Certolizumab

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

Correlations of interleukin levels with the severity of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection.

A new coronavirus infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is characterized by a systemic hyperinflammatory response with a pronounced increase in the content of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Materials and methods. The study was conducted on the basis of the Samara Regional Children's Infectious Diseases Hospital from 2021 to 2022. 40 patients with moderate (n = 20, group I) and severe forms (n = 20, group II) COVID-19 were studied, the comparison group consisted of patients with viral pneumonia of another etiology (n = 35, group III). Results. The infectious agent SARS-CoV-2 induces high levels of cytokines IL-6 (p < 0.005), IL-8 (p < 0.05) and a slight increase in TNF-alpha (p < 0.05). IL-8 was significantly associated with disease duration (p < 0.01). We assume that the value of this interleukin will increase in the post-COVID period. Conclusions. Changes in IL-6 and IL-8 levels in patients with COVID-19, along with clinical features, are important biomarkers for predicting the severity and duration of the disease.Copyright © Children Infections.All rights reserved

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO ADJUVANTED RECOMBINANT ZOSTER VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED TRIAL SUB-STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.

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.

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.

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

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

Hemoperfusion with CytoSorb as Adjuvant Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with SARS-CoV2 Pneumonia

Background: Several pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines involved in COVID-19 and it is reasonable to speculate that their removal from blood might limit organ damage. Hemoperfusion with CytoSorb is a technique developed to adsorb molecules in the middle molecular weight range (up to 55 kDa). Studies in vitro and in vivo have shown that HP is highly effective in clearing blood from a number of cytokines. Method(s): We report a case series of 9 consecutive COVID-patients admitted to our COVID Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Five of them were treated with HP using CytoSorb (T), due to the heavy emergency overload it was impossible to deliver blood purification in the other 4 patients (C), who were also considered as potential candidates by the attending medical team. All patients had pneumonia and respiratory failure requiring continuous positive airway pressure. Different antibacterial prophylaxes, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory therapies including steroids were delivered. Result(s): Our results show a better clinical course of T compared to control patients (C), in fact all T except 1 survived, and only 2 of them were intubated, while all C required intubation and died. CRP decreased in both groups, but to a greater extent after HP. Lymphocytopenia worsened in control patient but not in treated patient after HP. Procalcitonin increased in 2 of the not treated patients. In all survived patients (n = 4) HP reduced pro-inflammatory cytokines, as IL-6, TNF-alpha, and IL-8. Notably, a striking effect was observed on IL-6 levels that at the end of the second session were decreased by a 40% than before the first treatment. Serum levels of IL-8 and TNF-alpha were lowered within normal range. In all patients the treatment was safe and there were no complications. Conclusion(s): Our study suggests a potential efficacy of HP in an early phase of viral infection not only for improving survival in the treated patients but also by the remodeling treatment-associated cytokine levels.

SAFETY OF BIVALENT SARS-COV-2 VACCINES AS A SECOND BOOSTER DOSE IN ARTHRITIS PATIENTS ON IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE THERAPIES

