Résumé
BackgroundComprehensive and large-scale assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) worldwide is lacking. The second COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD-2) study [1] is an international, multicentre, self-reported e-survey assessing several aspects of COVID-19 infection and vaccination as well as validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to outline patient experience in various autoimmune diseases (AIDs), with a particular focus on IIMs.ObjectivesTo investigate physical and mental health in a global cohort of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic AIDs (NRAIDs), and those without AIDs (controls), using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health data obtained from the COVAD-2 survey.MethodsDemographics, AID diagnoses, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments, and PROMs were extracted from the COVAD-2 database. The primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Secondary outcomes included PROMIS physical function short form-10a (PROMIS PF-10a), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), and PROMIS Fatigue-4a scores. Each outcome was compared between IIMs, non-IIM AIRDs, NRAIDs, and controls. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsA total of 10,502 complete responses from 1582 IIMs, 4700 non-IIM AIRDs, 545 NRAIDs, and 3675 controls, which accrued as of May 2022, were analysed. Patients with IIMs were older [59±14 (IIMs) vs. 48±14 (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45±14 (NRAIDs) vs. 40±14 (controls) years, p<0.001] and more likely to be Caucasian [82.7% (IIMs) vs. 53.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 62.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 34.5% (controls), p<0.001]. Among IIMs, dermatomyositis (DM) and juvenile DM were the most common (31.4%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (24.9%). Patients with IIMs were more likely to have comorbidities [68.1% (IIMs) vs. 45.7% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 45.1% (NRAIDs) vs. 26.3% (controls), p<0.001] including mental disorders [33.4% (IIMs) vs. 28.2% (non-IIM AIRDs) vs. 28.4% (NRAIDs) vs. 17.9% (controls), p<0.001].GPH median scores were lower in IIMs compared to NRAIDs or controls [13 (interquartile range 10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (11–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 15 (13–17) NRAIDs vs. 17 (15–18) controls, p<0.001] and PROMIS PF-10a median scores were the lowest in IIMs [34 (25–43) IIMs vs. 40 (34–46) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 47 (40–50) NRAIDs vs. 49 (45–50) controls, p<0.001]. GMH median scores were lower in AIDs including IIMs compared to controls [13 (10–15) IIMs vs. 13 (10–15) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 13 (11–16) NRAIDs vs. 15 (13–17) controls, p<0.001]. Pain VAS median scores were higher in AIDs compared to controls [3 (1–5) IIMs vs. 4 (2–6) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 2 (0–4) NRAIDs vs. 0 (0–2) controls, p<0.001]. Of note, PROMIS Fatigue-4a median scores were the highest in IIMs [11 (8–14) IIMs vs. 8 (10–14) non-IIM AIRDs vs. 9 (7–13) NRAIDs vs. 7 (4–10) controls, p<0.001].Multivariable regression analysis in IIMs identified older age, male sex, IBM, comorbidities including hypertension and diabetes, active disease, glucocorticoid use, increased pain and fatigue as the independent factors for lower GPH scores, whereas coexistence of interstitial lung disease, mental disorders including anxiety disorder and depression, active disease, increased pain and fatigue were the independent factors for lower GMH scores.ConclusionBoth physical and mental health are significantly impaired in patients with IIMs compared to those with non-IIM AIDs or those without AIDs. Our results call for greater attention to patient-reported experience and comorbidities including mental disorders to provide targeted approaches and optimise global well-being in patients with IIMs.Reference[1]Fazal ZZ, Sen P, Joshi M, et al. COVAD survey 2 long-term outcomes: unmet need and protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022;42:2151–58.AcknowledgementsThe authors a e grateful to all respondents for completing the questionnaire. The authors also thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren's India Foundation, EULAR PARE for their contribution to the dissemination of the survey. Finally, the authors wish to thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsAkira Yoshida: None declared, Yuan Li: None declared, Vahed Maroufy: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Consultant of: Corbus, Mochida, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Ashima Makol Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: CSL Limited, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Mrudula Joshi: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Grant/research support from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra Consultant of: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Novartis, Consultant of: 4P-Pharma, AbbVie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, iQvia, Horizon, Inventiva, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Prometheus, Redxpharma, Roivant, Sanofi, Topadur, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Hector Chinoy Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Bristol Myers-Squibb, EMD Serono, Kezar, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Corbus, Janssen, Kyverna, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Abbvie, Scipher, Horizontal Therapeutics, Teva, Biogen, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceutical, Nuvig, Capella, CabalettaBio, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Mallinckrodt, Janssen, Q32, EMD Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Latika Gupta: None declared.
