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.

Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of CoronaVac and Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines in patients with psoriasis receiving systemic therapies: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence of immune response to COVID-19 vaccine in psoriasis patients on biological agents is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels following vaccination with CoronaVac or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA in patients using biological agents or methotrexate, high-titer antibody levels achievement rate, and impact of medications on immunogenicity. METHODS: This noninterventional, prospective cohort study included 89 patients and 40 controls vaccinated with two doses of inactivated (CoronaVac) or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines. Anti-spike and neutralising antibodies were analysed before and three to six weeks after the second dose. Adverse effects and symptomatic COVID-19 were assessed. RESULTS: Median anti-spike and neutralising antibody titers after CoronaVac were significantly lower in patients than controls (57.92 U/mL vs 125.4 U/mL, and 1/6 vs 1/32, respectively, p < 0.05). Patients were less likely to achieve high-titer anti-spike antibody levels (25.6 % vs 50 %). Infliximab was associated with attenuated vaccine response. Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine induced comparable median anti-spike (2,080 U/mL vs 2,976.5 U/mL,) and neutralising antibody levels (1/96 vs 1/160) in patients and controls, respectively (p > 0.05). High-titer anti-spike and neutralising antibodies development rates were comparable among patients and controls (95.2 % vs 100 %, and 30.4 % vs 50.0 %, respectively, p > 0.05). Nine (10.1 %) COVID-19 cases- all mild - were identified. Psoriasis flare was seen in 6.74 %, mostly after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. CONCLUSION: Psoriasis patients treated with biological agents and methotrexate developed similar response to mRNA vaccine but weaker response to inactivated vaccine. Infliximab reduced response to the inactivated vaccine. Adverse effects were more frequent with mRNA vaccine, but none was severe.

Evaluation of infliximab/tocilizumab versus tocilizumab among COVID-19 patients with cytokine storm syndrome.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread rapidly. Monoclonal antibodies as well as anti-tumor necrosis factor are considered promising treatments for COVID-19. A prospective cohort study in which patients are divided into three groups. Group 1: moderate and severe COVID-19 patients received standard treatment; Group 2: moderate and severe COVID-19 patients received tocilizumab; Group 3: moderate and severe COVID-19 patients received treatment with infliximab and tocilizumab. 153 patients were recruited in the study. 40 received standard treatment alone, 70 received tocilizumab with standard treatment, and 43 received tocilizumab/infliximab with standard treatment. There was a significant difference in length of hospital stay (10.3, 8.9, and 7.6 days respectively P = 0.03), need for a non-invasive mechanical ventilator (4, 5, and one patient; P = 1.2E-8), intensive care admission (32, 45, and 16 patients; P = 2.5E-5), the occurrence of sepsis (18, 12, and 10 patients; P = 0.005) and in death (42.5%, 14.2%, and 7%; P = 0.0008) which were significantly lower in tocilizumab/infliximab group compared to tocilizumab and standard of care groups. Our study showed that tocilizumab/ infliximab in addition to standard of care was considered a promising treatment for moderate and severe COVID-19 patients.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04734678; date of registration: 02/02/2021.

Multiple infliximab biosimilar switches appear to be safe and effective in a real-world inflammatory bowel disease cohort.

BACKGROUND: Switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to biosimilar IFX is effective and safe. However, data on multiple switching are scarce. The Edinburgh inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit has undertaken three switch programmes: (1) Remicade to CT-P13 (2016), (2) CT-P13 to SB2 (2020), and (3) SB2 to CT-P13 (2021). OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint of this study was to assess CT-P13 persistence following switch from SB2. Secondary endpoints included persistence stratified by the number of biosimilar switches (single, double and triple), effectiveness and safety. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study. All adult IBD patients on IFX biosimilar SB2 underwent an elective switch to CT-P13. Patients were reviewed in a virtual biologic clinic with protocol driven collection of clinical disease activity, C-reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin (FC), IFX trough/antibody levels, and drug survival. RESULTS: 297 patients (CD n = 196 [66%], ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified n = 101, [34%]) were switched (followed-up: 7.5 months [6.8-8.1]). This was the third, second and first IFX switch for 67/297 (22.5%), 138/297 (46.5%) and 92/297 (31%) of the cohort respectively. 90.6% of patients remained on IFX during follow-up. The number of switches was not independently associated with IFX persistence after adjusting for confounders. Clinical (p = 0.77), biochemical (CRP ≤5 mg/ml; p = 0.75) and faecal biomarker (FC<250 µg/g; p = 0.63) remission were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24. CONCLUSION: Multiple successive switches from IFX originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with IBD, irrespective of the number of IFX switches.

