ABSTRACT
BackgroundFlare of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) following COVID-19 vaccination has been reported with a low occurrence observed in those patients with disease remission. However, no local data is available in our multi-ethnic Malaysian population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of RA flare in Malaysian patients following COVID-19 vaccination and its associated risk factors.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study assessing RA flare based on patient-reported disease flare through self-administered questionnaires and physician-reported flare. Patient self-reported disease flare was defined as ‘a sudden worsening of rheumatology condition or arthritis within 1 month post-vaccination' while physician-reported flare was defined as ‘an increment of disease activity score 28-joint documented within 3 months post-vaccination‘ from either a scheduled or unscheduled clinic visit. A total of 186 RA patients attended the rheumatology clinic in Hospital Putrajaya from May to July 2022 who completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination under the Malaysian National Vaccination Programme were recruited. Demographic data, disease parameters including serology for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), cessation of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around vaccination, type of vaccines and adverse events were examined using descriptive and univariate analyses.ResultsMajority (93%) of RA patients enrolled were female with a mean age of 58 years old (standard deviation, SD 12.2) and mean disease duration was 12 years (SD 7.7). More than half were seropositive (66% RF, 63% ACPA) with 47.4% had double seropositivity (RF and ACPA positive). All patients received DMARDs with the majority (71%) were on methotrexate (MTX), 21.5% were on leflunomide, 17.7% on other DMARDs, with a small proportion (14%) of patients were receiving prednisolone. Only 4.8% of patients were on biologics or targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Half of the patients were in remission prior to vaccination. 62% of patients received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as the primary vaccine, followed by Sinovac-CoronaVac (24.6%) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (13.4%) vaccines. A booster dose had been administered to 80% of patients, of which 88.7% was Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. MTX therapy were discontinued in 39.4% of patients (n=52) post-vaccination for a week duration. The prevalence of RA flare was only 12.9% (n=24) in which 14 were self-reported and 10 were physician-reported flares (4 severe flare, 6 mild-moderate flare). Flare rates were higher during the first and second dose of vaccination with 29.2% respectively, and only 12.5% were reported after booster vaccination. Common vaccine adverse effects were fever (16.8%), myalgia (8.6%) and arthralgia (6.4%). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of flare post-vaccination between age, gender, disease activity prior to vaccination, types of vaccine, usage of MTX and prednisolone, and discontinuation of MTX post-vaccination. Although seropositivity did not exhibit statistically significant flare rate post vaccination, sub-analysis revealed four times higher rate of flare in those who has double positivity compared to seronegative RA patients (12% vs 4%).ConclusionPrevelance of RA flare post-COVID-19 vaccination in Malaysian RA population is low. No significant associated risk factors were identified although double seropositivity appeared to have higher number of flares.References[1]Bixio, R., Bertelle, D., Masia, M., Pistillo, F., Carletto, A. and Rossini, M. (2021), Incidence of Disease Flare After BNT162b2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission. ACR Open Rheumatology, 3: 832-833.[2]Li X, Tong X, Yeung WWY, Kuan P, Yum SHH, Chui CSL, Lai FTT, Wan EYF, Wong CKH, Chan EWY, Lau CS, Wong ICK. Two-dose COVID-19 vaccination and possible arthritis flare among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Hong Kong. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 Apr;81(4):564-568.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundVaccination remains essential in preventing morbidity of SARS-CoV-2 infections. We previously showed that >10mg/day prednisolone and methotrexate use were associated with reduced antibody concentrations four weeks after primary vaccination in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) [1].ObjectivesHere, we performed a follow-up study to measure the decay of antibody concentrations over time and the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination.MethodsGCA/PMR patients included in the primary vaccination (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1) study were asked again to donate blood samples six months after primary vaccination (n=24) and one month after booster vaccination (n=46, BNT162b2 or mRNA1273). Data were compared to that of age-, sex-, and vaccine-matched controls (n=58 and n=42, respectively).ResultsAntibody concentrations decreased faster over time in GCA/PMR patients than in controls, but this decrease was not associated with treatment during primary vaccination. Post-booster antibody concentrations were comparable between patients and controls. Antibody concentrations post booster vaccination associated strongly with antibody concentrations post primary vaccination, but not with treatment during booster vaccination. However, the fold-change of post-booster vaccination showed a slight negative correlation with the post-primary vaccine antibodies.ConclusionThese results indicate that patients with impaired vaccine responses after primary vaccination, have slightly stronger increases in humoral immunity after booster vaccination, but this is not enough to reach a similar protection. The decrease in humoral immunity, and subsequent increase after booster vaccination, is likely not impacted by prednisolone or methotrexate treatment. Rather, these treatments put the patients at an immunogenic disadvantage during primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which is not fully repaired by a single booster vaccination. This longitudinal study in GCA/PMR patients stresses the importance of repeat booster vaccination for patients that used >10mg/day prednisolone or methotrexate during primary vaccination.Reference[1]van Sleen Y, van der Geest, Kornelis SM, Reitsema RD, Esen I, Terpstra JH, Raveling-Eelsing E, et al. Humoral and cellular SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses in patients with giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. RMD open 2022;8(2):e002479.Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsYannick van Sleen: None declared, Kornelis van der Geest Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from Roche, Grant/research support from: Grant support from Abbvie, Annemarie Buisman: None declared, Maria Sandovici: None declared, Debbie van Baarle: None declared, Elisabeth Brouwer: None declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundImpaired immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccinations in inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients results in diminished immunity. However, optimal booster vaccination regimens are still unknown, due to unstudied kinetics of the immune response after booster vaccinations.ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the kinetics of humoral and cellular responses in IA patients after the COVID-19 booster.MethodsIn 29 IA patients and 16 healthy controls (HC) humoral responses (level of IgG antibodies) and cellular responses (IFN-γ production) were assessed before (T0), after 4 weeks (T1), and after more than 6 months (T2) from the booster vaccination with BNT162b2.ResultsIA patients, but not HC, showed lower anti-S-IgG concentration and IGRA fold change at T2 compared to T1 (p=0.026 and p=0.031). Furthermore, in IA patients the level of cellular response at T2 returned to the pre-booster level (T0). All immunomodulatory drugs, except IL-6 and IL-17 inhibitors for the humoral and IL-17 inhibitors for the cellular response, impaired the immunogenicity of the booster dose at T2. However, none of the immunomodulatory drugs affected the kinetics of both humoral and cellular responses (measured as the difference between response rates at T1 and T2).ConclusionOur study showed impaired kinetics of both humoral and cellular responses after the booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in IA patients, which, in the case of cellular response, did not allow the vaccination effect to be maintained for more than 6 months. Repetitive vaccination with subsequent booster doses seems to be necessary for IA patients.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundFollowing the launch of the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there have been increased reports of autoimmune diseases developing de novo following vaccination. These cases include rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune hepatitis, immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, and connective tissue diseases. Nevertheless, COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with autoimmune diseases and are strongly recommended.ObjectivesThe aim of this in silico analysis is to investigate the presence of protein epitopes encoded by the BNT-162b2 mRNA vaccine, one of the most commonly administered COVID-19 vaccines, that could elicit an aberrant adaptive immune response in predisposed individuals.MethodsThe FASTA sequence of the protein encoded by the BNT-162b2 vaccine was retrieved from http://genome.ucsc.edu and used as a key input to the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (www.iedb.org). Linear peptides with 90% BLAST homology were selected, and T-cell, B-cell, and MHC ligand assays without MHC restriction were searched and evaluated. HLA-disease associations were screened on the HLA-SPREAD platform (https://hla-spread.igib.res.in) by selecting only positive markers.ResultsA total of 183 epitopes were found, corresponding to 178 SARS-CoV-2 and 5 SARS-CoV spike epitopes, respectively. Results were obtained from 22 T-cell assays, 398 B-cell assays, and 2 MHC ligand assays. Complementary receptors included 1080 T-cell receptors and 0 B-cell receptors.Specifically, the IEDB_epitope:1329790 (NATNVVIKVCEFQFCNDPFLGVYY) was shown to bind to HLA-DRB1*15:02 and HLA-DRB1*15:03 alleles, whereas the IEDB_epitope:1392457 (TKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPT) was reported to bind to HLA-DRB1*07:01, HLA-DRB1*03:01, HLA-DRB3*01:01, and HLA-DRB4*01:01 alleles. The HLA alleles detected were found to be positively associated with various immunological disorders (Table 1).Table 1.MHC-restricted epitopes of the BNT-162b2 vaccine and potentially associated immunological conditionsEpitopeAssayMHC moleculeAssociated disease (population)NATNVVIKVCEFQFCNDPFLGVYY + OX(C10)cellular MHC/mass spectrometry ligand presentationHLA-DRB1*15:02Takayasu arteritis (Japanese) Arthritis (Taiwanese) Scleroderma (Japanese) Colitis (Japanese)HLA-DRB1*15:03Systemic lupus erythematosus (Mexican American)TKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPT + SCM(K2)as aboveHLA-DRB1*07:01Allergy, hypersensitivity (Caucasian)HLA-DRB1*03:01Type 1 diabetes (African) Sarcoidosis, good prognosis (Finnish)HLA-DRB3*01:01Graves' disease (Caucasian) Thymoma (Caucasian) Sarcoidosis (Scandinavian) Autoimmune hepatitis (Caucasian)HLA-DRB4*01:01Vitiligo (Saudi Arabian)ConclusionSimilar to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the protein product of the BNT-162b2 mRNA vaccine contains immunogenic epitopes that may trigger autoimmune phenomena in predisposed individuals. Genotyping for HLA alleles may help identify at-risk individuals. However, further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and potential clinical implications.References[1]Vita R, Mahajan S, Overton JA et al. The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB): 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D339-D343. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1006.[2]Dholakia D, Kalra A, Misir BR et al. HLA-SPREAD: a natural language processing based resource for curating HLA association from PubMed s. BMC Genomics 23, 10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08239-0[3]Parker R, Partridge T, Wormald C et al. Mapping the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein-derived peptidome presented by HLA class II on dendritic cells. Cell Rep. 2021 May 25;35(8):109179. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109179.[4]Knierman MD, Lannan MB, Spindler LJ et al. The Human Leukocyte Antigen Class II Immunopeptidome of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein. Cell Rep. 2020 Dec 1;33(9):108454. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108454.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRD) are at risk of severe COVID-19 infection and vaccine has been demonstrated to be able to reduce the severity of infection. Malaysia has a low flu vaccination coverage rate (approximately 3%) and hence it is important to assess the perception and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccine especially among the vulnerable group.ObjectivesTo study the perception of COVID-19 vaccine and to determine the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy among AIRD patients in Malaysia.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey using online Google Forms® that was conducted among adult AIRD patients (18 years and older) from August 2021 until February 2022. Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinics as well as distribution of the survey through social medias. The survey was in English and Malay language. The survey collected data on the socio-demographic background, prior history of other vaccination after the age of 18 and COVID-19 vaccination with reasons of hesitancy, defined as being unsure or unwilling to be vaccinated. The survey also assessed the patients' perception by specifying the level of agreement to COVID-19 vaccine statements using the Likert response scale: 1-Strongly disagree;2- Disagree;3-Neither agree nor disagree;4-Agree;5-Strongly agree.ResultsA total of 162 patients participated in the survey and majority of them were females (87.7%). Our multi-racial cohort consisted of Malay (n=103, 63.5%), followed by Chinese (n=38, 23.5%), Sabahan Bumiputra (n=12, 7.4%) and Indian (n=7, 4.3%). More than half (n=107,66.6%) have not had any history of other vaccination after the age of 18. Only 16.7% (n=27) agreed/strongly agreed that COVID-19 vaccine can be given to patients with co-morbidities and 24.1 (n=39) agreed/strongly agreed that COVID-19 vaccine can be given to patients who have history of allergy to other drugs or food. At the time of the survey, vast majority of the respondents have received at least the 1st dose of Covid-19 vaccine (n=148, 91.4%). A total of 9 (5.6%) patients were hesitant to be vaccinated (6 were unsure and 3 patients were not willing to be vaccinated). The commonest reasons of being unsure or not willing to be vaccinated was worried of the vaccine's adverse effects (66.7%), worried of the blood clot complication (33,3%), worried of disease flare post-vaccine (33,3%), worried of allergic reaction (22.2%), lack of information on the safety of the vaccine in patients with AIRD from government and media (22.2%), face mask and social distancing measures were adequate (22.2%). Statistical analysis revealed that more patients who had vaccine hesitancy were from the lower socioeconomic status (income <1066 Euro/month), 88.9% vs 11.1%, p=0.03 but no association with ethnicity, education status, marital status or place of residence (urban vs rural).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is low in Malaysian patients with AIRD but patients with a low socioeconomic status are prone to have vaccine hesitancy. More education on the vaccine's efficacy and safety especially among patients with co-morbidities are warranted.Reference[1]Knowledge, acceptance and perception on COVID-19 vaccine among Malaysians: A web-based survey. Mohamed NA, Solehan HM, Mohd Rani MD, Ithnin M, Che Isahak CI (2021) Knowledge, acceptance and perception on COVID-19 vaccine among Malaysians: A web-based survey. PLOS ONE 16(8): e0256110.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsSyahrul Sazliyana Shaharir Speakers bureau: Pfizer,Novartis, Lydia Kamaruzaman: None declared, Theepa Nesam Mariamutu: None declared, Mohd Shahrir Mohamed Said: None declared, Azmawati Mohammed Nawi: None declared, Wan Syamimee Wan Ghazali: None declared, Malehah Mohd Noh: None declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundAcetaminophen (APAP = paracetamol) may potentially impact vaccine-associated immune responses as the intake of APAP has been associated with a worse outcome in tumor patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors.[1]Different DMARD regimen have been shown to impair the humoral immune response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis but the effect of paracetamol has not been explored thus far.ObjectivesTo analyse whether the intake of APAP may interfere with antiviral humoral immune responses following two doses of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA based vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on DMARD therapy.MethodsThe RECOVER trial (Rheumatoid Covid-19 Vaccine Immune Response) was a non-randomised, prospective observational control group trial and enrolled 77 RA patients on DMARD therapy and 21 healthy controls (HC). We performed a posthoc analysis of blood samples taken before the first vaccine dose (T0), two (T1) and three (T2) weeks after the first and second vaccine dose, and at 12 (T3) weeks. APAP intake was measured using ELISA. The antibody response (anti-S) to the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein was measured with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) test. The neutralizing activity NT50 at week 12 was assessed using an HIV-based pseudovirus neutralization assay against Wuhan-Hu-1.ResultsBaseline characteristics of participants are detailed in Table 1. The immunogenicity analyses were based on 73 RA patients after exclusion of 4 patients with previously unnoticed SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive for anti-nucleoprotein at baseline). APAP was detected in serum samples from 34/73 (25%) RA patients and in 7/21 (33%) HC (least at one timepoint T0, T1 and/or T2). APAP intake in HC did not affect levels of anti-S at any timepoint and all HC developed potent neutralizing activity (NT50 ≥ 250) at week 12. RA patients, who tested positive for APAP at T1, showed comparable anti-S levels at T1, T2 and T3 compared to RA patients not exposed to APAP. The detection of APAP at T2 corresponded to lower anti-S levels at T2 (Figure 1 A, B). The detection of APAP at T2 was associated with a significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity at week 12 compared to patients without perivaccination APAP exposure (p =0.04) (Figure 1 C).ConclusionA decrease of antiviral humoral immune responses was observed in RA patients (but not in HC) who were exposed to APAP at the time of the second mRNA vaccine dose compared to patients in whom APAP was not detected. Our data suggest that the use of paracetamol within the time period around vaccination may impair vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with an already higher risk for blunted immune responses.Reference[1]Bessede A et al. Ann Oncol 2022;33: 909-915Table 1.Baseline characteristics: RA patients and HC with/without APAP exposureRA APAP – n = 37RA APAP + n = 36p-valueHC APAP – n = 8HC APAP + n = 13p-valueAge (yrs), mean (± SD)62 (13)67 (10)0.07 (NS)45 (12)44 (14)0.90 (NS)Female sex, n (%)24 (65)19 (53)0.29 (NS)2 (25)5 (38)0.53 (NS)Vaccination type/schedulemRNA-1273, n (%)4 (11)8 (22.2)0.19 (NS)0 (0)0 (0)BNT162b2, n (%)33 (89)28 (77.8)0.19 (NS)8 (100)13 (100)RA disease characteristicsACPA ± RF, n (%)17/37 (46)19/36 (53)0.56 (NS)NANANARA disease duration (yrs ± SD)9.2 (9.8)10.2 (8.1)0.67 (NS)NANANADMARD therapycsDMARD-mono, n (%)13/37 (35)9/36 (25)0.35 (NS)NANANAbDMARD-mono/combo, n (%)16/37 (43)16/36 (44)0.92 (NS)NANANAtsDMARDs-mono/combo, n (%)8/37 (22)11/36 (31)0.38 (NS)NANANAPrednisone, n (%)15/37 (41)12/36 (33.3)0.52 (NS)NANANAMean daily dose prednisone (mg ± SD)4.6 ± 1.13.9 ± 2.30.39 (NS)NANANA* APAP = acetaminophenFigure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease, which presents an immune disorder that leads to the production of autoantibodies with potential involvement of multiple organs. Infections are one of the most frequent causes of hospitalization and death in lupus patients, and SARS-CoV-2 infection has been a global threat since March 2020. Immunization of these patients has been strongly recommended, although vaccine evaluation studies have not included this profile of patients.ObjectivesTo evaluate the immunogenicity and safety after 2 doses of the vaccine against SARS-CoV2 in patients with SLE.MethodsSubgroup of SLE patients from the prospective multicenter cohort of patients with immune-mediated diseases "SAFER” – Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Disease, a phase IV study. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 took place with vaccines approved by Brazilian regulatory bodies CoronaVac (Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine), ChadOx-1 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and this project followed in line with the guidelines of the National Immunization Plan in Brazil. Patients aged 18 years or older with a previous diagnosis of SLE (according to the 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria) were included. Patients were evaluated by telephone contact and in a face-to-face visit on the 28th day after each dose. Patients were followed up by means of blood collection for measurement of IgG antibody against SARS-COV-2 by chemiluminescence and disease activity assessed using SLEDAI-2K score.ResultsA total of 367 individuals with SLE were included, of whom 207 received 2 doses of CoronaVac, 128 received 2 doses of ChadOx-1 and 32 received 2 doses of BNT162b2. 