Axial spondylarthritis following COVID-19 infection.

Although SARS-CoV-2 syndrome primarily affects the lungs, systemic manifestations have been reported. New rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases have been reported following SARS-CoV-2 infection. We present a case of a woman in her mid-30s who developed inflammatory back pain due to bilateral sacroiliitis with erosions after contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Her inflammatory markers on presentation were normal. MRI of the sacroiliac joints demonstrated bone marrow oedema and erosive changes in both sacroiliac joints. As the patient was intolerant to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneous (SC) injection was administered, which improved her symptoms in 8 weeks. However, due to the drug's side effects, SC adalimumab was switched to intravenous infliximab. The patient is currently tolerating her intravenous infliximab well and has experienced significant improvement in her symptoms. We reviewed the current literature on the prevalence of axial spondyloarthropathy after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions following the use of infliximab or adalimumab in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Recent evidence has emerged concerning delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions after infliximab or adalimumab applications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A few real-world studies compared the events, clinical features, and prognosis of infliximab- or adalimumab-related delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions in COVID-19 patients. Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis were utilized to determine the suspected adverse events of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions after infliximab or adalimumab use based on the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting Systems (FAERS) from May 2020 to December 2021. Additionally, the times to onset and fatality rates of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions following infliximab or adalimumab were compared. In total, 475 reports of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions were associated with infliximab or adalimumab. Females were affected almost twice more than males. Among the two therapies, infliximab had the highest association with delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions based on the highest reporting odds ratio (2.14, 95% two-sided confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-3.81), proportional reporting ratio (1.95, χ2 = 7.03), and empirical Bayesian geometric mean (1.94, 95% one-sided CI = 1.2). Infliximab-related delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions had earlier onset (0 [interquartile range (IQR): 0-0] days vs. 166.5 (IQR: 18-889.5) days, p < 0.05), while adalimumab-related delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions have higher fatality rate (0.44% vs. 0.00%). Based on the FAERS database, we profiled delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions related to infliximab or adalimumab application in patients with COVID-19 with more points of occurrences, clinical characteristics, and prognosis.

Adalimumab biosimilars in the therapy of Crohn´s disease and ulcerative colitis: Prospective multicentric clinical monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: The adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 were approved for the therapy of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Relatively few prospective studies with biosimilar adalimumab in patients with IBD have been published. The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the biosimilar adalimumab. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 (Hulio®) and GP2017 (Hyrimoz®) were indicated to 50 naive patients in terms of biological therapy with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Effectiveness of therapy was evaluated via the Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] or the Mayo Scoring System [MSS] in patients with CD or UC, respectively, before and after 12 weeks. Additional goals were to evaluate weight changes, laboratory tests and complications or adverse events of this therapy. RESULTS: In CD patients, remission (CDAI <150) was achieved in 73.5% of cases, partial response (≥70-point decrease in CDAI score from baseline) in 11.8%, no response in 11.8% and 2.9% patients discontinued therapy. In UC patients, remission (total score on partial Mayo index ≤2 points) was achieved only in 18.8% of cases, partial response (≥2-point decrease in partial Mayo score from baseline) in 43.8%, no response in 25.0% and 12.5% patients discontinued therapy. There were statistically significant improvements in CDAI, MSS, haemoglobin, fecal calprotectin, albumin and CRP serum levels after 12 weeks of therapy. Seven adverse events were identified, three of which resulted in therapy being discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective observational study proved the effectiveness of the adalimumab biosimilars FKB327 and GP2017 in IBD.

Aseptic Abscess Syndrome in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient.

Aseptic abscess syndrome (AAS) is a rare, potentially life-threatening disorder, with numerous features of neutrophilic dermatoses. The main symptoms include aseptic abscess-like collections in internal organs (spleen, liver, lungs), lack of microbes (bacteria, viruses, or parasites) after an exhaustive search, ineffectiveness of antibiotics, and high sensitivity to corticosteroid therapy. AAS is characterized by the development of deep, inflammatory abscesses and systemic symptoms (weight loss, abdominal pain, fever, and leukocytosis). They may be associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and autoimmune diseases. The patient in this study is a 67-year-old man, suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with numerous purulent abscesses in the mediastinum, within the subcutaneous tissue above the extension surfaces of the joints, and on the dorsum of the hands. The lesions are accompanied by bone destruction. The patient was treated with prednisone 40 mg and adalimumab, which resulted in a quick reduction of inflammatory markers and clinical improvement, as well as the healing and absorption of abscesses. Despite COVID-19 infection, treatment with remdesivir, prednisone, and adalimumab was continued, with the complete resolution of the lesions. AAS is difficult to recognize, so practitioners have to be aware of this condition, especially in patients with RA.