90K/Mac-2 BP Is a New Predictive Biomarker of Response to Infliximab Therapy in IBD Patients.

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), comprising Crohn's disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC), are multifactorial disorders characterized by a chronic inflammatory status with the secretion of cytokines and immune mediators. Biologic drugs targeting pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as infliximab, are broadly used in the treatment of IBD patients, but some patients lose responsiveness after an initial success. The research into new biomarkers is crucial for advancing personalized therapies and monitoring the response to biologics. The aim of this single center, observational study is to analyze the relationship between serum levels of 90K/Mac-2 BP and the response to infliximab, in a cohort of 48 IBD patients (30 CD and 18 UC), enrolled from February 2017 to December 2018. In our IBD cohort, high 90K serum levels were found at baseline in patients who then developed anti-infliximab antibodies at the fifth infusion (22 weeks after the first), becoming non-responders (9.76 ± 4.65 µg/mL compared to 6.53 ± 3.29 µg/mL in responder patients, p = 0.005). This difference was significant in the total cohort and in CD, but not significant in UC. We then analyzed the relationship between serum levels of 90K, C-reactive protein (CRP), and Fecal calprotectin. A significant positive correlation was found at baseline between 90K and CRP, the most common serum inflammation marker (R = 0.42, p = 0.0032). We concluded that circulating 90K could be considered a new non-invasive biomarker for monitoring the response to infliximab. Furthermore, 90K serum level determination, before the first infliximab infusion, in association with other inflammatory markers such as CRP, could assist in the choice of biologics for the treatment of IBD patients, thereby obviating the need for a drug switch due to loss of response, and so improving clinical practice and patient care.

Patient preferences and current practice for adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: POPSTER mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are a mainstay of the treatment of moderately severe relapses of ulcerative colitis, yet almost 50% of patients do not respond fully to these and risk prolonged steroid use and side effects. There is a lack of clarity about the definitions of steroid resistance, the optimum choice of treatment, and patient and health-care professional treatment preferences. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this research was to understand how steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis is managed in adult secondary care and how current practice compares with patient and health-care professional preferences. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study, including an online survey, qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments. SETTING: NHS inflammatory bowel disease services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis and health-care professionals treating inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: We carried out a survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), qualitative interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), discrete choice experiments with health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115), and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals showed that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab) are the most frequently offered drugs across most steroid-resistant (and steroid-dependent) patient scenarios, but they are less frequently offered to thiopurine-naive patients. Patient interviews identified several factors influencing their treatment choices, including effectiveness of treatment, recommendations from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Over time, depending on the severity and duration of symptoms and, crucially, as medical treatment options become exhausted, patients are willing to try alternative treatments and, eventually, to undergo surgery. The discrete choice experiments found that the probability of remission and of side effects strongly influences the treatment choices of both patients and health-care professionals. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. The treatments ranked most positively by patients were infliximab and tofacitinib (each preferred by 38% of patients), and the predicted probability of uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab (62%). LIMITATIONS: The survey and the discrete choice experiments with patients and health-care professionals are limited by their relatively small sample sizes. The qualitative studies are subject to selection bias. The timing of the different substudies, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified factors influencing treatment decisions for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis and the characteristics to consider when choosing treatments to evaluate in future randomised controlled trials. The findings may be used to improve discussions between patients and health-care professionals when they review treatment options for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis. FUTURE WORK: This research highlights the need for consensus work to establish an agreed definition of steroid resistance in ulcerative colitis and a greater understanding of the optimal use of tofacitinib and surgery for this patient group. A randomised controlled trial comparing infliximab with tofacitinib is also recommended. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroids are one of the main treatments for ulcerative colitis; however, steroids work well for only about 50% of people who take them. There are many other treatments that can be given when steroids do not work, but evidence is limited about how these treatments are best used. To carry out better research about the best treatment options and to improve clinical practice in the future, this study aimed to find out how adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis are managed in hospital and why patients and health-care professionals prefer different treatments. The study combined various methods of research, including an online survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), a survey of health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115) to ask them about treatment preferences, and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals found that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that the most frequently offered drugs are anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab). Patient interviews found that several factors influenced treatment choices, including effectiveness of treament, guidance from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Patients were willing to try alternative treatments and surgery over time. The survey found that a higher level of remission and a lower chance of side effects strongly influenced treatment choices. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. Infliximab and tofacitinib were ranked most positively by patients, and the predicted uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab. The results of this study help improve understanding of why people choose certain treatments, improve decision-making in partnership and inform the design of future research.

