FAPi PET/CT for assessment and visualisation of active myositis-related interstitial lung disease: a prospective observational pilot study.

Background: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common manifestation of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and a substantial contributor to hospitalisation, increased morbidity, and mortality. In-vivo evidence of ongoing tissue remodelling in IIM-ILD is scarce. We aimed to evaluate fibroblast activation in lungs of IIM-patients and control individuals using 68Ga-labelled inhibitor of Fibroblast-Activation-Protein (FAPi) based positronic emission tomography and computed tomography imaging (PET/CT). Methods: In this prospective observational pilot study, consecutive patients with IIM and participants without rheumatic conditions or ILD serving as a control group were recruited at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, and underwent FAPi PET/CT imaging. Standard-of-care procedures including clinical examination, assessment of severity of dyspnoea, high-resolution computed tomography (HR-CT), and pulmonary function testing (PFT) were performed on all patients with IIM at baseline and for patients with IIM-ILD at follow-up of 12 months. Baseline pulmonary FAPi-uptake was assessed by the maximum (SUVmax) and mean (SUVmean) standardized uptake values (SUV) over the whole lung (wl). SUV was corrected for blood pool background activity and target-to-background ratios (TBR) were calculated. We compared pulmonary FAPi-uptake between patients with IIM-ILD and those without ILD, as well as controls, and correlated baseline FAP-uptake with standard diagnostic tools such as HR-CT and PFT. For predictive implications, we investigated whether patients with IIM and progressive ILD exhibited higher baseline FAPi-uptake compared to those with stable ILD. Metrics are reported as mean with standard deviation (±SD). Findings: Between November 16, 2021 and October 10, 2022, a total of 32 patients were enrolled in the study. Three participants from the control group were excluded due to cardiopulmonary disease. In individuals with IIM-ILD (n = 14), wlTBRmax and wlTBRmean were significantly increased as compared with both non-ILD-IIM patients (n = 5) and the control group (n = 16): wlTBRmax: 2.06 ± 1.04 vs. 1.04 ± 0.22 (p = 0.019) and 1.08 ± 0.19 (p = 0.0012) and wlTBRmean: 0.45 ± 0.19 vs. 0.26 ± 0.06 (p = 0.025) and 0.27 ± 0.07 (p = 0.0024). Similar values were observed in wlTBRmax or wlTBRmean between non-ILD IIM patients and the control group. Patients with progressive ILD displayed significantly enhanced wlTBRmax and wlTBRmean values at baseline compared to patients with stable ILD: wlTBRmax: 1.30 ± 0.31 vs. 2.63 ± 1.04 (p = 0.0084) and wlTBRmean: 0.32 ± 0.08 vs. 0.55 ± 0.19 (p = 0.021). Strong correlations were found between FAPi-uptake and disease extent on HR-CT (wlTBRmax: R = 0.42, p = 0.07; wlTBRmean: R = 0.56, p = 0.013) and severity of respiratory symptoms determined by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification tool (wlTBRmax: R = 0.52, p = 0.022; wlTBRmean: R = 0.59, p = 0.0073). Further, pulmonary FAPi-uptake showed inverse correlation with forced vital capacity (FVC) (wlTBRmax: R = -0.56, p = 0.012; wlTBRmean: R = -0.64, p = 0.0033) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (wlTBRmax: R = -0.52, p = 0.028; wlTBRmean: R = -0.68, p = 0.0017). Interpretation: Our study demonstrates higher fibroblast activation in patients with IIM-ILD compared to non-ILD patients and controls. Intensity of pulmonary FAPi accumulation was associated with progression of ILD. Considering that this study was carried out on a small population, FAPi PET/CT may serve as a useful non-invasive tool for risk stratification of lung disease in IIM. Funding: The Austrian Research Fund.

Impact of muscle biopsy on the clinical decision-making process in patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy.