Evaluation of the frequency and intensity of COVID-19 in patients with ankylosing spondylitis under anti-TNF therapy.

BACKGROUND: Dear Editor, After the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the whole world, rheumatologists began to think about how COVID-19 will progress in patients with inflammatory conditions. High cytokine levels play a role in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 infection. Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) is a proinflammatory cytokine known to have a key role in the pathogenesis of chronic immune-mediated diseases. AntiTNF therapy may cause an increase in active tuberculosis, other granulomatous diseases, and serious infections [1]. According to many studies, rheumatological diseases have not been identified as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection [2]. Should significantly increased cytokine levels during COVID-19 infection make us consider anticytokine therapies that may be used in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 a risk? We aimed to explore whether the frequency of COVID-19 infection increased, the effect of comorbidities on the frequency of infection, and whether the severity of the disease and need for intensive care support increased in patients who used anti-TNF agents. We performed a retrospective case-control study between March and December 2020 in Sakarya University Training and Research Hospital. Retrospectively, we evaluated whether there was a difference in the frequency and severity of COVID-19 in our patients diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), 77 of whom were using anti-TNF and 49 of whom didn't use anti-TNF. Hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) requirements were evaluated as endpoints. In the anti-TNF group, patients used adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, infliximab, and golimumab. Patients were questioned at an outpatient clinic in person or by phone. Seventy-seven patients with AS using anti-TNF agents (58 males, 19 females) and 49 patients with AS (38 males, 11 females) not using anti-TNF agents were included in the study (p = 0.943). Mean age of patients using antiTNF agents was 41.53 ± 10.38, and mean age of patients not using anti-TNF agents was 42.94 ± 10.86 (p = 0.468). Thirty-three (42.9%) patients were smokers in the antiTNF group, while 23 (46.9%) patients were smokers in the group not using TNFi (p = 0.791). There was 12 pack-year smoking in the anti-TNF group, and 14 pack-year smoking in not using TNFi (p = 0.623). The frequency of diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension (HT), amiloidosis, familial mediterranean fever (FMF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was similar in both groups (p = 0.403, p = 0.999, p = 0.521, p = 0.999, p = 0.999, respectively). Six patients using TNFi and 3 patients not using TNFi recovered from COVID-19 infection. However, this result was not statistically significant (p = 0.999). One patient using anti-TNF was hospitalized but with no need for admission to the ICU (p = 0.999). All 9 patients recovering from COVID-19 were male (p = 0.113). There were 2 (22.2%) smokers in the SARS-CoV-2 positive group and 54 (46.2%) smokers in SARS-CoV-2 negative group (p = 0.297). There was 37.5 pack-year smoking in SARS-CoV-2 positive group, and 12 pack-year smoking in SARS-CoV-2 negative group (p = 0.151). Nobody has comorbidities (DM, HT, amiloidosis, FMF, CAD, COPD) in SARS-CoV-2 positive group. There were patients with DM (5.1%), HT (15.4%), amiloidosis (1.7%), FMF (1.7%), CAD (0.9%) and COPD (0.9%) in SARS-CoV-2 negative group (p = 0.999, p = 0.356, p = 0.999, p = 0.999, p = 0.999, p = 0.999, respectively). Having comorbidities was not detected to be associated with frequency of COVID-19. 31 (40.3%) patients were using adalimumab, 25 (32.5%) patients were using etanercept, 13 patients were using (16.9%) certolizumab, 6 (7.8%) patients were using golimumab, and 2 patients (2.6%) were using infliximab in TNF group. Six patients using anti-TNF (2 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 golimumab,2 infliximab) and 3 nonuser patients recovered from COVID-19 (p = 0.999). No statistically significant difference was found between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients in terms of the types of anti TNF they used. Patients were called in March 2020, and they were advised to terminate their anti-TNF therapy, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Among those who used antiTNF, 2 (33.3%) people who had COVID-19 and 38 (53.5%) people who did not have COVID-19 interrupted treatment (p = 0.419). Anti-TNF users who did not have COVID-19 stopped taking the treatment for an average of 3 months (min 2-max 4 months) starting from March 2020, and the patients who had COVID-19 (p = 0.102) stopped taking the treatment for 1.5 months (min 1-max 2 months). Duration of interrupting TNFi was not significant for the risk of COVID-19. Comorbidities, older age, and the presence of active disease have been associated with worse outcomes in previous studies [3]. In our study, the anti-TNF using and the nonuser groups were similar according to age, sex, and comorbidities. Although comorbidities in COVID-19 are associated with severe disease in the literature, we did not find a significant difference in our study. This result is probably related to our insufficient number of patients. As a result, we found that the use of anti-TNF did not increase the frequency and severity of COVID-19. In a recently published multicenter study, it was stated that the use of biological DMARDs in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases was not significantly associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19. But unlike our study, having no comorbidities was associated with a decreased risk of a worse outcome [4]. There are currently studies investigating the therapeutic utility of infliximab and adalimumab in hospitalized COVID-19 patients [5]. The results of these studies are very important. The usability of TNFi in treatment and at which stage of the disease anti-TNF agents can be used are wondered. We will see the course of the disease all over the world after the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines, but we still need more information about effective and safe treatment. RESULTS: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. DISCUSSION: The authors did not receive support from any organization for this work.

