Risk for Serious Infection With Low-Dose Glucocorticoids in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose glucocorticoids are frequently used for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other chronic conditions, but the safety of long-term use remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk for hospitalized infection with long-term use of low-dose glucocorticoids in patients with RA receiving stable disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medicare claims data and Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart database from 2006 to 2015. PATIENTS: Adults with RA receiving a stable DMARD regimen for more than 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: Associations between glucocorticoid dose (none, ≤5 mg/d, >5 to 10 mg/d, and >10 mg/d) and hospitalized infection were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted analyses, with 1-year cumulative incidence predicted from weighted models. RESULTS: 247 297 observations were identified among 172 041 patients in Medicare and 58 279 observations among 44 118 patients in Optum. After 6 months of stable DMARD use, 47.1% of Medicare patients and 39.5% of Optum patients were receiving glucocorticoids. The 1-year cumulative incidence of hospitalized infection in Medicare patients not receiving glucocorticoids was 8.6% versus 11.0% (95% CI, 10.6% to 11.5%) for glucocorticoid dose of 5 mg or less per day, 14.4% (CI, 13.8% to 15.1%) for greater than 5 to 10 mg/d, and 17.7% (CI, 16.5% to 19.1%) for greater than 10 mg/d (all P < 0.001 vs. no glucocorticoids). The 1-year cumulative incidence of hospitalized infection in Optum patients not receiving glucocorticoids was 4.0% versus 5.2% (CI, 4.7% to 5.8%) for glucocorticoid dose of 5 mg or less per day, 8.1% (CI, 7.0% to 9.3%) for greater than 5 to 10 mg/d, and 10.6% (CI, 8.5% to 13.2%) for greater than 10 mg/d (all P < 0.001 vs. no glucocorticoids). LIMITATION: Potential for residual confounding and misclassification of glucocorticoid dose. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA receiving stable DMARD therapy, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose-dependent increase in the risk for serious infection, with small but significant risks even at doses of 5 mg or less per day. Clinicians should balance the benefits of low-dose glucocorticoids with this potential risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Comparison of two dose escalation strategies of methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: a multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: There are no head-to-head trials of different dose escalation strategies of methotrexate (MTX) in RA. We compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of 'usual' (5 mg every 4 weeks) versus 'fast' (5 mg every 2 weeks) escalation of oral MTX. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label (assessor blinded) RCT included patients 18-55 years of age having active RA with disease duration <5 years, and not on DMARDs. Patients were randomized 1:1 into usual or fast escalation groups, both groups starting MTX at 15 mg/week till a maximum of 25 mg/week. Primary outcome was EULAR good response at 16 weeks, secondary outcomes were ΔDAS28 and adverse effects (AE). Analyses were intention-to-treat. RESULTS: 178 patients with mean DAS28-CRP of 5.4(1.1) were randomized to usual (n=89) or fast escalation groups (n=89). At 16 weeks, there was no difference in good EULAR response in the usual (28.1%) or fast escalation (22.5%) groups (p=0.8). There was no difference in mean ΔDAS28-CRP at 8 weeks (-0.9, -0.8, p=0.72) or 16 weeks (-1.3, -1.3, p=0.98). Even at 24 weeks (extended follow-up), responses were similar. There were no inter-group differences in ΔHAQ, or MTX-polyglutamates 1-3 levels at 8 or 16 weeks. Gastrointestinal AE were higher in the fast escalation group over initial 8 weeks (27%, 40%, p=0.048), but not over 16 weeks. There was no difference in cytopenias, transaminitis, or drug discontinuation/dose reduction between the groups. No serious AE were seen. CONCLUSION: A faster MTX escalation strategy in RA was not more efficacious over 16-24 weeks, and did not significantly increase AE, except higher gastrointestinal AE initially. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2018/12/016549.

Protracted severe COVID-19 pneumonia following rituximab treatment: caution needed.

The outcomes of COVID-19 in patients treated with biologic agents are a subject of intense investigation. Recent data indicated that patients under rituximab (RTX) may carry an increased risk of serious disease. We performed an electronic search in Medline and Scopus using the keywords rituximab and COVID-19. We present a rare case of severe, protracted COVID-19 pneumonia in a patient with mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) who was infected a few days following RTX treatment. In a relevant literature search, we identified 18 cases of patients with rheumatic diseases (6 RA, 8 ANCA vasculitis, 3 systemic sclerosis and 1 polymyositis) treated with RTX who experienced an atypical and/or prolonged course of COVID-19 pneumonia with no evidence of cytokine storm. Our case indicates that RTX may unfavorably affect outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. B cell depletion may dampen the humoral response against the virus; we may hypothesize that B cell-depleted patients may be protected from cytokine storm but on the other hand may have difficulties in virus clearance leading to a protracted course. Taking into account that COVID-19 vaccines are available we may consider delaying RTX infusions at least in patients without life threatening disease, until vaccination is completed.

