Characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double-vaccinated and triple-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the clinical profile of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in at least double-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). METHODS: Data from the physician-reported German COVID-19-IRD registry collected between February 2021 and July 2022 were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 cases were stratified according to patients' vaccination status as being not vaccinated, double-vaccinated or triple-vaccinated prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection and descriptively compared. Independent associations between demographic and disease features and outcome of breakthrough infections were estimated by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 2314 cases were included in the analysis (unvaccinated n=923, double-vaccinated n=551, triple-vaccinated n=803, quadruple-vaccinated n=37). SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred after a median of 151 (range 14-347) days in patients being double-vaccinated, and after 88 (range 14-270) days in those with a third vaccination. Hospitalisation was required in 15% of unvaccinated, 8% of double-vaccinated and 3% of triple-vaccinated/quadruple-vaccinated patients (p<0.001). Mortality was 2% in unvaccinated, 1.8% in the double-vaccinated and 0.6% in triple-vaccinated patients. Compared with unvaccinated patients, double-vaccinated (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62) and triple-vaccinated (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21) patients showed a significant lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation. Using multivariable analysis, the third vaccination was significantly associated with a lower risk for COVID-19-related death (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Our cross-sectional data of COVID-19 infections in patients with IRD showed a significant reduction of hospitalisation due to infection in double-vaccinated or triple-vaccinated patients compared with those without vaccination and even a significant reduction of COVID-19-related deaths in triple-vaccinated patients. These data strongly support the beneficial effect of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IRD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EuDRACT 2020-001958-21.

Does tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition promote or prevent heart failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the hazard risk of developing or worsening heart failure in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) inhibitors. METHODS: RA patients ages 18-75 years who started treatment with infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab (n = 2,757), or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (controls; n = 1,491) at the time of enrollment in a German biologics register were studied. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate the influence of disease-related and treatment-specific risk factors on the incidence or worsening of heart failure. RESULTS: The 3-year incidence rates of heart failure in patients with and patients without cardiovascular disease at the start of treatment were 2.2% and 0.4%, respectively. After adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, an increased risk of developing heart failure was found in patients who had a higher 28-joint Disease Activity Score at followup (hazard ratio [HR] 1.47 [95% confidence interval 1.07-2.02], P = 0.019). A residual nonsignificant risk related to treatment with TNFalpha inhibitors remained (adjusted HR 1.66 [95% confidence interval 0.67-4.1], P = 0.28). This residual risk was balanced by the efficacy of the anti-TNF treatment. When only baseline characteristics were taken into account, the HR related to TNFalpha inhibitor treatment decreased to 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.27-1.84). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that TNFalpha inhibitor treatment that effectively reduces the inflammatory activity of RA is more likely to be beneficial than harmful with regard to the risk of heart failure, especially if there is no concomitant therapy with glucocorticoids or cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors. Furthermore, the data suggest that TNFalpha inhibition does not increase the risk of worsening of prevalent heart failure.

Effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis in an observational cohort study: comparison of patients according to their eligibility for major randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluate the efficacy of treatments in selected groups of patients defined by strict inclusion criteria. The value of these trials in predicting therapeutic effectiveness in "real world" patients is limited. This observational cohort study was designed to complement the knowledge obtained in RCTs by evaluating the effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to their eligibility for the major trials. METHODS: Using the data from the German biologics register Rheumatoid Arthritis Observation of Biologic Therapy (RABBIT [in German]), we investigated how many of the RA patients who were treated with a TNF inhibitor (infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab) would have been eligible for the major clinical trials that led to approval of the drugs. In addition, therapeutic effectiveness was compared in the eligible and ineligible patients using the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) and 50% (ACR50) improvement response criteria. RESULTS: Only 21-33% of the patients in the RABBIT register would have been eligible for the major trials. In these patients, the ACR20 and ACR50 improvement responses, indicating therapeutic effectiveness, were comparable with the response rates in the published trials. ACR response rates were lower in those patients considered ineligible for the trials; however, absolute improvement was similar to that in eligible patients. Ineligible patients had lower baseline disease activity, more comorbidity, and lower functional status. CONCLUSION: RCT cohorts reflect only a minor proportion of the patients treated with biologic agents in routine care. In the clinic setting, the indications for treatment with biologic agents are not identical to the inclusion criteria for trials. Despite the smaller relative improvement achieved in these patients with longstanding, severe RA who would not fulfill the inclusion criteria of a major trial, the majority of such patients would nevertheless benefit from biologic therapy.