BackgroundSafety and efficacy of updated bivalent vaccines, containing both the original vaccine variant of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and either Omicron variants BA.1 or BA.4/5, are of particular interest in arthritis patients on immunosuppressive therapies. With the continuous emergence of new viral variants, it is important to evaluate whether updated vaccines induce more adverse events in this patient group.ObjectivesTo examine if a second booster dose with updated bivalent vaccine increases the risk of adverse events, compared to the first booster dose with monovalent vaccines.MethodsThe prospective Nor-vaC study investigates vaccine responses in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressive therapies (1). The present analyses included arthritis patients who received two booster doses. Patients received available vaccines according to the Norwegian vaccination program. The current recommendation in the Norwegian arthritis population is a three-dose primary vaccination series followed by two booster doses. Adverse events following vaccines doses were self-reported through questionnaires. Adverse events following the first (monovalent) and second (bivalent) booster were compared with McNemar's test.ResultsBetween 7th of July 2021 and 6th of December 2022 a total of 243 arthritis patients (127 rheumatoid arthritis, 65 psoriatic arthritis, 51 spondyloarthritis) on immunosuppressive therapies (Table 1) received a first, monovalent (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) and a second, bivalent booster dose (BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1), mRNA-1273.214, BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)). Adverse events were recorded within 2 weeks in all patients (Figure 1). In total, 45 vs 49 (19% vs 20 %) patients reported any adverse event after a second, bivalent booster dose, compared to the first, monovalent booster, respectively. There was no significant difference in adverse events overall (p= 0.57). The most common adverse events after the second booster were pain at injection site (12 %), flu-like symptoms (9 %) and headache (6 %). No new safety signals emerged. A total of 15 (6 %) patients reported a disease flare after receiving the second, bivalent booster, compared to 21 (8 %) after the first, monovalent booster.ConclusionThere was no difference in adverse events between the monovalent, first booster, and the bivalent, second booster, indicating that bivalent vaccines are safe in this patient group.Reference[1]Syversen S.W. et al Arthritis Rheumatol 2022Table 1.Demographic characteristics and immunosuppressive medication in patients receiving a 1st monovalent and a 2nd bivalent booster dose.CharacteristicsPatients, n (%)Total243Age (years), median (IQR)61 (52-67)Female152 (63)Immunosuppressive medicationTNFi monoa75 (31)TNFi comboa+b72 (30)Methotrexate62 (26)Rituximab9 (4)IL-inhibitorsc6 (2)JAK-inhibitorsd11 (5)Othere8 (3)1st boosterBNT162b2106 (44)mRNA-1273137 (56)2nd boosterBNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1)65 (25)BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)120 (47)mRNA-1273.214 (WT/OMI BA.1)58 (23)Results in n (%) unless otherwise specified.aTumor necrosis factor inhibitors: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol.bCombination therapy: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.cInterleukin inhibitors: tocilizumab, secukinumab.dJanus kinase inhibitors: filgotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib.eOther: abatacept, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.Figure 1.Adverse events after bivalent vaccine as a 2nd booster dose compared to a monovalent vaccine as a 1st booster dose.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsWe thank the patients and health-care workers who have participated in the Norwegian study of vaccine response to COVID-19. We thank the patient representatives in the study group, Kristin Isabella Kirkengen Espe and Roger Thoresen. We thank all study personnel, laboratory personnel, and other staff involved at the clinical departments involved, particularly Synnøve Aure, Margareth Sveinsson, May Britt Solem, Elisabeth Røssum-Haaland, and Kjetil Bergsmark.Disclosure of InterestsHilde Ørbo: None declared, Ingrid Jyssum: None declared, Anne Therese Tveter: None declared, Ingrid E. Christensen: None declared, Joseph Sexton: None declared, Kristin Hammersbøen Bjørlykke Speakers bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Grete B. Kro: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ludvig A. Munthe Speakers bureau: Novartis, Cellgene, Gunnveig Grodeland Speakers bureau: Bayer, Sanofi, ThermoFisher, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Siri Mjaaland: None declared, John Torgils Vaage: None declared, Espen A Haavardsholm Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Kristin Kaasen Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Silje Watterdal Syversen: None declared, Guro Løvik Goll Speakers bureau: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB.

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

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

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.

Scientific rationale of Indian AYUSH Ministry advisory for COVID-19 prevention, prophylaxis, and immunomodulation

The current outbreak of COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that has affected > 210 countries. Various steps are taken by different countries to tackle the current war-like health situation. In India, the Ministry of AYUSH released a self-care advisory for immunomodulation measures during the COVID-19 and this review article discusses the detailed scientific rationale associated with this advisory. Authors have spotted and presented in-depth insight of advisory in terms of immunomodulatory, antiviral, antibacterial, co-morbidity associated actions, and their probable mechanism of action. Immunomodulatory actions of advised herbs with no significant adverse drug reaction/toxicity strongly support the extension of advisory for COVID-19 prevention, prophylaxis, mitigations, and rehabilitation capacities. This advisory also emphasized Dhyana (meditation) and Yogasanas as a holistic approach in enhancing immunity, mental health, and quality of life. The present review may open-up new meadows for research and can provide better conceptual leads for future researches in immunomodulation, antiviral-development, psychoneuroimmunology, especially for COVID-19.Copyright © 2021, Institute of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University.