Association of hydroxychloroquine and cardiac arrhythmia in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A population-based case control study.

OBJECTIVES: Hydroxychloroquine is widely used to treat certain viral and rheumatic diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus. Cardiac arrhythmia is an important safety issue with hydroxychloroquine. The aim of this study was to investigate whether hydroxychloroquine increases new-onset arrhythmia among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: This was a nested case-control study using data from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database of Taiwan. A conditional logistic regression model was used to analyse differences in the risk of arrhythmia between systemic lupus erythematosus patients with and without hydroxychloroquine treatment after controlling for related variables. RESULTS: A total of 2499 patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus were identified (81% females), of whom 251 were enrolled in the new-onset arrhythmia group (mean age 50.4 years) and 251 in the non-arrhythmia group (mean age 49.1 years). There was no significantly increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia (adjusted odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.98-2.25) or ventricular arrhythmia (adjusted odds ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-5.41) between the patients with and without hydroxychloroquine treatment. In addition, there were no significant differences in the risk of arrhythmia between those receiving hydroxychloroquine treatment for <180 days or ≥180 days, with a drug adherence rate of <50% or ≥50%, and receiving a daily dose of <400 mg or ≥400 mg. CONCLUSION: In patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, hydroxychloroquine treatment did not significantly increase the risk of cardiac arrhythmia or life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia regardless of the different hydroxychloroquine treatment duration, drug adherence rate, or daily dose.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine - safety profile of potential COVID-19 drugs from the rheumatologist's perspective.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic causes vital concerns due to the lack of proved, effective, and safe therapy. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine seem to be useful, but recently serious concerns regarding their adverse events have risen. The aim of the study was to broaden the general perspective of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine use in COVID-19 treatment, based on an analysis of their current safety profile among patients with rheumatic diseases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was based on a group of 152 patients with rheumatic diseases, aged 20-78 years, treated either with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Analyzed data included age, gender, comorbidities, type of drug, dosage, treatment duration, and reported adverse events. Cases of drug withdrawal related to adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: The dosage was consistent in both groups: 250 mg of chloroquine or 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine daily. 77.6% of patients did not experience any adverse reactions to the treatment. Hydroxychloroquine showed better safety profile, with 10.9% of patients reporting side-ffects, compared to 28.9% in patients treated with chloroquine. The overall incidence of ophthalmic complications was 6.6%. For both drugs, no statistically significant correlation between adverse events and age, chronic heart or liver disease, or hypertension was found. CONCLUSIONS: Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine at lower doses, as used in rheumatic diseases, prove to be relatively safe. Data from the literature show that high dosage as recommended in COVID-19 treatment may pose a risk of toxicity and require precise management, but prophylactic, long-term use of lower, safe doses might be a promising solution.

Infliximab and Intravenous Gammaglobulin in Hospitalized Severe COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to the cytokine storm syndrome which may cause acute respiratory failure syndrome and death. Our aim was to investigate the therapeutic effects of infliximab, intravenous gammaglobulin (IVIg) or combination therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this observational research, we studied 104 intubated adult patients with severe COVID-19 infection (based on clinical symptoms, and radiographic or CT scan parameters) who were admitted to the ICU of a multispecialty hospital during March 2020 in Tehran, Iran. All cases received standard treatment regimens as local protocol (Oseltamivir + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir or sofosbuvir or atazanavir ± ribavirin). The cases were grouped as controls (n = 43), infliximab (n = 27), IVIg (n = 23) and combination (n = 11). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between controls and treatment groups in terms of underlying diseases or the number of underlying diseases. The mean age (SD) of cases was 72.42 (16.06) in the control group, 64.52 (12.965) in IVIg, 63.40 (17.57) in infliximab and 64.00 (11.679) in combination therapy; (P = 0.047, 0.031 and 0.11, respectively). Also, 37% in the infliximab group, 26.1% in IVIg, 45.5% in combination therapy, and 62.8% in the control group expired (all P < 0.05). Hazard ratios were 0.31 in IVIg (95% CI: 0.12-0.76, P = 0.01), 0.30 in infliximab (95% CI: 0.13-0.67, P = 0.004), 0.39 in combination therapy (95% CI: 0.12-1.09, P = 0.071). CONCLUSION: According to the findings of this study, it seems that infliximab and IVIg, alone or together, in patients with severe COVID-19 disease can be considered an effective treatment.