Neutralising antibody potency against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5 variants in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with infliximab and vedolizumab after three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (CLARITY IBD): an analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-TNF drugs, such as infliximab, are associated with attenuated antibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We aimed to determine how the anti-TNF drug infliximab and the anti-integrin drug vedolizumab affect vaccine-induced neutralising antibodies against highly transmissible omicron (B.1.1.529) BA.1, and BA.4 and BA.5 (hereafter BA.4/5) SARS-CoV-2 variants, which possess the ability to evade host immunity and, together with emerging sublineages, are now the dominating variants causing current waves of infection. METHODS: CLARITY IBD is a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study investigating the effect of infliximab and vedolizumab on SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients aged 5 years and older with a diagnosis of IBD and being treated with infliximab or vedolizumab for 6 weeks or longer were recruited from infusion units at 92 hospitals in the UK. In this analysis, we included participants who had received uninterrupted biological therapy since recruitment and without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.4/5 after three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We constructed Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the risk of breakthrough infection in relation to neutralising antibody titres. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45176516, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 22 and Dec 23, 2020, 7224 patients with IBD were recruited to the CLARITY IBD study, of whom 1288 had no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection after three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and were established on either infliximab (n=871) or vedolizumab (n=417) and included in this study (median age was 46·1 years [IQR 33·6-58·2], 610 [47·4%] were female, 671 [52·1%] were male, 1209 [93·9%] were White, and 46 [3·6%] were Asian). After three doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 50% neutralising titres (NT50s) were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab than in those treated with vedolizumab, against wild-type (geometric mean 2062 [95% CI 1720-2473] vs 3440 [2939-4026]; p<0·0001), BA.1 (107·3 [86·40-133·2] vs 648·9 [523·5-804·5]; p<0·0001), and BA.4/5 (40·63 [31·99-51·60] vs 223·0 [183·1-271·4]; p<0·0001) variants. Breakthrough infection was significantly more frequent in patients treated with infliximab (119 [13·7%; 95% CI 11·5-16·2] of 871) than in those treated with vedolizumab (29 [7·0% [4·8-10·0] of 417; p=0·00040). Cox proportional hazards models of time to breakthrough infection after the third dose of vaccine showed infliximab treatment to be associated with a higher hazard risk than treatment with vedolizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·71 [95% CI 1·08-2·71]; p=0·022). Among participants who had a breakthrough infection, we found that higher neutralising antibody titres against BA.4/5 were associated with a lower hazard risk and, hence, a longer time to breakthrough infection (HR 0·87 [0·79-0·95]; p=0·0028). INTERPRETATION: Our findings underline the importance of continued SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes, including second-generation bivalent vaccines, especially in patient subgroups where vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy might be reduced, such as those on anti-TNF therapies. FUNDING: Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust; Hull University Teaching Hospital NHS Trust; NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre; Crohn's and Colitis UK; Guts UK; National Core Studies Immunity Programme, UK Research and Innovation; and unrestricted educational grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, Takeda, and Galapagos.