90% of the subjects were female with a mean age of 37 years. About 42% (154) of the individuals included did not have any other associated comorbidity. 50% (182) of patients were using oral glucocorticoids and azathioprine was the most frequent immunosuppressive therapy. Regarding disease activity parameters, 38% (140) of patients had zero SLEDAI-2K at baseline and 41% (147) had zero SLEDAI-2K 28 days after the 2nd dose. Anti-DNA positivity was 30.7% (16/52) at inclusion and 32.6% (17/52) 28 days after the 2nd dose. Complement consumption was present in 18% (10/55) at inclusion and in 14.5% (8/55) 28 days after the 2nd vaccine dose. The geometric mean titers of IgG antibodies against SARS-COV-2 increased in the different vaccine groups, log 2.27 BAU/mL at inclusion and log 5.58 BAU/mL 28 days after the 2nd dose. Antibody titers after second dose varied between different vaccines, 4.96 BAU/mL CoronaVac, 6.00 BAU/mL ChadOx-1 and 7.31 BAU/mL BNT162b2 vaccine, p < 0.001. Only 3.54% (13/367) patients had covid-19 infection after the 15th day of the second dose of immunization, 9 of them having received 2 doses of CoronaVac, 4 of them of ChadOx-1 and none of them receiving BNT162b2, with p-value of 0.63.ConclusionThis study suggests that vaccines against SARS-COV-2 are safe in SLE patients. Induction of immunogenicity occurred in different vaccine regimens. Only 3.5% of individuals had COVID-19 infection with no difference between the types of vaccines evaluated. Future analyzes to explore the association of the effect of immunosuppressive medication, as well as the impact of booster doses and longer follow-up on clinical outcome will be performed.References[1]Mason A, et al. Lupus, vaccinations and COVID-19: What we know now. Lupus. 2021;30(10):1541-1552.[2]Furer V, Eviatar T, Zisman D, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases and in the general population: A multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(10):1330-1338.[3]Izmirly PM, Kim MY, Samanovic M, et al. Evaluation of Immune Response and Disease Status in SLE Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination. Arthritis Rheumatol. Published online 2021.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe Covid19 pandemic started in late 2019 and went through different phases by spreading from China around the whole globe. During the pandemic different mutation types got predominant from original Wuhan type through Alpha, Delta and Omicron variate BA 1/2 to BA 4/5 with different infectiousity and different potential to harm people´s health status. Immunization/ vaccination program started late 2020, first booster phase started midst of 2021, second booster phase in late 2021/ beginning of 2022 and Omicron specific booster phase midst of 2022.ObjectivesIs there a need of further iatrogenic (booster) immunization/ vaccination after 2 years of immunization/ vaccination program from efficacy driven analysis and safety issues standpoint?MethodsAnalysis of Covid-19 antibody development every three months since August 2021 with comparison of infection rates and assessment of safety parameters by assessing D-Dimers as potential endothelium damage marker in 725 patients (600 female, 125 male, age mean: 62,2 years) of a German rheumatological practice to improve the medical care.ResultsIn 99 % of the patients longstanding immune memory could be shown by analyzing the antibody curves in different exemplary shown biologic and iatrogenic immunization pathways after 2 years of immunization/ vaccination program and biologic immunization, mainly by Delta variate since late 2021 and Omicron variate since beginning of 2022. In 38.5 % of the patients the safety concerns of potential endothelium damage by analysing D-Dimers every 3 months showed a side effect potential of at least 8 months after every MRNA/ Vector immunization, but not after protein based vaccination and even not after infections in that amount.ConclusionOut of the obligation "nil nocere” no further iatrogenic Covid-19 immunization/ vaccination is of need in nearly all (99 %) already immunized people. At present only adult people with very low antibody levels (at least below 64 BAU/ml) (considering the infection or iatrogenic immunization/ vaccination status and time since last spike protein contact) and not yet immunized adult people should be forseen for iatrogenic immunization/ vaccination with protein based or attenuated viral vaccines or in rare cases one Omicron specific MRNA immunization drug. In that case D-Dimer controls for up to 8 months should be obligatory to detect endothelial damage side effect of MRNA (or Vector) technique. Intense cardiovascular monitoring (small vessels) of MRNA/ Vector immunized people in the next 10 – 20 years is necessary.Figure 1.References[1] Pohl C;SAFETY AND EFFICACY ASSESSMENT OF COVID-19 IMMUNIZATIONS/ VACCINATIONS IN PATIENTS OF A GERMAN GENERAL RHEUMATOLOGICAL PRACTICE;EULAR 2022 Poster POS1213;https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-eular.1389[2] McConeghy KW et al. Effectiveness of a Second COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Against Infection, Hospitalization, or Death Among Nursing Home Residents - 19 States, March 29-July 25, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Sep 30;71(39):1235-1238. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7139a2. PMID: 36173757;PMCID: PMC9533729.[3] Bowe, B. Et al. Acute and postacute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Nat Med 28, 2398–2405 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-02051-3[4] Hui-Lee Wong et al. Surveillance of COVID-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older, Vaccine, Volume 41, Issue 2, 2023, Pages 532-539, ISSN 0264-410X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.11.069.[5] Maher AK et al. Transcriptional reprogramming from innate immune functions to a pro-thrombotic signature by monocytes in COVID-19. Nat Commun. 2022 Dec 26;13(1):7947. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35638-y. PMID: 36572683;PMCID: PMC9791976.[6] Erich Freisleben;Sie wollten alles richtig machen – Dokumentation eines verschwiegenen Leidens – Bericht eines Hausarztes über die Nebenwirkungen der Corona Impfungen;Nov 11, 2022;Cajus Verlag[7] Positive Testrate Germany – https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Testzahl.htmlAcknowledgementsThanks to my fami y, all my patients and my collegues for supporting me in my research to improve my personal patient care.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
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