Pharmacological Properties and Safe Use of 12 Medicinal Plant Species and Their Bioactive Compounds Affecting the Immune System

This paper presents raw plant materials and their characteristic compounds which may affect the immune system. Plant-derived agents in specific doses affect the body's non-specific, antigen-independent defense system. They have immunostimulatory effects on the entire immune regulatory system. They can enhance the immune response through various factors such as macrophages, leukocytes, and granulocytes, as well as through mediators released by the cellular immune system. This paper was inspired by the threats caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The proper functioning of the immune system is important in limiting the effects of viral infection and restoring the normal functioning of the body. This paper also emphasizes the importance of the skillful use of plant immunostimulants by potential patients, but also by those who prescribe drugs. It is important not only to choose the right plant drug but above all to choose the correct dose and duration of treatment.

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.

IMPACT OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH AS USING BIOLOGIC AGENTS

BackgroundAlthough renal involvement is an rare extra-articular involvement in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), medications and accopamyning comorbidities may adversly affect renal functions [1].ObjectivesTo determine the frequency and impact of CKD in patients with AS using biologic disease modyfying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).MethodsBetween 2005 and November 2021, 3207 patients diagnosed with AS according to the modified New York criteria were enrolled in the Hacettepe University biological database (HUR-BIO). The 2012 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline was used for the definition of CKD to evaluate the renal function of patients. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was calculated with the MDRD (modified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) formula, taking into account the creatinine value, age and gender parameters of the patients [2]. CKD was detected in 39 (1,2%) patients. Age-sex matched 41 non-CKD AS patients were selected as the control group. Demographic and clinical characteristics and mortality rates of AS patients with and without CKD were compared.ResultsOf 39 AS-CKD patients, 25 (64.1%) had CKD before the initation of bDMARD and and 14 (35.8%) developed CKD during follow-up after treatment was started. Patients with AS-CKD had longer duration of symptoms and disease (Table 1). Comorbidities such as hypertension, coronary artery disease and amyloidosis were more prevalent in patients with AS-CKD. At a median follow-up of 2.48(0.1-20.1) years, mortality was observed in 11(28.2%) patients in the AS-CKD group, while no mortality was observed in the age-sex matched AS-nonCKD group (p<0.001, Figure 1). The mortality rate in patients with AS-CKD was 12.6 per 1000 patient-years, and 4 (10.2%) of deaths were during the COVID-19 pandemia.Figure 1.Table 1.AS-CKD group (n=39)AS-nonCKD group (n=41)PTotal AS patients, (n=3207)Age, mean(SD), years68.2 (12.0)58.8(12.6)-47.9±(11.2)Male, n(%)27 (69.2)27(65.9)-1716(53.5)53.1)Symptom duration, years median (min-max)20 (5-42)11(2-30)0.0110(1-44)Disease duration, years median (min-max)14,5(5-42)7(1-29)0.046(1-37)HLA-B27 positivity, n(%)13(33.3)12(29.2)0.5826/2014(41.0)Uveitis, n(%)6/354/360.2339/2946(11.5)Inflammatory bowel disease, n(%)4/353/360.4135/2946(4.58)Smoking, ever, n(%)22/34 (64.7)20/36(55.5)0.31781/2942(60.5)BMI (kg/m2), mean(SD)28 (6.08)28.2(5.01)0.828.1(5.5)Amiloidosis, n(%)14/36(38.9)1(2.4)<0.00133/2949(1.11)Comotbidities n(%)• Diabetes Mellitus,7/34(20.6)4/36(11.1)0.2199/2949(6.7)• Hypertension27/34(79.4)9/36(25)<0.001442/2949(14.9)• CAD8/21(38.1)1/25(4)0.005110/1882(5.8)• COPD5/21(23.8)0/240.004117/1774(6.59)CRP, med(min-max)1.6(0.4-12.4)1.77(0.1-23.6)0.81.07(0.1-45)• at the initiation of bDMARDs, at the last visit,0.7(0.16-14)0.55(0.1-7.5)0.30.5(0.1-14)ESR, med(min-max)• at the initiation of bDMARDs,48(12-140)30(2-96)0.119(1-140)• at the last visit, med(min-max)25(3-93)15(2-70)0.113(1-110)BASDAI, mean (SD)• At the initiation of bDMARDs4.5(±2.1) 5.46(±2.07) 0.5 5.7(±2.04) • At the last vizit3.94(±2.35)2.95(±2.33)0.093.69(±2.5)CAD: Coronary artery disease, COPD: Chronic Obstructive pulmonary disease, BMI: Body mass index, BASDAI: Bath AS Disease Activity IndexConclusionBoth comorbid disease burden and mortality seem to be increased in patients with AS-CKD. Increased mortality was more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemia.References[1]Coşkun, B.N., et al., Anti-TNF treatment in ankylosing spondylitis patients with chronic kidney disease: Is it effective and safe? Eur J Rheumatol, 2022. 9(2): p. 68-74.[2]Stevens, P.E. and A. Levin, Evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease: synopsis of the kidney disease: improving global outcomes 2012 clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med, 2013. 158(11): p. 825-30.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