Brown-Séquard syndrome in a patient with spondyloarthritis after COVID-19 vaccine: a challenging differential diagnosis.

A 41-year-old woman with pre-radiographic axial and peripheric spondyloarthritis, taking adalimumab since 2010, started motor impairment of the right limbs and numbness of the left leg seven days after the administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Adalimumab was taken 47 days before clinical onset. A comprehensive study for infectious, autoimmune and neoplastic causes were unremarkable. MRI depicted an acute inflammatory lesion at C2 level with gadolinium enhancement. The patient started methylprednisolone with clinical improvement. Three scenarios should be considered: primary CNS inflammatory disorder or a secondary manifestation of the underlying rheumatologic disease; immune-mediated inflammatory lesion triggered by vaccine; demyelinating event due to adalimumab.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with psoriasis treated with ixekizumab or adalimumab over 2 years of follow-up in real-world settings.

AIMS: To compare long-term healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients who initiated ixekizumab (IXE) or adalimumab (ADA) for treatment of psoriasis in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients with psoriasis who had ≥1 claim for IXE or ADA were identified from IBM MarketScan claims databases prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2016-31 October 2019). The index date was the date of first claim for the index drug of interest. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was employed to balance treatment cohorts. All-cause and psoriasis-related HCRU and costs were examined for 24 months of follow-up. Costs were reported as per patient per month. Costs of psoriasis-related biologics were adjusted using published Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) discount factors. Index drug costs were adjusted for adherence and ICER discount rates. RESULTS: The analyses included 407 IXE and 2,702 ADA users. IXE users had significantly higher inpatient admission rate (all-cause HCRU: 14.9% vs. 11.0%; p =0.012) and greater mean length of stay per admission (days, 6.6 vs. 4.1; p =0.004) than ADA users. ICER-adjusted costs were significantly higher in IXE than ADA users (all-cause costs: $4,132 vs. $3,610; p <0.001; psoriasis-related costs $3,077 vs. $2,700; p <0.001). After adjusting for ICER and adherence, IXE and ADA drug costs were comparable ($3,636 vs. $3,677; p =0.714). LIMITATIONS: Study relied on administrative claims data, subjected to data coding limitations and data entry errors. Rebates, patient assistance programs, and commission to wholesalers are not always captured in claims. Adjustment made by ICER discount factors may lead to double-discounting if the discounts have been applied in claim payments. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause HCRU was higher in IXE than ADA users. Healthcare costs were also higher in IXE than ADA users after ICER adjustment, over 24 months. Cost differences were largely driven by higher treatment adherence associated with IXE. Index drug costs were comparable after ICER and adherence adjustments.

Reply to: "Herpes zoster seven days after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a patient with ankylosing spondylitis under adalimumab" by Josef Finsterer.

Not available.

Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of AVT02 Versus Originator Adalimumab in Subjects with Moderate to Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: A Multicentre, Double-Blind, Randomised, Parallel Group, Active Control, Phase III Study.

