: None declared, Lars Klareskog: None declared, Meliha C Kapetanovic Grant/research support from: independent research grants från Pfizer and Roche.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundVaccination against SARS-CoV2 had a critical role in the fight against COVID19 pandemic.A weaker humoral response to COVID19 vaccine has been found in rheumatic patients treated with Rituximab (RTX) or Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF)[1]. Despite the evidence that anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines can elicit a T-cell response [2], some data show that even the cellular immunity could be impaired in rheumatic patients [3] but COVID19 serology is the only parameter that is feasible to measure in daily practice.Tixagevimab+cilgavimab are two human-derived monoclonal antibodies administered parenterally and authorized by regulatory agencies in February 2022 for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID19 from different virus variants in fragile patients.ObjectivesTo demonstrate safety and effectiveness of tixagevimab+cilgavimab.MethodsPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases undergoing immunosuppressive treatment with RTX or MMF during the vaccination campaign were enrolled between April and June 2022. All patients must have anti-spike antibody levels below the protective threshold (defined by anti-spike IgG titre <250 BAU/ml) after receiving at least 2 vaccine doses.Patients were monitored with a questionnaire every month about COVID19 symptoms (including respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, anosmia and ageusia, skin rash and potential contact with COVID19+ subjects) and were checked for anti-spike and anti-nucleocapside antibodies titres every 2 months for a total of a 6 month follow-up. MMF dose was reduced at 1 g/die at the time of vaccine administration.ResultsFifteen patients were enrolled: 9 participants had a connective tissue disease (CTD;1 dermatomyositis, 3 anti-syntethase syndrome, 4 systemic sclerosis, 1 systemic lupus erythematosus) and 6 had vasculitis (all granulomatosis with polyangiitis). 12 of them received RTX in the preceding 12 months and 3 were taking MMF.About safety, the therapy was very well tolerated and only 4 patients (26%) reported a non-severe adverse event in the 2 weeks following drug administration (2 myalgia, 1 headache, 1 fatigue), none of them requiring hospitalization nor pharmacologic treatment.Regarding effectiveness, 3/15 patients contracted SARS-Cov2 infection (20%) with mild symptoms and no need for hospitalization nor oxygen therapy. Only 1 of them received an antiviral drug (nirmatrelvir+ritonavir). All infected patients had a CTD diagnosis. No significant correlation was observed between the type of rheumatic disease and the risk of infection or response to tixagevimab+cilgavimab.ConclusionNone of our patients developed severe adverse events after tixagevimab+cilgavimab administration and, among the 3 SARS-CoV2 infected patients, none required hospitalization nor oxygen therapy.We conclude that in our experience tixagevimab+cilgavimab is a safe and useful complementary immunization strategy to vaccination for COVID19 prophylaxis.These data will be implemented in a larger study, comprehending various immunocompromised patients from several departments.References[1] Furer et al., Ann Rheum Dis, 2021[2] Mangalakumari et al., Nat Rev Immunol, 2020[3] Picchianti-Diamanti et al., Front Immunol, 2021Charateristic of the cohortIdentificativeAgeDiagnosisRTX/MMFSARS-CoV2 InfectionHospitalizationAntiviral drugs180SScMMF-//270ASSDRTX+nono370ASSDRTX+noyes452GPARTX-//551GPARTX-//649SSc+SSjRTX-//768SScMMF-//847LESRTX-//964ASSDRTX-//1068GPARTX-//1123GPARTX-//1258DMRTX+nono1361SScMMF-//1475GPARTX-//1569GPARTX-//Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.