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.

The gut microbiota and metabolome are associated with diminished COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses in immunosuppressed inflammatory bowel disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with anti-TNF therapy exhibit attenuated humoral immune responses to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The gut microbiota and its functional metabolic output, which are perturbed in IBD, play an important role in shaping host immune responses. We explored whether the gut microbiota and metabolome could explain variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination responses in immunosuppressed IBD patients. METHODS: Faecal and serum samples were prospectively collected from infliximab-treated patients with IBD in the CLARITY-IBD study undergoing vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Antibody responses were measured following two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine. Patients were classified as having responses above or below the geometric mean of the wider CLARITY-IBD cohort. 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and bile acid profiling with ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) were performed on faecal samples. Univariate, multivariable and correlation analyses were performed to determine gut microbial and metabolomic predictors of response to vaccination. FINDINGS: Forty-three infliximab-treated patients with IBD were recruited (30 Crohn's disease, 12 ulcerative colitis, 1 IBD-unclassified; 26 with concomitant thiopurine therapy). Eight patients had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seventeen patients (39.5%) had a serological response below the geometric mean. Gut microbiota diversity was lower in below average responders (p = 0.037). Bilophila abundance was associated with better serological response, while Streptococcus was associated with poorer response. The faecal metabolome was distinct between above and below average responders (OPLS-DA R2X 0.25, R2Y 0.26, Q2 0.15; CV-ANOVA p = 0.038). Trimethylamine, isobutyrate and omega-muricholic acid were associated with better response, while succinate, phenylalanine, taurolithocholate and taurodeoxycholate were associated with poorer response. INTERPRETATION: Our data suggest that there is an association between the gut microbiota and variable serological response to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised patients. Microbial metabolites including trimethylamine may be important in mitigating anti-TNF-induced attenuation of the immune response. FUNDING: JLA is the recipient of an NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship (CL-2019-21-502), funded by Imperial College London and The Joyce and Norman Freed Charitable Trust. BHM is the recipient of an NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship (CL-2019-21-002). The Division of Digestive Diseases at Imperial College London receives financial and infrastructure support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. Metabolomics studies were performed at the MRC-NIHR National Phenome Centre at Imperial College London; this work was supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (grant number MC_PC_12025) and infrastructure support was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility is a partnership between the University of Exeter Medical School College of Medicine and Health, and Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. This project is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Exeter Clinical Research Facility. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

CD4+ T-Cell Dysfunction in Severe COVID-19 Disease Is Tumor Necrosis Factor-α/Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor 1-Dependent.

Rationale: Lymphopenia is common in severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19), yet the immune mechanisms are poorly understood. As inflammatory cytokines are increased in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we hypothesized a role in contributing to reduced T-cell numbers. Objectives: We sought to characterize the functional SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in patients with severe versus recovered, mild COVID-19 to determine whether differences were detectable. Methods: Using flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequence analyses, we assessed SARS-CoV-2-specific responses in our cohort. Measurements and Main Results: In 148 patients with severe COVID-19, we found lymphopenia was associated with worse survival. CD4+ lymphopenia predominated, with lower CD4+/CD8+ ratios in severe COVID-19 compared with patients with mild disease (P < 0.0001). In severe disease, immunodominant CD4+ T-cell responses to Spike-1 (S1) produced increased in vitro TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α) but demonstrated impaired S1-specific proliferation and increased susceptibility to activation-induced cell death after antigen exposure. CD4+TNF-α+ T-cell responses inversely correlated with absolute CD4+ counts from patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 76; R = -0.797; P < 0.0001). In vitro TNF-α blockade, including infliximab or anti-TNF receptor 1 antibodies, strikingly rescued S1-specific CD4+ T-cell proliferation and abrogated S1-specific activation-induced cell death in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with severe COVID-19 (P < 0.001). Single-cell RNA sequencing demonstrated marked downregulation of type-1 cytokines and NFκB signaling in S1-stimulated CD4+ cells with infliximab treatment. We also evaluated BAL and lung explant CD4+ T cells recovered from patients with severe COVID-19 and observed that lung T cells produced higher TNF-α compared with peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Conclusions: Together, our findings show CD4+ dysfunction in severe COVID-19 is TNF-α/TNF receptor 1-dependent through immune mechanisms that may contribute to lymphopenia. TNF-α blockade may be beneficial in severe COVID-19.