Résumé
Background: COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective in the healthy population at large. However, signifcant gaps remain in the evidence of their safety in patients with systemic autoimmune and infammatory disorders (SAIDs). Patients and rheumatologists have expressed concerns regarding vaccination triggered allergic reactions, thrombogenic events, and other adverse events (ADEs) contributing to vaccine hesitancy (1) Objectives: This study aimed to assess and compare short term COVID-19 vaccination associated ADEs in patients with SAIDs and healthy controls (HC) seven days post-vaccination, as well as between patients with SAIDs receiving different vaccines. Methods: We developed an comprehensive, patient self-reporting electronic-survey to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. ADEs were categorized as injection site pain, minor ADEs, major ADEs, and hospitalizations. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type (data as median, IQR). Results: 10900 respondents [42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 5,867 patients (54%) with SAIDs were compared with 5033 HCs. All respondents included in the fnal analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfzer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). Baseline demographics differed by an older SAID population (mean age 42 vs. 33 years) and a greater female predominance (M:F= 1:4.7 vs. 1:1.8) compared to HCs. 79% had minor and only 3% had major vaccine ADEs requiring urgent medical attention overall. In adjusted analysis, among minor ADEs, abdominal pain [mul-tivariate OR 1. 6 (1.14-2.3)], dizziness [multivariate OR 1. 3 (1.2-1.5)], and headache [multivariate OR 1.67 (1.3-2.2)], were more frequent in SAIDs than HCs. Overall major ADEs [multivariate OR 1. 9 (1.6-2.2)], and throat closure [multivar-iate OR 5.7 (2.9-11.3)] were more frequent in SAIDs though absolute risk was small (0-4%) and rates of hospitalization were similarly small in both groups, with a small absolute risk (0-4%). Specific minor ADEs frequencies were different among different vaccine types, however, major ADEs and hospitalizations overall were rare (0-4%) and comparable across vaccine types in patients with SAIDs (Figure 1). Conclusion: Vaccination against COVID-19 is relatively safe and tolerable in patients with SAIDs. Certain minor vaccine ADEs are more frequent in SAIDs than HCs in this study, though are not severe and do not require urgent medical attention. SAIDs were at a higher risk of major ADEs than HCs, though absolute risk was small, and did not lead to increased hospitalizations. There are small differences in minor ADEs between vaccine types in patients with SAIDs.
Résumé
Background: Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a rare, multisystem, heterogeneous diseases, and contribute to high psychological burden. The patients' perception of physical health, deteriorating independence and social and environmental relationships may not always be a direct function of disease activity. To face with these aspects, several worldwide specialized organization have recommended the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) both in clinical trials and observational studies to highlight patient's perception of the disease (1). Unfortunately, data on fatigue scores in IIM is limited. Objectives: We compared fatigue VAS scores in patients with IIM, autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) and triangulated them with PROMIS physical function in a large international cohort made up of answers from the e-survey regarding the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods: Data of 16327 respondents was extracted from the COVAD database on August 31th 2021. VAS fatigue scores were compared between AID, HC and IIM using univariate followed by multivariate analysis after adjusting for baseline differences. We further performed a propensity score matched analysis on 1827 subjects after adjusting for age, gender and ethnicity. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables, and Bonferroni's correction was applied for the post hoc analyses considering IIMs as a reference group. Results: We analyzed answers from 6988 patients, with a mean age of 43.8 years (SD 16.2). The overall percentage of female was 72% and the population ethnicity was mainly composed of White (55.1%), followed by Asian (24.6%), and Hispanic (13.8%). The overall fatigue VAS was 3.6 mm (SD 2.7). IIMs VAS was 4.8 mm (SD 2.6), AIDs 4.5 mm (SD 2.6), and HC 2.8 mm (SD 2.6) (P <0,001). VAS fatigue scores of IIMs were comparable with AIDs (P 0.084), albeit signifcantly higher than the HCs (P <0,001). Notably, fatigue VAS was lower in IIMs than AIDs in two distinct subsets: inactive disease as defned by the patient's perception and the 'excellent' general health condition group, where IIMs had worse scores (P <0,05). Interestingly, fatigue VAS was comparable in active disease defned by physician assessment, patient perception, based on general functional status, or when defned by steroid dose being prescribed. Notably, after propensity matched analysis of patients adjusting for gender, age and ethnicity (1.827 answers, I.e. 609 subjects per group, P =1) the differences disappeared and IIMs and AIDs had comparable fatigue levels across all levels of disease activity, although the fatigue discrepancies with HCs were substantially confrmed. After application of a multivariate linear regression analysis we found that lower fatigue VAS scores were related to HC (P <0,001), male gender (P <0,001), Asian and Hispanic ethnicities (P <0,001 and 0,003). Conclusion: Our study confrms that there is a higher prevalence of fatigue in all the AIDs patients, with comparable VAS scores between IIMs and other AIDs. We can also read our data commenting that females and/or Caucasians patients suffer a higher impact of this manifestation of chronic autoimmune diseases upon their lives. This is why these subjects, to our judgement, should be carefully evaluated during outpatients visits and to whom we should spend some extra time to discuss health related issues and how to improve them.