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

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

Lymphoproliferation- a clue towards an underlying monogenic disorder of immune dysregulation- a retrospective analysis from a single center in India

Background: Lymphoproliferation is the persistent proliferation of lymphoid cells and it's incidence in inborn errors of immunity varies from 0.7 to 18%. Material(s) and Method(s): This is a retrospective analysis of patients referred to the department of Immunology, B. J. Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai between March 2017 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria consisted of 3 months duration of significant lymphadenopathy and/or splenomegaly or history of lymphoma. The clinical characteristics, laboratory and molecular findings of the included patients were analyzed. Result(s): A total of 66 patients were included. There was a male preponderance with male:female ratio of 25:8. Median age of onset of lymphoproliferation was 4.75 years(Range 1 year to 60 years). Splenomegaly was seen in 75%. Infections included recurrent pneumonia (14/66), recurrent ear infections(5/66), COVID(4/66), one episode of pneumonia(6/66), herpes zoster(3/66), recurrent subcutaneous abscess (3/66), abdominal koch(3/66), chronic sinusitis(2/66), dermatophytosis(2/66), esophageal candidiasis(2/66), recurrent malaria(1/66), recurrent varicella(1/66), cryptococcal meningitis(1/66), gram negative sepsis(1/66), BCG adenitis(1/66), pseudomonas osteomyelitis(1/66), impetigo (1/66), pseudomonas urinary tract infection (1/66), chicken pox(1/66), herpes keratitis(1/66), dengue(1/66), Other manifestations included Evans plus phenotype(10/66), Evans phenotype(8/66), Autoimmune hemolytic anemia(5/66), bronchiectasis(5/66), Type 1 diabetes(3/66), hyper reactive airway disease(2/66), inflammatory bowel disease(4/66), autoimmune thrombocytopenia(2/66), stroke(3/66), hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis(2/66), hypertriglyceridemia(2/66), hypothyroidism(2/66), celiac disease(1/66), Type 2 diabetes(1/66), autoimmune encephalitis(1/66), autoimmune hepatitis(2/66), anti-parietal cell antibody(1/66), arthritis(1/66), autoimmune enteropathy(1/66), systemic lupus erythromatosus(1/66), primary biliary cirrhosis requiring liver transplant(1/66), nephrotic syndrome(1/66), lymphoedema(1/66), hypersplenism(1/66), recurrent oral ulcers(1/66), gout(1/66), dermatitis(1/66), ovarian teratoma(1/66), alopecia areata(1/66). Hodgkin's lymphoma(HL) was the most common malignancy(9/66), followed by non Hodgkin lymphoma(NHL)(6/66), transformation from NHL to HL(1/66), Burkitt to T-cell lymphoma(1/66), HL to DLBCL(1/66), HL to anaplastic T-cell lymphoma(1/66). EBV driven lymphoproliferation was seen in biopsy of21/66. Genetic testing showed mutations in LRBA(11/66), PIK3CD(5/66), CTLA4(3/66), TET2(2/66), IL2RA (1/66), IL12RB1(1/66), BACH2(1/66), PRKCD(1/66), TNFSFR13B(1/66), TNFAIP3(1/66), FAS(2/66), FASL(1/66), Caspase8(1/66), CARD11(1/66), RTEL1(1/66), AICD(1/66), PIK3R1(1/66), IKBKB(1/66). Treatment included IVIG, chemotherapy, rituximab, sirolimus, abatacept, HSCT. Conclusion(s): All children with persistent lymphoproliferation, with or without autoimmunity and/or infections should be worked up for an underlying monogenic disorder of immune dysregulation. Lymphomas presenting at abnormal site and/or age, relapse and EBV driven lymphomas require further evaluation. Presence of monogenic cause helps in providing targeted therapy.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.

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.