BackgroundA 3rd COVID-19 vaccination is currently recommended for patients under immunosuppression. However, a fast decline of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein has been observed.ObjectivesIt remains unclear whether immunosuppressive therapy affects kinetics of humoral and cellular immune responses.Methods50 patients under immunosuppression and 42 healthy controls (HCs) received a 3rd dose of an mRNA-based vaccine and were monitored over a 12-weeks period. Humoral immune response was assessed 4 and 12 weeks after 3rd dose. Antibodies were quantified using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were quantified by IFN-γ ELISpot assays. Adverse events, including SARS-CoV-2 infections, were monitored over a 12-week period.ResultsAt week 12, reduced anti-RBD antibody levels were observed in IMID patients as compared to HCs (median antibody level 5345 BAU/ml [1781 – 10208] versus 9650 BAU/ml [6633 - 16050], p < 0.001). Reduction in relative antibody levels was significantly higher in IMID patients as compared to HCs at week 12 (p < 0.001). Lowest anti-RBD antibody levels were detected in IMID patients who received biological diseases modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or a combination therapy with conventional synthetic and biological DMARDs. Number of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells against wildtype and Omicron variants remained stable over 12 weeks in IMID patients. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionDue to a fast decline in anti-RBD antibodies in IMID patients an early 4th vaccination should be considered in this vulnerable group of patients.REFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsDaniel Mrak Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Felix Kartnig: None declared, Daniela Sieghart: None declared, Elisabeth Simader Speakers bureau: Lilly, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp and Pfizer, Peter Mandl: None declared, Lisa Göschl: None declared, Philipp Hofer: None declared, Thomas Deimel: None declared, Irina Gessl: None declared, Renate Kain Speakers bureau: Otsuka, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Takeda Pharma, MEDahead and Janssen Cilag, Stefan Winkler: None declared, Josef S. Smolen Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Gilead-Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sanofi, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz Roche, Samsung and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche, Thomas Perkmann: None declared, Helmuth Haslacher Grant/research support from: Glock Health, BlueSky Immunotherapies and Neutrolis, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Leonhard Heinz: None declared, Michael Bonelli Consultant of: EliLilly.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with pre-existing rheumatic diseases may be exacerbated during SARS-CoV-2 infection, or may develop new autoimmune features. Furthermore, immunosuppressive agents used to treat autoimmunity-inflammation as well as comorbidities can also affect the disease outcome.ObjectivesTo evaluate the outcome of rheumatic diseases after Covid 19 infection in patients diagnosed with rheumatic diseases, under various immunosuppressive treatment, as well as the effects of vaccines against Covid or antiviral treatment in this sensitive population group.MethodsDuring the pandemic, 1493 patients with autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease who were continuously followed up in two tertiaries hospitals in northern and northwestern Greece were included in the current study. The patients were compared with 769 controls after adjustment for age, sex, weight, vaccination status and comorbidities. Of the 1493 patients, 648 had rheumatoid arthritis, 282 psoriatic arthritis, 173 ankylosing spondylitis, 122 systemic lupus erythematosus, 98 Sjogren's syndrome, 43 polymyalgia rheumatica, 34 mixed connective tissue disease or overlapping syndromes, 31 vasculitis, 27 systemic sclerosis, 18 myositis, 10 Behcet syndrome, 5 primary antiphospholipid syndrome and 2 had Familial Mediterranean Fever. The vast majority of patients and controls were fully vaccinated (82%) and 397 patients received antiviral treatment, 94% of them were fully vaccinated.ResultsCovid 19 disease in vaccinated patients with rheumatic diseases was shown to perform the same or about the same as those in the control group after adjustment for risk factors for severe disease. 19 of our patients required admission in the intensive care unit (62% full vaccinated) while a total of 12 died (66% non vaccinated). Major risk factors for severe disease were previous respiratory failure, chronic renal impairment, obesity, and failure to receive antiviral therapy. It was also shown that infection with Covid led to an exacerbation or induction of autoimmune disorders in 25 of the participants.ConclusionIn this large cohort, Covid 19 disease was shown to affect patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases the same or approximately the same way as the general population if they are fully vaccinated and if they start timely antiviral treatment where indicated. Further research and monitoring of the results after the multiple mutations of the virus is advisable.ReferencesNone.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
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
BackgroundAmid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have benefitted most people worldwide. However, the safety of vaccine has not been established in patients with rheumatic arthritis (RA). Previous studies reported that flares of underlying RA following SARS–CoV-2 vaccination were not so frequent, and there was no report of severe flare. However, those reports did not assess patients' disease activity with validated disease activity measures and described only simple self-reported questionnaires. Hence, the effect of vaccination on disease activity in patients with RA is still unclear. Understanding the association between arthritis flare in patients in RA and vaccination is important to overcome vaccine hesitancy.ObjectivesTo clarify the effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on disease activity in patients with RA and identify risk factors associated with RA flares following the vaccination.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study in patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal disease including RA who received the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 from March 16, 2021, at Keio University Hospital. The disease activity was evaluated with disease activity score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28), simplified disease activity index (SDAI), and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) before vaccination and after second vaccination (within two months). RA flare was defined as ΔDAS28-CRP>0.6with requirement of treatment intensification. All analysis in this study was carried out with JMP.ResultsWe enrolled 318 patients with RA in this analysis. The mean age was 61 years old, and 283 (89%) were female. The mean DAS28-CRP before vaccination and after 2nd dose of vaccination were 1.70±0.71 and 1.78±0.81, respectively (p=0.84). The increase in DAS28-CPR after vaccination > 0.6 was observed in 53 patients (16.7%), and among them, 23 patients (8.2%) needed treatment intensification. The types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, humoral immunogenicity including neutralizing antibody titer and its adverse effects including systemic reaction (fever or general fatigue) were not different between the flare and non-flare groups (9.8 vs 9.1 IU/mL, p=0.88;31.2% vs 18.7%, p=0.32, respectively). In the flare group, swollen joint counts (SJC), hourly erythrocyte sedimentation rates, DAS28-CRP, and SDAI were significantly higher than those in the non-flare group (0.5 vs 0.0, p<0.000;13 vs 11 mm/h, p=0.01;1.57 vs 1.45, p<0.001;3.9 vs 2.4, p=0.02, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the number of swollen joints before vaccination contributed RA exacerbation after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination significantly (odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.65, p=0.01). The receiver operating curve analysis identified that having two or more swollen joint counts predicts RA flares after vaccination with an area under the curve of 0.64, a sensitivity of 42.3%, and a specificity of 86.9%.ConclusionDisease flare with requirement of treatment intensification is observed in 8.2% of patients with RA. Patients with higher disease activity, especially having two or more swollen joint counts are at high risk of flare following mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.Reference[1]Connolly CM, Ruddy JA, Boyarsky BJ, et al. Disease Flare and Reactogenicity in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases Following Two-Dose SARS-CoV-2 Messenger RNA Vaccination. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;74(1):28-32. doi: 10.1002/art.41924. Epub 2021 Dec 3.Figure 1.Risk factors associated with RA flares after vaccination[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundUnderstanding the dynamics of humoral immunity after COVID-19 vaccination is crucial in developing vaccination strategies. Antibody response patterns are more complex in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) because of their underlying autoimmunity and immunosuppressive medications. The kinetics of vaccine response in RA patients are not well understood.ObjectivesTo construct a model of antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with RA.MethodsTwo patient groups were included for the study. The first group was composed of RA patients who were enrolled for influenza vaccination study between Oct 6, 2021 and November 3, 2021, in whom serial serum samples were obtained 0, 4, 16 weeks after vaccination. The second group was consecutively enrolled from outpatient clinic between October 6, 2021 and June 3, 2022, in whom serum sample was obtained once. After collecting data on demographics, vaccination and infection history of COVID-19 were obtained by self-report via questionnaire and data from Korean center for disease control. We then measured antibody titers against receptor binding domain of spike protein (anti-RBD) and nucleocapsid (anti-N), using Chemiluminescence microparticle immunosaasy (Abbott, USA) and Electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (Roche, Germany) respectively. The anti-RBD titer was log-transformed to improve normality. Time from vaccination and log of anti-RBD titer was modeled using fractional polynomial. Covariates including age, sex, BMI, underlying disease and immunosuppressive drugs were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations to account for repeated measured from a subject.ResultsA total of 736 patients (1042 samples) were enrolled. After excluding patients who experienced COVID-19 infection before sampling (n=84), those unvaccinated (n=44) and uncertain COVID-19 infection history (n=59), the data on 778 samples from 549 patients were analyzed (Group 1: 125, Group 2: 424). Antibody titer reached peak at 12 days after vaccination and decreased exponentially (Figure 1) which fell to 36.5% from peak after 2 months. Compared to the first vaccination, the 3rd and 4th vaccination significantly shifted anti-RBD antibody response curve (28 times, 95% CI 4~195;32 times 95% CI 4~234, respectively). However, there was no significant shift after the 4th vaccination from the 3rd vaccination (p=0.6405). Multivariable analysis showed that number of vaccinations and sulfasalazine (coefficient: 0.40, 95% CI 0.12~0.68) increased vaccine response but age (coefficient: -0.03, 95% CI -0.04~-0.02), abatacept (coefficient: -2.07, 95% CI -3.30~-0.84) and, JAK inhibitor (coefficient: -0.82, 95% CI -1.34~-0.31) decreased vaccine response.ConclusionAnti-RBD response to COVID-19 vaccination showed a peak at 12 days after vaccination and then exponentially decreased in patient with RA. The antibody response is affected by age and medications used for the treatment of RA.Table 1.ln[RBD (U/ml)]coefficient (univariable)95% CIp-valuecoefficient (multivariable)95% CIp-valuesex (female)0.17-0.22, 0.550.393---age-0.02-0.03, -0.01<.001**-0.03-0.04, -0.02<.001**DM0.11-0.27, 0.500.568---HTN-0.38-0.69, -0.070.018*---CKD0.680.07, 1.290.030*---RA duration (yr)-0.04-0.06, -0.010.001**---Pd (mg/d)-0.06-0.11, 0.000.035*---MTX use-0.23-0.52, 0.050.105---HCQ use0.01-0.28, 0.290.965---SSZ use0.450.07, 0.840.022*0.400.12,0.680.005**LEF use0.00-0.37, 0.370.988---TNF inhibitors use0.29-0.16, 0.730.208---Abatacept use-2.07-3.14, -0.99<.001**-2.07-3.30, -0.840.001**JAK inhibitors use-0.88-1.52, -0.240.007**-0.82-1.34, -0.310.002**Time (months)log(t)-1.96-2.37, -1.54<.001**-1.90-2.29, -1.50<.001**t
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) have an increased risk for contracting infections. For patients with rheumatic diseases EULAR recommends protecting them from vaccine-preventable diseases.ObjectivesTo assess the knowledge and awareness of common vaccinations and extent of immunization among patients with CID in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden (Nordics), and to identify gaps between the existing EULAR vaccination recommendations and current practice as experienced by patients.MethodsA structured anonymous online survey for patients with CID ((rheumatological disease (RD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and dermatological diseases (DD)) was conducted in 2022.The survey was answered by 1748 respondents (1031 patients with RD, 543 with IBD and 563 with DD).ResultsAmong respondents, 89% were female and 58% had disease duration of above 10 years. In total, 56% were treated in specialised and 32% in primary care. Majority had ongoing systemic immunosuppressive treatment (IT) (65%). Majority of RD (59%) and IBD (66%) patients were treated in specialised care whereas minority of DD patients (38%) were treated in specialised care.Forty-nine percent (49%) responded that their healthcare professional (HCP) did not inform them about the increased risk of infection – however, 55% of the respondents believed they are somewhat or much more likely to suffer from infections than those without CID or treatment, 33% thought there is no difference and 13% did not know there is a difference.In total 68% of respondents considered it important to get vaccinated due to CID or IT. The number was particularly high in RD group (74%), although 63% stated they had not received any information regarding vaccinations at the start of their treatment.Commonly recommended vaccinations by the HCP were COVID 19 (66%), influenza (63%) and pneumococcal (45%) vaccination. When comparing respondents ≥65 and <65 years, there was a difference in how often the influenza (71% vs. 57%) and pneumococcal (57% vs. 38%), but not COVID 19 vaccination (68% vs. 65%), were recommended. In addition, 74% and 75% of respondents receiving IT were recommended influenza and COVID 19 vaccination, respectively.In total, 22% had their vaccination status checked before initiating treatment;the lowest percentage was in DD (16%) and