Effects of sulfasalazine in axial spondyloarthritis on COVID-19 outcomes: real-life data from a single center.

INTRODUCTION: Compared to biological agents, little is known about the impact of sulfasalazine therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the COVID-19 severity in AxSpAs receiving sulfasalazine and biologic-agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 219 SARS-CoV-2 positive AxSpA patients were retrospectively analyzed. COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalization rate, and length of stay were used to determine COVID-19 severity. AxSpA patients were mainly grouped and compared as sulfasalazine and non-sulfasalazine. Afterward, we excluded no-treatment patients to reveal the drug's effects more clearly and regrouped AxSpA patients as sulfasalazine-monotherapy (34.3%), biologic-monotherapy (33.7%), and sulfasalazine + biologic (7.3%). RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of the patients were male and the mean age was 45.0 years. Peripheral arthritis was 35% and uveitis 15%. In total, 41.5% of them have received sulfasalazine and 41.0% biologic agents, and the remaining patients with no AxSpA-specific treatment. In the first comparison, the sulfasalazine group had a higher age, more frequent COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalization, and longer hospitalization than a non-sulfasalazine group. In the pairwise comparison of 3 treatment groups, the demographic and clinical features, the hospitalization rate and the length of hospital stay were similar but the sulfasalazine-monotherapy group had a higher frequency of COVID-19 pneumonia than the biologic-monotherapy group (23% vs. 7%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Our results imply sulfasalazine may be related to more severe COVID-19 in AxSpA patients. These patients should be followed more carefully in the presence of COVID-19, regardless of reasons such as age, comorbidity, and extra-axial disease, and consideration of discontinuing sulfasalazine maybe even thought.

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.

A single-center COVID-19 vaccine experience with CoronaVac and BNT162b2 in familial Mediterranean fever patients.

AIM: To determine frequency of adverse events and attacks related to vaccination in recipients of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 in familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) patients, and to search whether history of prior COVID-19 or a booster dose increases occurrence of adverse events/attacks. METHODS: FMF patients were surveyed for administration of any COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine-related adverse events or FMF attacks. Demographic, clinical, vaccine-related data, history of COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination, adherence to FMF treatment during vaccination were collected. RESULTS: A total of 161 vaccinated FMF patients were included. Ninety-three patients out of 161 had reported suffering from an adverse event/attack after a vaccine dose. There were 54.7% of BNT162b2 recipients who reported any adverse event after any vaccine dose in comparison to 29.9% of CoronaVac recipients (P < .001). There were 22.2% of BNT162b2 recipients who reported suffering from a FMF attack within 1 month after vaccination in comparison to 19.4% of CoronaVac recipients (P = .653). When patients with or without adverse event/attack were compared, no significant differences were observed in means of demographics, comorbid diseases, disease duration, total vaccine doses, or treatments adhered to for FMF. Rates of adverse events/attacks were similar between patients with and without prior COVID-19. In booster recipients, adverse events/attacks were most frequent after the booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of FMF patients suffered from vaccine-related adverse events/attacks, particularly with BNT162b2. No serious events or mortalities due to vaccination were detected. Demographics, clinical characteristics and prior history of vaccination did not significantly affect these results. We observed an increased rate of adverse events/attacks with booster dose administration.