Challenges of autoimmune rheumatic disease treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review.

Since December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has become a major public health problem. To date, there is no evidence of a higher incidence of COVID in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases and we support the approach of maintaining chronic rheumatological treatments. However, once infected there is a small but significant increased risk of mortality. Among the different treatments, NSAIDs are associated with higher rates of complications, but data for other drugs are conflicting or incomplete. The use of certain drugs for autoimmune inflammatory rheumatisms appears to be a potentially interesting options for the treatment. The rationale for their use is based on the immune system runaway and the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines (Il1, IL6, TNFα) in severe forms of the disease. Notably, patients on chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for their autoimmune rheumatic disease are not protected from COVID-19.

COVID-19 patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis on biologic immunosuppressant therapy vs apremilast in North Spain.

Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory treatments are critical for the management of inflammatory and autoimmune conditions such as psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis. Similar to those illnesses, the lung injury and acute respiratory distress shown in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are the result of a disruption in the balance of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. This hyperinflammatory response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), associated with the severity of the coronavirus disease, is called the cytokine storm. There is a growing concern regarding how patients on immunosuppressant biologic therapies might be at higher risk of being infected and whether they need to discontinue their treatment preemptively. Clinical data on COVID-19-infected patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are still scarce. Here, we presented seven cases of these type of patients. The patient infected with COVID-19 on apremilast and the one on apremilast with infected spouse showed the best safety profile and mildest symptoms. One of the secukinumab patients also presented a relatively good outcome. Infliximab patients and the one with serious comorbidities showed the worst outcome. Even though more clinical data are yet needed to draw strong conclusions, apremilast could be a safer alternative for dermatology and rheumatology patients in case of clinically important active infection.

Anakinra after treatment with corticosteroids alone or with tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate hyperinflammation. A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Little evidence appears to exist for the use of anakinra, a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, after non-response to treatment with corticosteroids alone or combined with tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate hyperinflammatory state. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was carried out involving 143 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate hyperinflammation. They received standard therapy along with pulses of methylprednisolone (group 1) or methylprednisolone plus tocilizumab (group 2), with the possibility of receiving anakinra (group 3) according to protocol. The aim of this study was to assess the role of anakinra in the clinical course (death, admission to the intensive care ward) during the first 60 days after the first corticosteroid pulse. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging characteristics as well as infectious complications were also analyzed. RESULTS: 74 patients (51.7%) in group 1, 59 (41.3%) patients in group 2, and 10 patients (7%) in group 3 were included. 8 patients (10.8%) in group 1 died, 6 (10.2%) in group 2, and 0 (0%) in group 3. After adjustment for age and clinical severity indices, treatment with anakinra was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.518, 95% CI 0.265-0.910; p = 0.0437). Patients in group 3 had a lower mean CD4 count after 3 days of treatment. No patients in this group presented infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate hyperinflammatory state associated with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, treatment with anakinra after non-response to corticosteroids or corticosteroids plus tocilizumab therapy may be an option for the management of these patients and may improve their prognosis.

Impact of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapies on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 in relation to immunomodulatory medications are still unknown. The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents on COVID-19 in a large cohort of patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: The study was conducted in the arthritis outpatient clinic at two large academic hospitals in the COVID-19 most endemic area of Northern Italy (Lombardy). We circulated a cross-sectional survey exploring the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 nasopharyngeal swab positivity and the occurrence of acute respiratory illness (fever and/or cough and/or dyspnea), administered face-to-face or by phone to consecutive patients from 25 February to 20 April 2020. COVID-19 cases were defined as confirmed or highly suspicious according to the World Health Organization criteria. The impact of medications on COVID-19 development was evaluated. RESULTS: The study population included 2050 adults with chronic inflammatory arthritis receiving glucocorticoids, conventional-synthetic (cs), or targeted-synthetic/biological (ts/b) disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs). Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and highly suspicious infection were recorded in 1.1% and 1.4% of the population, respectively. Treatment with glucocorticoids was independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 (adjusted OR [95% CI] ranging from 1.23 [1.04-1.44] to 3.20 [1.97-5.18] depending on the definition used). Conversely, patients treated with ts/bDMARDs were at reduced risk (adjusted OR ranging from 0.46 [0.18-1.21] to 0.47 [0.46-0.48]). No independent effects of csDMARDs, age, sex, and comorbidities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, treatment with immunomodulatory medications appears safe. Conversely, glucocorticoids, even at low-dose, may confer increased risk of infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered. Not applicable.

COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine and sudden cardiac death: implications for clinical practice in patients with rheumatic diseases.

Sudden cardiac death is commonly seen due to arrhythmias, which is a common cardiac manifestation seen in COVID-19 patients, especially those with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD). Administration of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a potential treatment option during SARS-CoV-2, initially gained popularity, but later, its safe usage became questionable due to its cardiovascular safety, largely stemming from instances of cardiac arrhythmias in COVID-19. Moreover, in the setting of rheumatic diseases, in which patients are usually on HCQ for their primary disease, there is a need to scale the merits and demerits of HCQ usage for the treatment of COVID-19. In this narrative review, we aim to address the association between usage of HCQ and sudden cardiac death in COVID-19 patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and SCOPUS databases were used to review articles in English ranging from case reports, case series, letter to editors, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, observational studies and randomized control trials. HCQ is a potential cause of sudden cardiac death in COVID-19 patients. As opposed to the reduction in CVD with HCQ in treatment of systemic lupus erythematous, rheumatoid arthritis, and other rheumatic diseases, safe usage of HCQ in COVID-19 patients is unclear; whereby, it is observed to result in QTc prolongation and Torsades de pointes even in patients with no underlying cardiovascular comorbidity. This is occasionally associated with sudden cardiac death or cardiac arrest; hence, its clinical efficacy needs further investigation by large-scale clinical trials.

Challenges in diagnosing hydroxychloroquine myopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hydroxychloroquine is being used for COVID-19 symptoms and in clinical trials, but can cause a toxic myopathy that leads to muscle weakness. A review of skeletal muscle biopsies from patients with hydroxychloroquine myopathy gives pointers of steps that can be taken to diagnose this toxic myopathy early and help differentiate it from COVID-19-related muscle weakness.

A randomized, open-label, adaptive, proof-of-concept clinical trial of modulation of host thromboinflammatory response in patients with COVID-19: the DAWn-Antico study.

BACKGROUND: The peak of the global COVID-19 pandemic has not yet been reached, and many countries face the prospect of a second wave of infections before effective vaccinations will be available. After an initial phase of viral replication, some patients develop a second illness phase in which the host thrombotic and inflammatory responses seem to drive complications. Severe COVID-19 disease is linked to high mortality, hyperinflammation, and a remarkably high incidence of thrombotic events. We hypothesize a crucial pathophysiological role for the contact pathway of coagulation and the kallikrein-bradykinin pathway. Therefore, drugs that modulate this excessive thromboinflammatory response should be investigated in severe COVID-19. METHODS: In this adaptive, open-label multicenter randomized clinical trial, we compare low molecular weight heparins at 50 IU anti-Xa/kg twice daily-or 75 IU anti-Xa twice daily for intensive care (ICU) patients-in combination with aprotinin to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In the case of hyperinflammation, the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra will be added on top of the drugs in the interventional arm. In a pilot phase, the effect of the intervention on thrombotic markers (D-dimer) will be assessed. In the full trial, the primary outcome is defined as the effect of the interventional drugs on clinical status as defined by the WHO ordinal scale for clinical improvement. DISCUSSION: In this trial, we target the thromboinflammatory response at multiple levels. We intensify the dose of low molecular weight heparins to reduce thrombotic complications. Aprotinin is a potent kallikrein pathway inhibitor that reduces fibrinolysis, activation of the contact pathway of coagulation, and local inflammatory response. Additionally, aprotinin has shown in vitro inhibitory effects on SARS-CoV-2 cellular entry. Because the excessive thromboinflammatory response is one of the most adverse prognostic factors in COVID-19, we will add anakinra, a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, to the regimen in case of severely increased inflammatory parameters. This way, we hope to modulate the systemic response to SARS-CoV-2 and avoid disease progressions with a potentially fatal outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The EU Clinical Trials Register 2020-001739-28 . Registered on April 10, 2020.

COVID-19 pandemic and biological therapy in rheumatologic disorders: how to deal with?

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has involved more than 159 countries and more than 5 million people worldwide. A 40-year-old man with a history of rheumatoid arthritis treated with prednisolone, Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), and biologic agents was admitted with chief complaints of fever, chills, malaise, myalgia, and dyspnea. Chest computed tomography showed bilateral subsegmental atelectasis and diffuse ground-glass opacities in both lungs inducing the suspicion of COVID-19 infection. The oro-nasopharynx swab sample for COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction was positive. In addition to supportive care, lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily and oseltamivir (75 mg) twice daily were started in combination with a starting dose of hydroxychloroquine (400 mg). The methotrexate dose was decreased, and the dose of prednisolone was increased to 30 mg for 10 days. Azathioprine and adalimumab were continued at previous doses. The use of biologic agents and DMARDs in rheumatic patients is a serious challenge in the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the key roles of cytokines in the promotion of the disease, the rheumatic patients may benefit from continuing their previous treatment, which may have protective effects.