the highest in RD (25%). However, 44% of respondents received influenza vaccination before initiation of treatment. Moreover, 62% and 74% of respondents received influenza and COVID 19 vaccination while on treatment, respectively.Eighty-six percent (86%) did not receive a vaccination plan in relation to their CID and treatment. Moreover, 64% of the respondents (RD 57%;DD 71% and IBD 66%) did not have vaccination status assessed on a regular basis. Forty-three percent (43%) were dissatisfied with the follow-up of vaccination status by their HCP. Respondents of age ≥65 years were more satisfied than the younger ones (34% vs. 25% very satisfied) and respondents with RD were more satisfied than those with IBD or DD (33% vs. 25% vs. 20%).Forty-four percent (44%) responded that the information on vaccinations related to their CID and treatment was difficult to find and 71% would like to receive more information.The respondents with RD had different level of awareness regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations. The degree of awareness among patients with RD treated with IT are presented in Figure 1.ConclusionThis Nordic survey provides insights on patients' information needs, information sources and own experiences related to recommendations on vaccinations in relation to their CID and IT. The results confirm a gap between patients' expectations and needs vs. the information they actually receive. Our findings demonstrate a need for increased awareness among patients, providers and HCP regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations in patients with RD.Reference[1]Furer V, et al. 2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79: 9–52.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsMeliha C Kapetanovic Grant/research support from: Received independent research grants from Roche and Pfizer, Randeep Mandla Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Norway, Maria Seddighzadeh Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Sweden, Susanne Thiesen Gren Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Maaria Palmroth Consultant of: Employee of MedEngine Oy and contractor for Pfizer Oy, Employee of: Contractor for Pfizer Oy, Finland, Dan Henrohn Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer AB, Sweden, Anne Grete Frostrup Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Anna-Maria Hiltunen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Jussi Ranta Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Anna-Kaisa Asikainen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Veli-Jukka Anttila Speakers bureau: Lectures for Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Roche, GSK, BMS, Biogen, Sandoz, Gilead, Unimedic Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Consultant for Pfizer and MSD.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe first coronavirus infection was confirmed in Wuhan City, People's Republic of China, in December 2019. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus disease a public health emergency of international concern. On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization announced that the new coronavirus infection can be regarded as a pandemic because of the global spread of the infection. The world's first authorization for a coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine (CV) in the UK was in December 2020. The first authorization for a CV in Japan was in February 2021. A maximum of five times of vaccination had been performed in Japanese people until January 2023. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are generally immunocompromised because of the drugs used for RA treatment. Patients with RA are recommended to receive a CV in the 2021 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the context of SARS-CoV-2 [1]. However, some patients with RA rejected CV for various reasons or reports of adverse reactions (ARs) in clinical practice. Real-world clinical information on CV is necessary for better relationships between patients with RA and their physicians.ObjectivesThis retrospective study aimed to determine the vaccination rate, ARs, and reasons for nonvaccination of CV in patients with RA in clinical practice.MethodsThe vaccination rate, ARs, and reasons for nonvaccination of CV in patients with RA on clinical records of our institute were investigated up to the third vaccination. Patients were divided into three age groups: 0–64 years old (YG), 65–74 years old (OG), and >75 years old (VOG). The association between age groups and vaccination rates was also investigated. The Cochran–Armitage test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsRegarding patient background (n = 610), the mean age was 67.8 years (YG, n = 207;OG, n = 196;VOG, n = 207;female, 75.1%;mean RA duration, 14.1 years). The vaccination rate among all patients was 8.4% for nonvaccination;91.6% for the first dose;91.3%, second dose;and 86.6%, third dose. A significant decrease over time was observed (p < 0.01). Nonvaccination was observed in 13.0%, 9.2%, and 2.9% of those in YG, OG, and VOG, respectively. A higher rate of nonvaccination was observed in the YG (p < 0.01). The results of the analysis by age group were 87.0%/90.8%/97.1% (first dose), 87.0%/90.3%/96.6% (second dose), and 77.8%/86.7%/95.2% (third dose) among the YG/OG/VOG, respectively (Figure 1). No statistically significant decrease in the vaccination rate was found over time in OG (p = 0.19) and VOG (p = 0.30) but not in VOG (p = 0.01). ARs occurred in 8.2%, 14.5%, and 16.1% of the patients receiving the first, second, and third doses, respectively. Among the reasons for nonvaccination, 35 (68.6%) patients were concerned about ARs to CV and 6 (11.8%) thought that CV was unnecessary.ConclusionCV rate in our cohort was higher than that of whole nation in Japan (81.4% for the first dose, 80.4% for the second dose, 67.8% for the third dose). CV rate has been declining steadily in patients with RA, with a stronger trend in younger age groups. Fear of ARs was the most frequent reason for nonvaccination.Reference[1]Landewé RBM et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2022.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
BackgroundAlthough many studies have been conducted on COVID-19 in recent years, there are still unanswered questions regarding breakthrough infections (BTIs), particularly in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the occurrence of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in patients with SLE versus other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), and healthy controls (HCs).MethodsThe study was based on data from the COVAD questionnaire which amassed a total of 10,783 complete responses from patients with SLE, AIRD, or nrAIRD, and HCs. After exclusion of individuals who were unvaccinated, those who received one vaccine dose only, and those with uncertain responses regarding the vaccine doses, a total of 9,595 patients formed the study population of the present investigation. If a COVID-19 infection occurred after the initial two vaccine doses and at least one booster dose (at least three doses in total, herein termed full vaccination), it was considered a BTI. Data were analysed using multivariable regression models. Statistically significant results were denoted by p values <0.05.ResultsA total of 7,016/9,595 (73.1%) individuals were fully vaccinated. Among those, 1,002 (14.2%) reported at least one BTI, and 166 (2.3%) reported at least two BTIs. Among SLE patients, 867/1,218 (71.2%) were fully vaccinated. Among fully vaccinated SLE patients, 137 (15.8%) reported at least one BTI while 28 (3.2%) reported at least two BTIs. BTI frequencies in fully vaccinated SLE patients were comparable to those of other AIRDs (OR: 1.0;95% CI: 0.8–1.3;p=0.447) and nrAIDS (OR: 0.9;95% CI: 0.6–1.3;p=0.856) but higher compared with HCs (OR: 1.2;95% CI: 1.0–1.6;p=0.022).For SLE patients with three vaccine doses, 113/137 (82.5%) reported at least one BTI while the corresponding number for four vaccine doses was 24/137 (17.5%). Compared with HCs (OR: 10.6;95% CI: 1.2–93.0;p=0.032) and other AIRDs (OR: 3.5;95% CI: 1.08–11.5;p=0.036), SLE patients showed higher frequencies of hospitalisation.AID multimorbidity was associated with a 15-fold increased risk for a need of advanced treatment for COVID-19 (OR: 15.3;95% CI: 2.6–88.2;p=0.002).ConclusionCOVID-19 BTIs occurred in nearly 1 every 6th fully vaccinated patient with SLE, and 20% more frequently in this patient population compared with fully vaccinated HCs. Moreover, BTIs in SLE patients were more severe compared with BTIs in HCs or patients with AIRDs other than SLE, resulting in a greater need for hospitalisation. AID multimorbidity contributed to a more severe COVID-19 BTI requiring advanced management. These insights call for greater attention to vaccination in the vulnerable group of SLE patients, with appropriate risk stratification towards optimised vaccination strategies.Figure 1.Survival analysis across patients with SLE, AIRDs, or nrAIDs, and HCs. SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus;AIRD: autoimmune rheumatic disease;nrAID: non-rheumatic autoimmune disease;HC: healthy control.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all survey respondents, as well as patient associations and all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsEmelie Kihlgren Olsson: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Grant/research support from: EN holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Julius Lindblom: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau:
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWe have previously reported short term safety of the COVID-19 vaccination in patients with Systemic sclerosis (SSc) but delayed adverse events (ADEs) (occurring >7 days post-vaccination) are poorly characterized in this rare yet vulnerable disease group.ObjectivesWe analyzed delayed COVID-19 vaccine-related ADEs among patients with SSc, other systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HC) using data from the ongoing 2nd global COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD-2) study [1].MethodsThe COVAD-2 study was a cross-sectional, patient self-reporting e-survey utilizing an extensively validated, pilot tested questionnaire, translated into 19 languages, circulated by a group of 157 physicians across 106 countries from February to June 2022.We captured data on demographics, SSc/SAID disease characteristics (including skin subset, treatment history and self-reported disease activity), autoimmune and non-autoimmune comorbidities, COVID-19 infection history and course, and vaccination details including delayed ADEs as defined by the CDC.Delayed ADEs were categorized into local injection site pain/soreness;minor and major systemic ADEs, and hospitalizations. We descriptively analyzed the risk factors for overall and specific ADEs in SSc and SAIDs, and further triangulated clinically significant variables in binominal logistic regression analysis with adjustment for age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidity, and immunosuppressive therapy to analyze the survey responses.ResultsFrom among 17 612 respondents, 10 041 patients (median age 51 (18-58) years, 73.4% females, 44.9% Caucasians) vaccinated against COVID-19 at least once (excluding incomplete responses and trial participants) were included for analysis. Of these, 2.6 % (n=258) had SSc, 63.7% other SAIDs, and 33.7% were HCs. BNT162b2 Pfizer (69.4%) was the most administered vaccine, followed by MRNA-1273 Moderna (32.25%) and ChadOx1 nCOV-19 Oxford/AstraZeneca (12.4%) vaccines.Among the patients with SSc, 18.9% reported minor while 8.5% experienced major delayed ADEs, and 4.6% reported hospitalization. These values were comparable to those of the ADEs reported in other SAIDs and HCs. Patients with SSc reported higher frequency of difficulty in breathing than HCs [OR=2.3 (1.0-5.1), p=0.042].Individuals receiving Oxford/AstraZeneca reported more minor ADEs [OR=2.5 (1.0-6.0), p=0.045];whereas patients receiving Moderna were less likely to develop myalgia and body ache [OR=0.1 (0.02-1.0), p=0.047 and OR=0.2 (0.05-1.0), p=0.044 respectively].Patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc experienced minor ADEs and specifically fatigue more frequently [OR=2.1 (1.1-4.4), p=0.036, and OR=3.9 (1.3-11.7), p=0.015] than those with limited cutaneous SSc. Self-reported active disease pre-vaccination did not confer any increased risk of vaccine ADEs in the adjusted analysis. Unlike our previous observations in myositis, autoimmune and non-autoimmune comorbidities did not affect the risk of delayed ADEs in SSc. SSc patients with concomitant myositis reported myalgia [OR=3.4 (1.1-10.7), p=0.035] more frequently, while those with thyroid disorders were more prone to report a higher frequency of joint pain [OR=5.5 (1.5-20.2), p=0.009] and dizziness [OR=5.9 (1.3-27.6), p=0.024] than patients with SSc alone. Patients with SSc-interstitial lung disease did not report increased frequency of ADEs.ConclusionA diagnosis of SSc did not confer a higher risk of delayed post COVID-19 vaccine-related ADEs than other SAIDs and HCs. Diffuse cutaneous phenotype and certain co-existing autoimmune conditions including myositis and thyroid disease can increase the risk of minor ADEs. These patients may benefit from pre-vaccination counselling, close monitoring, and early initiation of appropriate care in the post COVID-19 vaccination period.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, Ravichandran N, Lilleker JB, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int 2022 Dec;42(12):2151-2158AcknowledgementsCOVAD Study Team.Disclosure of InterestsBo dana Doskaliuk: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis,Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre, Consultant of: Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly,NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and.Pierre Fabre, Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Consultant of: 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Grant/research support from: 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Bristol Myers-Squibb, EMD Serono, Kezar, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Janssen, Kyverna, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Abbvie, Scipher, Horizontal Therapeutics, Teva, Biogen, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceutical, Nuvig, Capella, CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Q32, EMD Serono, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Ashima Makol: None declared, Latika Gupta: None declared, Vikas Agarwal: None declared.