BACKGROUND: The significance of muscle biopsy as a diagnostic tool in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) remains elusive. We aimed to determine the diagnostic weight that has been given to muscle biopsy in patients with suspected IIM, particularly in terms of clinical diagnosis and therapeutic decisions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric study, we analyzed muscle biopsy results of adult patients with suspected IIM referred to a tertiary center between January 1, 2007, and October 31, 2021. Information regarding referral department, suspected diagnosis, biopsy site, demographic, clinical, laboratory data, and imaging results were extracted. Statistical analyses included the level of agreement between suspected and histological diagnosis and calculation of diagnostic performance (positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity of muscle biopsy in relation to clinical diagnosis and/or treatment initiation). Performance was tested in different strata based on clinical pre-test probability. RESULTS: Among 758 muscle biopsies, IIM was histologically compatible in 357/758 (47.1%) cases. Proportion of IIM was higher if there was a solid clinical pre-test probability (64.3% vs. 42.4% vs. 48% for high, medium and low pre-test probability). Sensitivity and specificity of muscle biopsy were highest (82%) when the diagnosis by the clinician was used as outcome scenario. Negative predictive value was only moderate (between 63% and 80%) and lowest if autoantibodies were positive (35%). CONCLUSION: In patients with clinically suspected IIM, approximately 50% of biopsies revealed features indicative of IIM. Diagnostic performance of muscle biopsy was moderate to high depending on clinical pre-test probability.

Immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination: A population-based clinical trial to identify the best vaccination strategy.

BACKGROUND: Various SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns (VOCs) characterized by higher transmissibility and immune evasion have emerged. Despite reduced vaccine efficacy against VOCs, currently available vaccines provide protection. Population-based evidence on the humoral immune response after booster vaccination is crucial to guide future vaccination strategies and in preparation for imminent COVID-19 waves. METHODS: This multicenter, population-based cohort study included 4697 individuals ≥18 years of age who received a booster vaccination. Antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) and neutralizing antibodies against wild-type (WT) virus and Omicron variants were assessed at baseline (day of booster vaccination) and after four weeks. Safety was evaluated daily within the first week using a participant-completed electronic diary. Antibody levels were compared across different vaccination strategies, taking into account individual host factors. RESULTS: Our main model including 3838 participants revealed that individuals who received a booster with mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 vaccine had a significantly higher increase (95 %CI) in anti-RBD-antibody levels (37,707 BAU/mL [34,575-40,839] vs. 27,176 BAU/mL [26,265-28,087]), and of neutralization levels against WT (1,681 [1490-1872] vs. 1141 [1004-1278] and Omicron variant (422 [369-474] vs. 329 [284-374]). Neutralizing antibody titres highly correlated with anti-RBD antibodies, with neutralizing capacity 4.4 fold higher against WT compared to Omicron. No differences in safety were found between the two booster vaccines. CONCLUSION: Our study underlines the superiority of a booster vaccination with mRNA-1273, independent of the primary vaccination and therefore provides guidance on the vaccination strategy.

What benefit-risk trade-offs are acceptable to rheumatoid arthritis patients during treatment selection? Evidence from a multicountry choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can facilitate tailored patient-centric care. This study elicited trade-offs that patients with RA were willing to make during treatment selection. METHODS: Patients with RA completed an online discrete choice experiment, consisting of a series of choices between hypothetical treatments. Treatment attributes were selected based on literature review and qualitative patient interviews. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, diagnosed with RA, receiving systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, and residents of Europe or USA. Male patients were oversampled for subgroup analyses. Data were analysed using a correlated mixed logit model. RESULTS: Of 2090 participants, 42% were female; mean age was 45.2 years (range 18-83). Estimated effects were significant for all attributes (p<0.001) but varied between patients. Average relative attribute importance scores revealed different priorities (p<0.001) between males and females. While reducing pain and negative effect on semen parameters was most important to males, females were most concerned by risk of blood clots and serious infections. No single attribute explained treatment preferences by more than 30%. Preferences were also affected by patients' age: patients aged 18-44 years placed less importance on frequency and mode of treatment administration (p<0.05) than older age groups. Patients were willing to accept higher risk of serious infections and blood clots in exchange for improvements in pain, daily activities or administration convenience. However, acceptable trade-offs varied between patients (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Treatment preferences of patients with RA were individual-specific, but driven by benefits and risks, with no single attribute dominating the decision-making.

Viewpoint: how to measure comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis - clinical and academic value.