Assessing the Association of Formulary Copayment Changes with Real-World Treatment Patterns in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis on Etanercept.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease that requires long-term treatment to improve or maintain stable disease activity. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), a class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), are effective at treating symptoms and inhibiting joint progression. Although treatment changes are not recommended in patients with stable disease, health plans have recently enacted formulary changes with higher copayments that could disrupt patient access to TNFis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of formulary copayment changes with real-world treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and health care costs among bDMARD-naive patients with RA receiving the TNFi etanercept. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort analysis used the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Adult patients with RA with 6 months of stable etanercept use (no refill gap ≥ 45 days) from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, were selected and the index date was set to the first fill date after the stable-use period. Average etanercept copayment was calculated at the drug-plan level. Copayment change was defined as a monthly increase of at least $40 to account for copayment changes attributable to etanercept wholesale acquisition costs between 2014 and 2015. This amount also corresponded to the 90th percentile of average plan-level changes in etanercept copayments in the database, representing an average change in copayment by a payer. Patients were followed ≥ 12 months before and after the index date to track etanercept treatment changes and ≥ 12 months after a treatment change to track costs after etanercept copayment changes. Etanercept persistence, bDMARD switching, refill gaps, and treatment effectiveness (using a validated effectiveness algorithm) were described for patients with or without copayment change during the 12 months post-index or postchange. We also assessed the mean total of all-cause and RA-related expenditure during the 12-month post-index (or postchange) period. RESULTS: 1,970 stable patients met study inclusion criteria (mean [standard deviation] age: 50.3 [9.5] years; 77.8% female) and were evaluated. Of these, 133 (6.8%) patients had a copayment change ≥$40 during follow-up. Overall, most patients (60.3%) persisted on etanercept for the 12-month follow-up period, while 13.0% switched from etanercept, and 8.1% discontinued (refill gap of ≥ 45 days). Nearly half (48.0%) of all patients were considered effectively treated according to a validated algorithm. Compared with patients without a copayment change, those with a copayment change were more likely to switch biologics (19.5% vs. 12.6%; P = 0.021). Although statistical significance was not reached, patients with a copayment change were less likely to be persistent (54.1% vs. 60.7%; P = 0.135), and less likely to be effectively treated (42.1% vs. 48.4%; P = 0.161) than patients without a copayment change. All-cause and RA-related expenditures at baseline and post-copayment change were similar between patients with and without a copayment change. CONCLUSIONS: Changing formulary copayment of etanercept was associated with higher switching without difference in costs or health care utilization between copayment and no copayment change groups. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Amgen. Bonafede, Manjelievskaia, and Lopez-Gonzalez are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this study. Oko-osi, Collier, and Stolshek are employees and shareholders of Amgen. Gharaibeh was an employee of Amgen at the time of study execution and manuscript drafting. The authors have no other relationships that present a potential conflict of interest. Data pertaining to this study were presented in a poster at the 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL.

The Perfect Storm: A Rheumatologist's Point of View on COVID-19 Infection.

The new coronavirus infection (Covid-19) is a pandemic that has affected the whole world and progresses with high morbidity and mortality. It has a high contagion rate and a course capable of rapid lung involvement with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pulmonary insufficiency. A severe clinical picture develops as a result of a "perfect cytokine storm" which results from possible immunological mechanisms triggered by the viral infection. Immune system dysregulation and possible autoinflammatory and autoimmune mechanisms are responsible for a higher amount of cytokines release from immune cells. Although no clear treatment of Covid-19 infection has emerged yet, it is argued that some disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may be effective in addition to anti-viral treatments. These drugs (anti-malarial drugs, colchicum dispert, biologics) have been well known to rheumatologists for years because they are used in the treatment of many inflammatory rheumatologic diseases. Another important issue is whether DMARDs, which can cause severe immunosuppression, pose a risk for Covid-19 infection and whether they have been discontinued beforehand. Although there are insufficient data on this subject, considering the risk of disease reactivation, patients may continue their DMARDs treatment under the supervision of a rheumatologist. In this article, the possible immunological mechanisms in the pathogenesis of Covid-19 infection and the efficacy and safety of various DMARDs used in the treatment are discussed from a rheumatologist's perspective in the light of recent literature data.