Résumé
Background: Signifcant gaps are present in the evidence of the spectrum and severity of COVID-19 infection in idiopathic infammatory myopathies (IIM). IIM patients typically require immunosuppressive therapy, may have multiple disease sequelae, and frequent comorbidities, and thus may be more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection and complications (1). The possibility of attenuated immunogenicity and reduced efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines due to concomitant immunosuppressive medication is a major concern in these patients, and there is little data available on COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections (BI) in IIM (2). Objectives: This study aimed to compare disease spectrum and severity and COVID-19 BI in patients with IIM, other systemic autoimmune and infammatory diseases (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs). Methods: We developed an extensive self-reporting electronic-survey (COVAD survey) featuring 36 questions to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the COVAD survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. BI was defned as COVID-19 infection occurring more than 2 weeks after receiving 1st or 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type. Results: 10900 respondents [mean age 42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 1,227 (11.2%) had IIM, 4,640 (42.6%) had other SAIDs, and 5,033 (46.2%) were HC. All respondents included in the fnal analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfzer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). IIM patients were older, had a higher Caucasian representation and higher Pfzer uptake than other SAIDs, and HC. A higher proportion of IIM patients received immu-nosuppressants than other SAIDs. IIMs were at a lower risk of symptomatic pre-vaccination COVID-19 infection compared to SAIDs [multivariate OR 0.6 (0.4-0.8)] and HCs [multivariate OR 0.39 (0.28-0.54)], yet at a higher risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to SAIDs [univariate OR 2.3 (1.2-3.5)] and HCs [multivariate OR 2.5 (1.1-5.8)]. BIs were very uncommon in IIM patients, with only 17 (1.4%) reporting BI. IIM patients were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 prior to vaccination than ≤2 weeks of vaccination [univariate OR 8 (4.1-15)] or BI [univariate OR 4.6 (2.7-8.0)]. BIs were equally severe compared to when they occurred prior to vaccination in IIMs, and were comparable between IIM, SAIDs, and HC (Figure 1), though BI disease duration was shorter in IIMs than SAIDs (7 vs 11 days, p 0.027). 13/17 IIM patients with BI were on immunosuppressants. Conclusion: IIM patients experienced COVID-19 infection less frequently prior to vaccination but were at a higher risk of hospitalization and requirement for oxygen therapy compared with patients with HC. Breakthrough COVID-19 infections were rare (1.4%) in vaccinated IIM patients, and were similar to HC and SAIDs, except for shorter disease duration in IIM.
Résumé
Background: Evaluation of physical function is fundamental in the management of idiopathic infammatory myopathies (IIMs). Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a National Institute of Health initiative established in 2004 to develop patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with improved validity and efficacy. PROMIS Physical Function (PF) short forms have been validated for use in IIMs [1]. Objectives: To investigate the physical function status of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) utilizing PROMIS PF data obtained in the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, a large-scale, international self-reported e-survey assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in AID patients [2]. Methods: The survey data regarding demographics, IIM and AID diagnosis, disease activity, and PROMIS PF short form-10a scores were extracted from the COVAD study database. The disease activity (active vs inactive) of each patient was assessed in 3 different ways: (1) physician's assessment (active if there was an increased immunosuppression), (2) patient's assessment (active vs inactive as per patient), and (3) current steroid use. These 3 defnitions of disease activity were applied independently to each patient. PROMIS PF-10a scores were compared between each disease category (IIMs vs non-IIM AIDs vs HCs), stratifed by disease activity based on the 3 defnitions stated above, employing negative binominal regression model. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and ethnicity was performed clustering countries, and the predicted PROMIS PF-10a score was calculated based on the regression result. Factors affecting PROMIS PF-10a scores other than disease activity were identifed by another multivariable regression analysis in the patients with inactive disease (IIMs or non-IIM AIDs). Results: 1057 IIM patients, 3635 non-IIM AID patients, and 3981 HCs responded to the COVAD survey until August 2021. The median age of the respondents was 43 [IQR 30-56] years old, and 74.8% were female. Among IIM patients, dermatomyositis was the most prevalent diagnosis (34.8%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (23.6%), polymyositis (PM) (16.2%), anti-syn-thetase syndrome (11.8%), overlap myositis (7.9%), and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) (4.6%). The predicted mean of PROMIS PF-10a scores was signifcantly lower in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs (36.3 [95% (CI) 35.5-37.1] vs 41.3 [95% CI 40.2-42.5] vs 46.2 [95% CI 45.8-46.6], P < 0.001), irrespective of disease activity or the defnitions of disease activity used (physician's assessment, patient's assessment, or steroid use) (Figure 1). The largest difference between active IIMs and non-IIM AIDs was observed when the disease activity was defned by patient's assessment (35.0 [95% CI 34.1-35.9] vs 40.1 [95% CI 38.7-41.5]). Considering the subgroups of IIMs, the scores were signifcantly lower in IBM in comparison with non-IBM IIMs (P < 0.001). The independent factors associated with low PROMIS PF-10a scores in the patients with inactive disease were older age, female gender, and the disease category being IBM, PM, or IMNM. Conclusion: Physical function is signifcantly impaired in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs, even in patients with inactive disease. The elderly, women, and IBM groups are the worst affected, suggesting that developing targeted strategies to minimize functional disability in certain groups may improve patient reported physical function and disease outcomes.