Given the high prevalence and the enormous impact on key outcomes, comorbidities are important to consider, especially in patients with RA. Comorbidity indices are tools to quantify the impact of the overall burden of coexisting diseases on a specific outcome of interest. Until now, no gold standard exists on how to measure comorbidities. A large variety of indices have been developed using different settings and therefore leading to conceptual differences. Choosing the right tool clearly depends on the intention (clinical or research purpose) and the specific research question. The current article will address the purpose and challenge of measuring comorbidities in RA patients.

Association between reactogenicity and immunogenicity after BNT162b2 booster vaccination: a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: A weak correlation between symptom severity and antibody levels after primary immunization against COVID-19 has already been shown. This study aimed to describe the association between reactogenicity and immunogenicity after booster vaccination. METHODS: This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study included 484 healthcare workers who received a booster vaccination with BNT162b2. Anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies were assessed at baseline and 28 days after booster vaccination. Side effects were graded (none, mild, moderate, or severe) and reported daily for 7 days after booster vaccination. Spearman correlation coefficient (rho) was used to determine the correlations between the severity of each symptom and anti-RBD levels before vaccination and 28 days after. The Bonferroni method was used to adjust p values for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Most of the 484 participants reported at least one local (451 [93.2%]) or systemic (437 [90.3%]) post-booster symptom. No correlations between the severity of local symptoms and antibody levels were found. Except for nausea, systemic symptoms showed weak but statistically significant correlations with 28-day anti-RBD levels (fatigue [rho = 0.23, p < 0.01], fever [rho = 22, p < 0.01], headache [rho = 0.15, p 0.03], arthralgia [rho = 0.2, p < 0.01], myalgia [rho = 0.17, p < 0.01]). There was no association between post-booster symptoms and pre-booster antibody levels. DISCUSSION: This study showed only a weak correlation between the severity of systemic post-booster symptoms and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels at 28 days. Therefore, self-reported symptom severity cannot be used to predict immunogenicity after booster vaccination.

The accelerated waning of immunity and reduced effect of booster in patients treated with bDMARD and tsDMARD after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the duration of humoral responses after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with inflammatory joint diseases and IBD and booster vaccination compared with healthy controls. It also aimed to analyze factors influencing the quantity and quality of the immune response. Methods: We enrolled 41 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 35 with seronegative spondyloarthritis (SpA), and 41 suffering from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), excluding those receiving B-cell-depleting therapies. We assessed total anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies (Abs) and neutralizing Ab titers 6 months after two and then after three doses of mRNA vaccines compared with healthy controls. We analyzed the influence of therapies on the humoral response. Results: Patients receiving biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) showed reduced anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs and neutralizing Ab titers compared with HC or patients receiving conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs 6 months after the first two vaccination doses. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titers of patients with b/tsDMARDs declined more rapidly, leading to a significant reduction in the duration of vaccination-induced immunity after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. While 23% of HC and 19% of patients receiving csDMARDs were without detectable neutralizing Abs 6 months after the first two vaccination doses, this number was 62% in patients receiving b/tsDMARDs and 52% in patients receiving a combination of csDMARDs and b/tsDMARDs. Booster vaccination led to increased anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs in all HC and patients. However, anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Abs after booster vaccination was diminished in patients receiving b/tsDMARDs, either alone or in combination with csDMARDs compared to HC. Conclusion: Patients receiving b/tsDMARDs have significantly reduced Abs and neutralizing Ab titers 6 months after mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. This was due to a faster decline in Ab levels, indicating a significantly reduced duration of vaccination-induced immunity compared with HC or patients receiving csDMARDs. In addition, they display a reduced response to a booster vaccination, warranting earlier booster vaccination strategies in patients under b/tsDMARD therapy, according to their specific Ab levels.