BACKGROUND: AVT02 (adalimumab) is a proposed biosimilar to Humira®. AVT02 is produced at a 100 mg/mL concentration with a citrate-free formulation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of AVT02 versus Humira® in subjects with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, parallel group, active control study of adult subjects compared (at a 1:1 ratio) AVT02 with originator adalimumab 80 mg subcutaneously in Week 1, then 40 mg every other week. At Week 16, subjects who had received originator adalimumab were re-randomised at a 1:1 ratio to continue receiving originator adalimumab, or to switch to AVT02, every other week until Week 48, with final efficacy endpoint at Week 50. Subjects who initially received AVT02 continued to receive AVT02 from Week 16 to Week 48. The primary endpoint was percentage improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at Week 16. Secondary efficacy endpoints included percentage improvement in PASI score at additional timepoints, change from baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score and number and percentage of subjects achieving static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) responses of 'clear' or 'almost clear'. Additional secondary endpoints included comparison of adverse event profiles, anti-drug antibodies and neutralising antibodies, and serum trough levels of adalimumab at steady state. RESULTS: A total of 413 subjects were randomised (205 to AVT02 and 208 to originator). The percentage improvement in PASI score at Week 16 was 91.6% for AVT02-treated subjects and 89.6% for originator adalimumab. The 90% confidence intervals for the primary endpoint were within the pre-defined equivalence margin of ±10% (90% CI - 0.76 to 5.29; 95% CI - 1.34 to 5.88), and a comparable pattern for DLQI score (11.4-point and 10.6-point improvement in AVT02-treated and originator adalimumab-treated groups, respectively) and sPGA (90.5% in both groups achieving 'clear' or 'almost clear') at Week 16 supported the assessment. Efficacy persisted through Week 50 of the study in all treatment groups, including those who switched from originator adalimumab to AVT02, for percent improvement in PASI score, quality-of-life assessment and sPGA. The safety, tolerability and immunogenicity profiles between AVT02 and originator adalimumab were similar at Week 16, and this persisted in the switched and continued groups through Week 50. CONCLUSION: Objective and subjective measures of efficacy supported the evaluation of biosimilarity between AVT02 and originator adalimumab at Week 16 and until Week 50, in switched and continued treatment groups. AVT02 was safe and well tolerated, with a safety and immunogenicity profile similar to that observed in originator adalimumab with no clinically meaningful difference between the two. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2017-003367-35; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03849404.

Effective use of switching biologics for ulcerative colitis complicated with pyoderma gangrenosum and primary sclerosing cholangitis.

Although prednisolone, granulocyte/monocyte apheresis, calcineurin inhibitor and anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy are generally used, no treatment strategy for inflammatory bowel disease complicated with pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) has been established yet. Herein, we present the case of a 29-year-old man with ulcerative colitis (UC) complicated with primary sclerosing cholangitis. When UC relapsed and PG developed, prednisolone and granulocyte/monocyte apheresis were used; however, their therapeutic effects were deemed insufficient. After 2 weeks, adalimumab (ADA) induced remission; however, his UC and PG relapsed 20 weeks later. As a result of switching to infliximab, since a loss of response to ADA was deemed to have occurred, remission was reintroduced and subsequently maintained for 40 weeks. We conclude that anti-TNF-α antibodies might be selected as the first choice when PG and UC are refractory to treatment, and a switch to anti-TNFs should be considered when the effect is still insufficient.

Efficacy of switching from infliximab to golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in deep remission.

BACKGROUND-AIM: Intravenously administered biologicals are associated with a huge pressure to Infusion Units and increased cost. We aimed to assess the impact of switching infliximab to golimumab in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients in deep remission. Patients and method: In a prospective, single-centre pilot study UC patients on infliximab mono-therapy for = 2 years, whowere in deep remission, consented to switch to golimumab and were followed for 1 year with clinical assessment, serum and faecal biomarkers, work productivity, satisfaction with treatment and quality of life parameters. Endoscopic remission was assessed by colonoscopy at 1 year. Patients fulfilling the same inclusion criteria, who did not consent to switch to golimumab and continued to receive infliximab mono-therapy, for the same period, served as controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective, single-centre pilot study UC patients on infliximab mono-therapy for ≥ 2 years, who were in deep remission, consented to switch to golimumab and were followed for 1 year with clinical assessment, serum and faecal biomarkers, work productivity, satisfaction with treatment and quality of life parameters. Endoscopic remission was assessed by colonoscopy at 1 year. Patients fulfilling the same inclusion criteria, who did not consent to switch to golimumab and continued to receive infliximab mono-therapy, for the same period, served as controls. RESULTS: Between October 2015 and October 2017, 20 patients were recruited; however one patient stopped therapy because of pregnancy. All 19 patients who were switched to golimumab were still in clinical, biomarker and endoscopic remission at 1 year and maintained excellent quality of life without any complications. In the control group, 18 of 19 patients were also in deep remission, since only one patient had a flare which was managed with IFX dose intensification. During a median 3 years extension treatment with golimumab only 2 patients experienced a flare of colitis. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that switching from in-fliximab to golimumab in UC patients in deep remission does not compromise treatment effectiveness or the course of disease; golimumab offers a valid alternative to intravenous infliximab infusions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Switching infliximab in psoriatic patients during COVID-19 pandemics: A real-life retrospective study comparing intra-versus interclass switching strategies.