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.

Epidemiological Trends of Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Korea: A Multicenter Study of the Last 3 Years Including the COVID-19 Era.

BACKGROUND: Studies on how the coronavirus pandemic has affected pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) are lacking. We aimed to investigate the trends in epidemiology, characteristics, initial management, and short-term outcomes of PIBD in South Korea over the recent three years including the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This multicenter study retrospectively investigated temporal trends in the epidemiology of PIBD in Korea. Annual occurrences, disease phenotypes, and initial management at diagnosis were analyzed from January 2018 to June 2021. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients from 17 institutions were included in this epidemiological evaluation. Analysis of the occurrence trend confirmed a significant increase in PIBD, regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Crohn's disease, patients with post-coronavirus outbreaks had significantly higher fecal calprotectin levels than those with previous onset (1,339.4 ± 717.04 vs. 1,595.5 ± 703.94, P = 0.001). Patients with post-coronavirus-onset ulcerative colitis had significantly higher Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index scores than those with previous outbreaks (48 ± 17 vs. 36 ± 15, P = 0.004). In the initial treatment of Crohn's disease, the use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) and steroids significantly decreased (P = 0.006 and 0.001, respectively), and enteral nutrition and the use of infliximab increased significantly (P = 0.045 and 0.009, respectively). There was a significant increase in azathioprine use during the initial treatment of ulcerative colitis (P = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients with PIBD is increasing significantly annually in Korea. The initial management trends for PIBD have also changed. More research is needed to establish appropriate treatment guidelines considering the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of Korean PIBD.

Anti-Inflammatory Activity of CIGB-258 against Acute Toxicity of Carboxymethyllysine in Paralyzed Zebrafish via Enhancement of High-Density Lipoproteins Stability and Functionality.

Background: Hyperinflammation is frequently associated with the chronic pain of autoimmune disease and the acute death of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) via a severe cytokine cascade. CIGB-258 (Jusvinza®), an altered peptide ligand with 3 kDa from heat shock protein 60 (HSP60), inhibits the systemic inflammation and cytokine storm, but the precise mechanism is still unknown. Objective: The protective effect of CIGB-258 against inflammatory stress of N-ε-carboxymethyllysine (CML) was tested to provide mechanistic insight. Methods: CIGB-258 was treated to high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and injected into zebrafish and its embryo to test a putative anti-inflammatory activity under presence of CML. Results: Treatment of CML (final 200 µM) caused remarkable glycation of HDL with severe aggregation of HDL particles to produce dysfunctional HDL, which is associated with a decrease in apolipoprotein A-I stability and lowered paraoxonase activity. Degradation of HDL3 by ferrous ions was attenuated by a co-treatment with CIGB-258 with a red-shift of the Trp fluorescence in HDL. A microinjection of CML (500 ng) into zebrafish embryos resulted in the highest embryo death rate, only 18% of survivability with developmental defects. However, co-injection of CIGB-258 (final 1 ng) caused the remarkable elevation of survivability around 58%, as well as normal developmental speed. An intraperitoneal injection of CML (final 250 µg) into adult zebrafish resulted acute paralysis, sudden death, and laying down on the bottom of the cage with no swimming ability via neurotoxicity and inflammation. However, a co-injection of CIGB-258 (1 µg) resulted in faster recovery of the swimming ability and higher survivability than CML alone injection. The CML alone group showed 49% survivability, while the CIGB-258 group showed 97% survivability (p < 0.001) with a remarkable decrease in hepatic inflammation up to 50%. A comparison of efficacy with CIGB-258, Infliximab (Remsima®), and Tocilizumab (Actemra®) showed that the CIGB-258 group exhibited faster recovery and swimming ability with higher survivability than those of the Infliximab group. The CIGB-258 group and Tocilizumab group showed the highest survivability, the lowest plasma total cholesterol and triglyceride level, and the infiltration of inflammatory cells, such as neutrophils in hepatic tissue. Conclusion: CIGB-258 ameliorated the acute neurotoxicity, paralysis, hyperinflammation, and death induced by CML, resulting in higher survivability in zebrafish and its embryos by enhancing the HDL structure and functionality.