Accelerated waning of immune responses to a third COVID-19 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

BACKGROUND: A 3rd COVID-19 vaccination is currently recommended for patients under immunosuppression. However, a fast decline of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein has been observed. Currently it remains unclear whether immunosuppressive therapy affects kinetics of humoral and cellular immune responses. METHODS: 50 patients under immunosuppression and 42 healthy controls (HCs) received a 3rd dose of an mRNA-based vaccine and were monitored over a 12-weeks period. Humoral immune response was assessed 4 and 12 weeks after 3rd dose. Antibodies were quantified using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike immunoassay against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses were quantified by IFN-γ ELISpot assays. Adverse events, including SARS-CoV-2 infections, were monitored over a 12-week period. RESULTS: At week 12, reduced anti-RBD antibody levels were observed in IMID patients as compared to HCs (median antibody level 5345 BAU/ml [1781-10,208] versus 9650 BAU/ml [6633-16,050], p < 0.001). Reduction in relative antibody levels was significantly higher in IMID patients as compared to HCs at week 12 (p < 0.001). Lowest anti-RBD antibody levels were detected in IMID patients who received biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or a combination therapy with conventional synthetic and biological DMARDs. Number of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells against wildtype and Omicron variants remained stable over 12 weeks in IMID patients. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Due to a fast decline in anti-RBD antibodies in IMID patients an early 4th vaccination should be considered in this vulnerable group of patients.

Reduced immunogenicity of BNT162b2 booster vaccination in combination with a tetravalent influenza vaccination: results of a prospective cohort study in 838 health workers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the immunogenicity and safety of BNT162b2 booster vaccination with and without a tetravalent influenza vaccine. METHODS: A prospective, open-label cohort study on immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination with or without a tetravalent influenza vaccine was performed. Eight hundred thirty-eight health care workers were included in the following study arms: BNT162b2 booster-only, influenza-vaccine-only or combination of both. Levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain, and haemagglutinin inhibition tested for four different influenza strains (A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), B/Victoria, B/Yamagata) were measured at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later. RESULTS: After 4 weeks, median (interquartile range) levels of antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the viral spike (S) protein and relative change from baseline were high in individuals who received BNTb162b2 booster vaccination only (absolute: 16 600 [10 980-24 360] vs. 12 630 [8198-18 750] BAU/mL [p < 0.0001]; relative increase: 49% [23.6-95.3] vs. 40% [21.9-80.6] [p 0.048]; booster-only n = 521 vs. combination-arm n = 229 respectively). Results were confirmed after matching for sex, age, body mass index, baseline antibody levels and vaccine compound received for primary immunization (absolute: 13 930 [10 610-22 760] vs. 12 520 [8710-17 940]; [p 0.031]; relative increase: 55.7% [27.8-98.5] vs. 42.2% [22.9-74.5]; p 0.045). Adverse events were almost identical in the booster-only and the combination-arm, but numerically low in the influenza arm (525/536 [97.9%] vs. 235/240 [97.9%] vs. 26/33 [78.8 %]). DISCUSSION: Although no safety concerns occurred, our study provides evidence on reduced immunogenicity of a BNT162b2 booster vaccination in combination with a tetravalent influenza vaccine. Further studies investigating new influenza variants as well as potential differences vaccine effectiveness are needed.

Safety and immunogenicity of a third COVID-19 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with healthy controls.

OBJECTIVES: A third COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for immunosuppressed patients. However, data on immunogenicity and safety of a third COVID-19 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are sparse and therefore addressed within this clinical trial. METHODS: 60 immunosuppressed patients and 48 healthy controls (HCs) received a third vaccination with an mRNA vaccine. The primary endpoint was defined as the presence of antibody levels against the receptor-binding domain (RBD)>1500 BAU/mL in patients with IMIDs versus HCs. Further endpoints included differences in neutralising antibodies and cellular immune responses after the third vaccination. Reactogenicity was recorded for 7 days, and safety was evaluated until week 4. RESULTS: Rate of individuals with anti-RBD antibodies>1500 BAU/mL was not significantly different after the third vaccination between patients with IMIDs and HCs (91% vs 100% p=0.101). Anti-RBD and neutralising antibody levels were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs after the third vaccination than in HCs (p=0.002 and p=0.016, respectively). In contrast, fold increase in antibody levels between week 0 and 4 was higher in patients with IMIDs. Treatment with biological (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) or combination of bDMARDs and conventional synthetic DMARDs was associated with reduced antibody levels. Enhanced cellular immune response to wild type and Omicron peptide stimulation was observed after the third vaccination. No serious adverse event was attributed to the third vaccination. CONCLUSION: Our clinical trial data support the immunogenicity and safety of a third COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IMIDs. However, effects of DMARD therapy on immunogenicity should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT No: 2021-002693-10.