During this pandemic, dermatological infusion centers were partially unavailable, suspended or even reconverted to guest COVID-19 patients, consequently infliximab (IFX) infusions became challenging for their both logistic arrangement and also for patients' COVID-19 phobia. This 48 weeks follow-up retrospective observational study included 37 PsO patients that underwent IFX SB2 during pandemic in two primary dermatological referral centers. In 23 (62.1%) we had to switch from IFX to other biologics, not motivated by adverse reactions, contraindication or even loss of response but only to pandemic related conditions. Nine patients underwent interclass switching and 15 underwent intraclass switching; interestingly 2 patients that underwent adalimumab SB-5 switched back to IFX. Interclass switching was privileged in elder patients and smokers. All patients at week 48 achieved PASI 100. Intra- and interclass switchings are both safe and effective strategies in psoriatic patients with COVID-19 phobia and/or difficulties to undergo infliximab infusions.

Adalimumab and Infliximab Impair SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses: Results from a Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Study in 11 422 Biologic-Treated Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Infliximab attenuates serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whether this is a class effect, or if anti-tumour necrosis factor [anti-TNF] level influences serological responses, remains unknown. METHODS: Seroprevalence and the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody responses were measured in surplus serum from 11 422 (53.3% [6084] male; median age 36.8 years) patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, stored at six therapeutic drug monitoring laboratories between January 29 and September 30, 2020. Data were linked to nationally held SARS-CoV-2 PCR results to July 11, 2021. RESULTS: Rates of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar across treatment groups. Seroprevalence rates were lower in infliximab- and adalimumab- than vedolizumab-treated patients (infliximab: 3.0% [178/5893], adalimumab: 3.0% [152/5074], vedolizumab: 6.7% [25/375], p = 0.003). The magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 reactivity was similar in infliximab- vs adalimumab-treated patients (median 4.30 cut-off index [COI] [1.94-9.96] vs 5.02 [2.18-18.70], p = 0.164), but higher in vedolizumab-treated patients (median 21.60 COI [4.39-68.10, p < 0.004). Compared to patients with detectable infliximab and adalimumab drug levels, patients with undetectable drug levels [<0.8 mg/L] were more likely to be seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. One-third of patients who had PCR testing prior to antibody testing failed to seroconvert, all were treated with anti-TNF. Subsequent positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was seen in 7.9% [12/152] of patients after a median time of 183.5 days [129.8-235.3], without differences between drugs. CONCLUSION: Anti-TNF treatment is associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid seroprevalence and antibody reactivity when compared to vedolizumab-treated patients. Higher seropositivity rates in patients with undetectable anti-TNF levels support a causal relationship, although confounding factors, such as combination therapy with a immunomodulator, may have influenced the results.

Anterior Scleritis Manifesting After Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Report of Two Cases.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report 2 patients with anterior scleritis manifesting after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The patients with confirmed COVID-19 developed anterior scleritis after their systemic symptoms were markedly improved. A thorough systemic workup identified no underlying autoimmune diseases. Ocular characteristics and safety and efficacy of systemic immunosuppressive therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Case 1 was a 67-year-old woman who presented with necrotizing anterior scleritis in both eyes 3 weeks after the onset of COVID-19. One-week treatment with topical betamethasone and oral prednisolone (65 mg daily) did not result in improvement, so she was started on intravenous cyclophosphamide and subcutaneous adalimumab in addition to oral prednisolone. Necrotizing scleritis was gradually improved over 3 months. Case 2 was a 33-year-old man who presented with sectoral anterior scleritis in his right eye 2 weeks after the onset of COVID-19. He was started on topical betamethasone and oral prednisolone (85 mg daily). One week later, all signs and symptoms disappeared, and topical and oral corticosteroids were gradually tapered off over 2 weeks. There was no recurrence of respiratory symptoms or active scleritis in any cases after discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These cases suggest that COVID-19 can be associated with anterior scleritis, which responds to immunosuppressive and biologic agents. Ophthalmologists should consider anterior scleritis in patients with COVID-19 who present with ocular pain and redness during the convalescent phase of the illness.