Infliximab in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 (INFLIXCOVID): protocol for a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label phase II clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the intense global research endeavour to improve the treatment of patients with COVID-19, the current therapy remains insufficient, resulting in persisting high mortality. Severe cases are characterised by a systemic inflammatory reaction driven by the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and tumour-necrosis-factor alpha (TNF-α). TNF-α-blocking therapies have proved beneficial in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases and could therefore pose a new treatment option in COVID-19. Hitherto, no results from randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness and safety of infliximab-a monoclonal antibody targeting TNF-α-in the treatment of COVID-19 have been published. METHODS: In this phase-2 clinical trial, patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory signs of hyperinflammation will be randomised to receive either one dose of infliximab (5 mg/kg body weight) in addition to the standard of care or the standard of care alone. The primary endpoint is the difference in 28-day mortality. Further assessments concern the safety of infliximab therapy in COVID-19 and the influence of infliximab on morbidity and the course of the disease. For the supplementary scientific programme, blood and urine samples are collected to assess concomitant molecular changes. The Ethics Committee of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena (2021-2236-AMG-ff) and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute (4513/01) approved the study. DISCUSSION: The results of this study could influence the therapy of patients with COVID-19 and affect the course of the disease worldwide, as infliximab is globally available and approved by several international drug agencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04922827 , 11 June 2021) and at EudraCT ( 2021-002098-25 , 19 May 2021).

COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody and T-cell responses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory bowel disease after the third vaccine dose (VIP): a multicentre, prospective, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody responses are reduced in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) taking anti-TNF or tofacitinib after two vaccine doses. We sought to assess whether immunosuppressive treatments were associated with reduced antibody and T-cell responses in patients with IBD after a third vaccine dose. METHODS: VIP was a multicentre, prospective, case-control study done in nine centres in the UK. We recruited immunosuppressed patients with IBD and non-immunosuppressed healthy individuals. All participants were aged 18 years or older. The healthy control group had no diagnosis of IBD and no current treatment with systemic immunosuppressive therapy for any other indication. The immunosuppressed patients with IBD had an established diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or unclassified IBD using standard definitions of IBD, and were receiving established treatment with one of six immunosuppressive regimens for at least 12 weeks at the time of first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. All participants had to have received three doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody binding and T-cell responses were measured in all participant groups. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1 receptor binding domain [RBD]) antibody concentration 28-49 days after the third vaccine dose, adjusted by age, homologous versus heterologous vaccine schedule, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants with available data. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2021, and March 29, 2022, 352 participants were included in the study (thiopurine n=65, infliximab n=46, thiopurine plus infliximab combination therapy n=49, ustekinumab n=44, vedolizumab n=50, tofacitinib n=26, and healthy controls n=72). Geometric mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations increased in all groups following a third vaccine dose, but were significantly lower in patients treated with infliximab (2736·8 U/mL [geometric SD 4·3]; p<0·0001), infliximab plus thiopurine (1818·3 U/mL [6·7]; p<0·0001), and tofacitinib (8071·5 U/mL [3·1]; p=0·0018) compared with the healthy control group (16 774·2 U/mL [2·6]). There were no significant differences in anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations between the healthy control group and patients treated with thiopurine (12 019·7 U/mL [2·2]; p=0·099), ustekinumab (11 089·3 U/mL [2·8]; p=0·060), or vedolizumab (13 564·9 U/mL [2·4]; p=0·27). In multivariable modelling, lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations were independently associated with infliximab (geometric mean ratio 0·15 [95% CI 0·11-0·21]; p<0·0001), tofacitinib (0·52 [CI 0·31-0·87]; p=0·012), and thiopurine (0·69 [0·51-0·95]; p=0·021), but not with ustekinumab (0·64 [0·39-1·06]; p=0·083), or vedolizumab (0·84 [0·54-1·30]; p=0·43). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (1·58 [1·22-2·05]; p=0·0006) was independently associated with higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations and older age (0·88 [0·80-0·97]; p=0·0073) was independently associated with lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD antibody concentrations. Antigen-specific T-cell responses were similar in all groups, except for recipients of tofacitinib without evidence of previous infection, where T-cell responses were significantly reduced relative to healthy controls (p=0·021). INTERPRETATION: A third dose of COVID-19 vaccine induced a boost in antibody binding in immunosuppressed patients with IBD, but these responses were reduced in patients taking infliximab, infliximab plus thiopurine, and tofacitinib. Tofacitinib was also associated with reduced T-cell responses. These findings support continued prioritisation of immunosuppressed groups for further vaccine booster dosing, particularly patients on anti-TNF and JAK inhibitors. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Inflammatory bowel disease patient concerns and experiences on transition to home-based infusions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC issued guidance advising patients and providers to adopt social distancing practices such as home-based infusions (H-BI). METHODS: We performed a mixed methods evaluation to summarize perceptions, concerns, and experiences with H-BI among all inflammatory bowel disease patients 18-90 years of age who transitioned to home-based infliximab or vedolizumab infusions between March to July 2020 at a tertiary care center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed using an iterative, inductive thematic approach. Baseline characteristics and outcome on safety, COVID-19 transmission, delays in infusions, and H-BI persistence were collected. RESULTS: Of the 57 participants who transitioned to H-BI, 20 (33%) responded. Four major categories and six major themes related to expectations, experience, perceived safety, and logistical factors were identified. Initial perceptions were mixed, however these resolved. One patient developed COVID-19, one patient experienced an adverse event, 12 (21%) patients experienced an infusion delay, and 6 (11%) patients transitioned from H-BI. DISCUSSION: Despite mixed initial perceptions, respondents had a positive experience with most respondents planning to continue H-BI after the pandemic resolves. Several real-world actionable barriers were identified related to scheduling, communication between stakeholders, and nursing quality. No major safety concerns were identified.

Intravenous treatment adherence of patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience of a single center.

Introduction: Patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (CIRD) who receive intravenous therapy requiring hospitalization are likely to be more affected than those with receiving oral therapy during COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on adherence to treatment in patients with CIRD receiving intravenous treatments. Methods: We evaluated patients with CIRD who were treated with intravenous immunosuppressive therapy such as rituximab (RTX), cyclophosphamide (CTX), infliximab (IFX), tocilizumab (TCZ) and abatacept (ABA) in our inpatient rheumatology clinic. The patients' medical treatment compliance and clinical follow-up were evaluated. Treatment discontinuation was decided according to postponement of at least one dose and discontinuation of CIRD treatments. Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between treatment-incompliant (TI) and treatment-compliant (TC) groups. Results: A total of 181 CIRD patients were enrolled. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common disease requiring intravenous immunosuppressive treatment followed by axial spondyloarthritis and Behçet's disease. Joint involvement was the most common followed by lung and kidney involvements. Rituximab was the most widely used intravenous immunosuppressive treatment for the CIRD. 34% patients have postponed at least one dose of their intravenous CIRD treatment and 25% discontinued. Fear of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 positivity were the most common reasons. The TI group had a longer disease duration and a higher frequency of inflammatory arthritis than the TC group (p=0.013 and p=0.044, respectively). Conclusions: Fear of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 positivity seemed to be the major reasons for discontinuing/postponing intravenous treatments in CIRD patients. Patients with long disease duration and less systemic involvement may be more prone to discontinuing their treatments.