Multiparametric Prediction Models for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Selection: Results of a Comparative Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: An understanding vaccine-dependent effects on protective and sustained humoral immune response is crucial to planning future vaccination strategies against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this multicenter, population-based, cohort study including 4601 individuals after primary vaccination against COVID-19 ≥ 4 months earlier we compared factors associated with residual antibody levels against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) across different vaccination strategies (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or ChAdOx1). RESULTS: Our main model including 3787 individuals (2 × BNT162b2, n = 2271; 2 × mRNA-1273, n = 251; 2 × ChAdOx1, n = 1265), predicted significantly lower levels of anti-RBD antibodies after 6 months in individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1 (392.7 binding antibody units per milliliter [BAU/mL]) compared with those vaccinated with BNT162b2 (1179.5 BAU/mL) or mRNA-1273 (2098.2 BAU/mL). Vaccine-dependent association of antibody levels was found for age with a significant predicted difference in BAU/ml per year for BNT162b2 (-21.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.7 to -18.3) and no significant association for mRNA-1273 (-4.0; 95% CI, -20.0 to 12.1) or ChAdOx1 (1.7; 95% CI, .2 to 3.1). The predicted decrease over time since full immunization was highest in mRNA-1273 (-23.4; 95% CI, -31.4 to -15.4) compared with BNT162b2 (-5.9; 95% CI, -7 to -4.8). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed population-based evidence of vaccine-dependent effects of age and time since full immunization on humoral immune response. Findings underline the importance of individualized vaccine selection, especially in elderly individuals.

Preanalytical stability of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies.

OBJECTIVES: Anti-nucleocapsid (NC) antibodies are produced in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, they are well suited for the detection of a previous infection. Especially in the case of seroprevalence studies or during the evaluation of a novel in-vitro diagnostic test, samples have been stored at <-70 °C (short- and long-term) or 2-10 °C (short-term) before analysis. This study aimed to assess the impact of different storage conditions relevant to routine biobanking on anti-NC antibodies. METHODS: The preanalytical impact of short-term storage (84 [58-98] days) on <-70 °C and for 14 days at 2-10 °C was evaluated using samples from 111 donors of the MedUni Vienna Biobank. Long-term effects (443 [409-468] days) were assessed using 208 samples from Biobank Graz and 49 samples from Biobank Vienna. Anti-Nucleocapsid antibodies were measured employing electrochemiluminescence assays (Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2). RESULTS: After short-term storage, the observed changes did not exceed the extent that could be explained by analytical variability. In contrast, results after long-term storage were approximately 20% higher and seemed to increase with storage duration. This effect was independent of the biobank from which the samples were obtained. Accordingly, the sensitivity increased from 92.6 to 95.3% (p=0.008). However, comparisons with data from Anti-Spike protein assays, where these deviations were not apparent, suggest that this deviation could also be explained by the analytical variability of the qualitative Anti-NC assay. CONCLUSIONS: Results from anti-NC antibodies are stable during short-term storage at <-70 °C and 2-10 °C. After long-term storage, a slight increase in sensitivity could not be ruled out.

Heterologous vector versus homologous mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccination in non-seroconverted immunosuppressed patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Impaired response to COVID-19 vaccination is of particular concern in immunosuppressed patients. To determine the best vaccination strategy for this vulnerable group we performed a single center, 1:1 randomized blinded clinical trial. Patients who failed to seroconvert upon two mRNA vaccinations (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) are randomized to receive either a third dose of the same mRNA or the vector vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Primary endpoint is the difference in SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody seroconversion rate between vector and mRNA vaccinated patients four weeks after the third dose. Secondary outcomes include cellular immune responses. Seroconversion rates at week four are significantly higher in the mRNA (homologous vaccination, 15/24, 63%) as compared to the vector vaccine group (heterologous vaccination, 4/22, 18%). SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses are reduced but could be increased after a third dose of either vector or mRNA vaccine. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, patient age and vaccine type are associated with seroconversion. No serious adverse event is attributed to COVID-19 booster vaccination. Efficacy and safety data underline the importance of a booster vaccination and support the use of a homologous mRNA booster vaccination in immunosuppressed patients.Trial registration: EudraCT No.: 2021-002693-10.