Patient-led Remote IntraCapillary pharmacoKinetic Sampling (fingerPRICKS) for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Because of COVID-19 public health restrictions, telemedicine has replaced conventional outpatient follow up for most patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with biologic drugs. Innovative solutions to facilitate remote therapeutic drug monitoring are therefore required. Low-volume intracapillary blood sampling can be undertaken by patients at home and samples returned by post to central laboratories. We sought to report the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on requests for therapeutic drug monitoring and the equivalence, acceptability and effectiveness of low volume Patient-led Remote IntraCapillary pharmacoKinetic Sampling [fingerPRICKS] compared to conventional venepuncture. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional blood sampling methods comparison study and compared sample types using linear regression models. Drug and antidrug antibody levels were measured using standard ELISAs. Acceptability was assessed using a purpose-designed questionnaire. RESULTS: Therapeutic drug monitoring requests for adalimumab (96.5 [70.5-106] per week to 52 [33.5-57.0], p < 0.001) but not infliximab (184.5 [161.2-214.2] to 161 [135-197.5], p = 0.34) reduced during the first UK stay-at-home lockdown compared with the preceding 6 months. Fingerprick sampling was equivalent to conventional venepuncture for adalimumab, infliximab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab drug, and anti-adalimumab and anti-infliximab antibody levels. The median [interquartile range] volume of serum obtained using intracapillary sampling was 195 µL [130-210]. More than 87% [90/103] of patients agreed that intracapillary testing was easy and 69% [71/103] preferred it to conventional venepuncture. In routine care, 75.3% [58/77] of patients returned two blood samples within 14 days to permit remote assessment of biologic therapeutic drug monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic drug monitoring can be undertaken using patient-led remote intracapillary blood sampling and has the potential to be a key adjunct to telemedicine in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Evaluation of adalimumab effects in managing severe cases of COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, which is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has spread around the world since late 2019. Studies have found associations between the rising levels of TNF-α and severe COVID-19 cases. Hence, TNF-α blocking can possibly be a favorable intervention in modifying COVID-19. To this end, in order to manage pneumonia caused by COVID-19, adalimumab may potentially be considered as a potential therapeutic agent. The present study aimed to investigate the potential therapeutic role of adalimumab in treating COVID-19 cases in combination therapy with remdesivir and dexamethasone. METHODS: Among the 68 patients who were included in the current randomized controlled trial, 34 were assigned to the adalimumab group and the remaining 34 were assigned to the control group. Adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg, subcutaneous for once, was used for the intervention group. Both the intervention and control groups received remdesivir, dexamethasone, and supportive care. The data gathered to make comparisons of the groups included demographic information, the rate of mortality, mechanical ventilation requirement, length of stay in hospital and Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and imaging findings. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in the terms of mortality rate (P-value = 1) and mechanical ventilation requirement (P-value = 1). The length of hospital and ICU stay as well as radiologic changes were not affected either (P-value = 1, 0.27, and 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not support the use of adalimumab in combination with remdesivir and dexamethasone in the treatment of severe COVID-19 cases.

Anti-COVID-19 measurements for hidradenitis suppurativa patients.

The reported incidence of COVID-19 among cohorts of patients with inflammatory bowel and skin diseases under treatment with biologicals is low. Treatment may further modify disease severity as some biological modifiers, such as anakinra, are also proposed for the management of COVID-19 patients potentially providing HS patients with an advantage. The above preliminary evidence suggests that hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) does probably not provide an increased susceptibility for COVID-19 and that any susceptibility is unlikely to be modified negatively by treatment with biologicals. On the occasion of its 10th International Conference, experts of the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation e.V. have prepared a consensus statement regarding anti-COVID-19 measurements for HS patients. Based on the available knowledge, patients with HS may be vaccinated against SARS-CoV2 and patients affected by metabolic syndrome constitute a high-risk group for COVID-19 and should be vaccinated at the earliest convenient point in time. HS patients on treatment with adalimumab can be vaccinated with non-living virus anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccines. A possible suboptimal effect of the vaccine may be suspected but might not be expected universally. The management of the biological treatment in HS patients is at the discretion of the dermatologist / responsible physician.