Re-Routing Infliximab Therapy: Subcutaneous Infliximab Opens a Path Towards Greater Convenience and Clinical Benefit.

Subcutaneous infliximab recently received approval for the treatment of various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases in Europe, following pivotal clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Subcutaneous infliximab demonstrated an improved pharmacokinetic profile compared with intravenous infliximab: the more stable exposure and increased systemic drug concentrations mean it has been cited as a biobetter. Alongside the pharmacokinetic advantages, potential benefits for efficacy, immunogenicity, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes have been suggested with subcutaneous infliximab. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the benefits of subcutaneous over intravenous therapies became apparent: switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab reduced the hospital visit-related healthcare resource burden and potential viral transmission. Clinical advantages observed in pivotal trials are also being seen in the real world. Accumulating experience from four European countries (the UK, Spain, France, and Germany) in patients with rheumatic diseases and inflammatory bowel disease supports clinical trial findings that subcutaneous infliximab is well tolerated, increases serum drug concentrations, and offers maintained or improved efficacy outcomes for patients switching from intravenous infliximab. Initial evidence is emerging with subcutaneous infliximab treatment after intravenous infliximab failure. High patient satisfaction and pharmacoeconomic benefits have also been reported with subcutaneous infliximab. Treatments aligned with patient preferences for the flexibility and convenience of at-home subcutaneous administration could boost adherence and treatment outcomes. Altogether, findings suggest that switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab could be advantageous, and healthcare professionals should be prepared to discuss supporting data as part of shared decision making during patient consultations.

The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor infliximab is one treatment option that may be appropriate for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Patients may prefer tumor necrosis factor inhibitors administered via the subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) route, with preferences influencing treatment satisfaction and outcomes. In 2019, CT-P13 SC became the first SC infliximab product to receive regulatory approval in Europe, based on pivotal clinical studies that compared SC infliximab to IV infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Subcutaneous infliximab is now approved in Europe for the treatment of adults with rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis. Patients began to switch from IV to SC infliximab outside clinical trials in March 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Switching from IV to SC infliximab allowed patients to self-administer treatment at home rather than attend hospital for infusions, reducing potential hospital-acquired infections and lessening the strain on healthcare systems during the pandemic. Clinical trial evidence and growing real-world experience demonstrate that SC infliximab offers clinical advantages in terms of an improved pharmacokinetic profile and potential efficacy, immunogenicity, and health-related quality-of-life benefits compared with IV infliximab. Patients have also reported increased satisfaction with SC infliximab after switching from IV infliximab. Together with the long-standing flexibility and convenience benefits of SC administration, the clinical advantages of SC infliximab make it a valid therapeutic option for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. This warrants discussion with appropriate patients as part of shared treatment decision making.

Artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis of current evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the pervasive vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), fully vaccinated people are still being infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, making an effective and safe therapeutic intervention a crucial need for the patients' survival. The purpose of the present study is to seek available evidence for the efficacy and safety of three promising medications artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab against COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive, and Google Scholar up to January 2022. Furthermore, the clinical trial databases were screened to find more citations. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. RESULTS: Five published studies were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the infliximab and control groups in terms of mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-1.07; p = 0.09). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups for the hospital discharge (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.04-1.80; p = 0.03). No remarkable clinical benefit was observed in favor of using imatinib for COVID-19 patients. Artesunate showed significant improvement in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In the present, limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID-19. The findings of WHO's Solidarity international trial will provide further information regarding these therapeutic interventions.