Immunogenicity and safety of a fourth COVID-19 vaccination in rituximab-treated patients: an open-label extension study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients under rituximab therapy are at high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease course. Humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are vastly diminished in B-cell-depleted patients, even after a third vaccine dose. However, it remains unclear whether these patients benefit from a fourth vaccination and whether continued rituximab therapy affects antibody development. METHODS: In this open-label extension trial, 37 rituximab-treated patients who received a third dose with either a vector or mRNA-based vaccine were vaccinated a fourth time with an mRNA-based vaccine (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2). Key endpoints included the humoral and cellular immune response as well as safety after a fourth vaccination. RESULTS: The number of patients who seroconverted increased from 12/36 (33%) to 21/36 (58%) following the fourth COVID-19 vaccination. In patients with detectable antibodies to the spike protein's receptor-binding domain (median: 8.0 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (quartiles: 0.4; 13.8)), elevated levels were observed after the fourth vaccination (134.0 BAU/mL (quartiles: 25.5; 1026.0)). Seroconversion and antibody increase were strongly diminished in patients who received rituximab treatment between the third and the fourth vaccination. The cellular immune response declined 12 weeks after the third vaccination, but could only be slightly enhanced by a fourth vaccination. No unexpected safety signals were detected, one serious adverse event not related to vaccination occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A fourth vaccine dose is immunogenic in a fraction of rituximab-treated patients. Continuation of rituximab treatment reduced humoral immune response, suggesting that rituximab affects a second booster vaccination. It might therefore be considered to postpone rituximab treatment in clinically stable patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2021-002348-57.

Neuropsychiatric Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Remaining Challenge.

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease, which affects a wide range of organs with variable clinical features. Involvement of the nervous system is a challenging and multifaceted manifestation of the disease, presenting with a broad range of symptoms. Neuropsychiatric lupus (NPSLE) encompasses seven syndromes of the peripheral and 12 of the central nervous system, associated with a high disease burden. Despite advances in the management of SLE, NP manifestations still pose a challenge to clinicians. First, diagnosis and attribution of SLE are difficult due to the lack of specific biomarkers or imaging modalities. Second, therapeutic options are limited, and evidence is mainly based on case reports and expert consensus, as clinical trials are sparse. Moreover, no validated outcome measure on disease activity exists. Current recommendations for treatment include supportive as well as immunosuppressive medication, depending on the type and severity of manifestations. As NPSLE manifestations are increasingly recognized, a broader spectrum of therapeutic options can be expected.

Response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease depends on immunosuppressive regimen: a matched, prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the humoral response to messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine of patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) and the effect of immunosuppressive medication in a matched cohort study. METHODS: Patients with SARD were enrolled and matched 1:1 for sex and age with healthy control (HC) subjects. Differences in humoral response to two doses of an mRNA vaccine in terms of seroconversion rate (SCR) and SARS-CoV-2 antibody level between the two groups and the impact of treatment within patients with SARD were assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 82 patients with SARD and 82 matched HC. SCR after the first dose was lower among the patient group than that of HC (65% compared with 100% in HC, p<0.0001) but levelled up after the second dose (94% vs 100%). After the second dose, SCR was lower for patients on combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy compared with all other groups (81% compared with 95% for monotherapy, p=0.01; 100% for both no DMARD therapy and HC, both p<0.0001). In addition, antibody levels after both doses were lower in patients compared with HC. We found that vaccination response was determined primarily by the number of DMARDs and/or glucocorticoids received, with patients receiving combination therapy (dual and triple therapy) showing the poorest response. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SARD showed a good response after the second vaccination with an mRNA vaccine. However, the choice of immunosuppressive medication has a marked effect on both SCR and overall antibody level, and the number of different immunomodulatory therapies determines vaccination response.

Tocilizumab in patients with new onset polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR-SPARE): a phase 2/3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Polymyalgia rheumatica is the second most common inflammatory rheumatic disease of people >50 years. Glucocorticoid therapy is highly effective, but many patients require treatment for several years. Effective glucocorticoid sparing agents are still needed. METHODS: In this double-blind, multi-centre phase 2/3 clinical trial, we randomly assigned 36 patients with new onset polymyalgia rheumatica from three centres to receive subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week) or placebo for 16 weeks (1:1 ratio). All patients received oral prednisone, tapered from 20 mg to 0 mg over 11 weeks.The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in glucocorticoid-free remission at week 16; key secondary endpoints, including time to first relapse and cumulative glucocorticoid dose at weeks 16 and 24, were evaluated. RESULTS: From 20 November 2017 to 28 October 2019 39 patients were screened for eligibility; 19 patients received tocilizumab and 17 placebo. Glucocorticoid-free remission at week 16 was achieved in 12 out of 19 patients on tocilizumab (63.2%) and 2 out of 17 patients receiving placebo (11.8%, p=0.002), corresponding to an OR of 12.9 (95 % CI: 2.2 to 73.6) in favour of tocilizumab. Mean (±SD) time to first relapse was 130±13 and 82±11 days (p=0.007), respectively, and the median (IQR) cumulative glucocorticoid dose was 727 (721-842) mg and 935 (861-1244) mg (p=0.003), respectively. Serious adverse events were observed in five placebo patients and one tocilizumab patient. CONCLUSION: In patients with new onset polymyalgia rheumatica undergoing rapid glucocorticoid tapering, tocilizumab was superior to placebo regarding sustained glucocorticoid-free remission, time to relapse and cumulative glucocorticoid dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03263715.

Additional heterologous versus homologous booster vaccination in immunosuppressed patients without SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroconversion after primary mRNA vaccination: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2-induced COVID-19 has led to exponentially rising mortality, particularly in immunosuppressed patients, who inadequately respond to conventional COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: In this blinded randomised clinical trial, we compare the efficacy and safety of an additional booster vaccination with a vector versus mRNA vaccine in non-seroconverted patients. We assigned 60 patients under rituximab treatment, who did not seroconvert after their primary mRNA vaccination with either BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna), to receive a third dose, either using the same mRNA or the vector vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca). Patients were stratified according to the presence of peripheral B cells. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroconversion rate between vector (heterologous) and mRNA (homologous) vaccinated patients by week 4. Key secondary endpoints included the overall seroconversion and cellular immune response; safety was assessed at week 1 and week 4. RESULTS: Seroconversion rates at week 4 were comparable between vector (6/27 patients, 22%) and mRNA (9/28, 32%) vaccines (p=0.6). Overall, 27% of patients seroconverted; specific T cell responses were observed in 20/20 (100%) vector versus 13/16 (81%) mRNA vaccinated patients. Newly induced humoral and/or cellular responses occurred in 9/11 (82%) patients. 3/37 (8%) of patients without and 12/18 (67%) of the patients with detectable peripheral B cells seroconverted. No serious adverse events, related to immunisation, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This enhanced humoral and/or cellular immune response supports an additional booster vaccination in non-seroconverted patients irrespective of a heterologous or homologous vaccination regimen.

Importance of the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination dose for achieving serological response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the kinetics of humoral response after the first and second dose of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines in patients with inflammatory joint diseases compared with healthy controls (HC). To analyse factors influencing the quantity of the immune response. METHODS: We enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and seronegative spondyloarthritis (SpA), excluding those receiving B-cell depleting therapies and assessed the humoral response to mRNA vaccines after the first and the second dose of the vaccine in terms of seroconversion rate and titre. We compared the results to a HC group and analysed the influence of therapies as well as other characteristics on the humoral response. RESULTS: Samples from 53 patients with RA, 46 patients with SpA and 169 healthy participants were analysed. Seroconversion rates after the first immunisation were only 54% in patients with inflammatory arthritis compared with 98% in the HC group. However, seroconversion rates were 100% in all groups after second immunisation. Patients developed reduced antibody titres after the first vaccination compared with HC, but there was no difference after the second dose. While disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy did not affect antibody levels, seroconversion rates as well as titre levels were reduced in patients receiving a combination of DMARDs compared with HC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with inflammatory joint diseases under DMARD therapy show impaired humoral responses to the first vaccine dose but excellent final responses to vaccination with mRNA vaccines. Therefore, the full course of two immunisations is necessary for efficient vaccination responses in patients with inflammatory arthritis under DMARD therapy.