IMPAIRED HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: A CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL E-SURVEY

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.

COVID-19 VACCINE SAFETY DURING PREGNANCY IN WOMEN WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS

BackgroundVaccinations comprise a part of the antenatal care of pregnant women, including patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). While COVID-19 vaccination has been shown to be safe in patients with SLE, data on vaccine-associated adverse events (AEs) during the antenatal and lactation period are scarce or lacking.ObjectivesTo investigate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and AEs in pregnant SLE patients.MethodsA total of 9201 complete responses were extracted on June 21st, 2022 from the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 database, a global e-survey involving 157 collaborators from 106 countries. Among respondents, 6787 (73.8%) were women. We identified 70 (1.1%) women who were exposed to at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose during pregnancy, among those 11 with SLE. Delayed onset (>7 days) vaccine-related AEs were extracted and triangulated with disease activity, treatment changes due to flare after vaccination, and COVID-19 infections in vaccinated pregnant women with SLE. Additionally, information on health-related quality of life and physical function was recorded using PROMIS at the time of survey completion.ResultsThe age of patients ranged from 28 to 39 years;5/11 women were of Asian origin. None of these patients reported major vaccine AEs, including four patients with self-reported active SLE prior to the vaccination. None of them reported any change in the status of their autoimmune disease, and no hospitalisation or special treatment was recorded. Six women experienced minor vaccine AEs;two of them had active disease prior to vaccination. Four patients reported COVID-19 infection;two of them while they were pregnant and post-vaccination and two prior to pregnancy and vaccination. All four patients experienced symptoms of their disease, but no overt SLE flare was reported. At the time of survey completion, all patients reported their general health as being good to excellent in all aspects evaluated. Importantly, no APOs were reported.None of the patients reported thrombotic events post-vaccination, which provides some reassurance regarding COVID-19 vaccination in a patient population with a high risk for cardiovascular comorbidity and thrombosis, especially in the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies or in patients diagnosed with the antiphospholipid syndrome, a considerable portion within SLE populations. Moreover, it was reassuring to note an absence of association between experienced vaccine AEs and active disease prior to vaccination. Although minor AEs were common, they did not impair daily functioning, and the symptoms resolved in all patients after a median of 3 (IQR: 2.5–5.0) days.ConclusionOur report adds relevant evidence concerning the sensitive issue of COVID-19 vaccine AEs and flares in SLE patients during the antenatal and lactation period. Despite the small sample size, the findings provide some reassurance and can contribute to informed decisions regarding vaccination in patients with SLE and high-risk pregnancies due to their background autoimmune disease. Based on the present data, the risk/benefit ration of COVID-19 vaccination appears favourable, with vaccines both providing passive immunisation to the fetus and active immunisation to the mother with no signals of exacerbation of the mother's autoimmune disease.Figure 1.Timeline showing COVID-19 vaccination and vaccination-related minor adverse events in relation to gestational and post-partum periods in eleven pregnant/lactating women with systemic lupus erythematosus.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all survey respondents, as well as patient associations and all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsNefeli Giannopoulou: None declared, Latika Gupta: None declared, Laura Andreoli: None declared, Daniele Lini: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Grant/research support from: R.A. has a consultancy relationshi with and/or has received research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Kyverna Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant, Merck, Galapagos, Actigraph, Scipher, Horizon Therapeutics, Teva, Beigene, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Nuvig, Capella Bioscience, and CabalettaBio., Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Grant/research support from: I.P. has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG.

BREAKTHROUGH SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IN FULLY VACCINATED PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINATION IN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE (COVAD) STUDY

BackgroundAlthough many studies have been conducted on COVID-19 in recent years, there are still unanswered questions regarding breakthrough infections (BTIs), particularly in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the occurrence of breakthrough COVID-19 infections in patients with SLE versus other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), and healthy controls (HCs).MethodsThe study was based on data from the COVAD questionnaire which amassed a total of 10,783 complete responses from patients with SLE, AIRD, or nrAIRD, and HCs. After exclusion of individuals who were unvaccinated, those who received one vaccine dose only, and those with uncertain responses regarding the vaccine doses, a total of 9,595 patients formed the study population of the present investigation. If a COVID-19 infection occurred after the initial two vaccine doses and at least one booster dose (at least three doses in total, herein termed full vaccination), it was considered a BTI. Data were analysed using multivariable regression models. Statistically significant results were denoted by p values <0.05.ResultsA total of 7,016/9,595 (73.1%) individuals were fully vaccinated. Among those, 1,002 (14.2%) reported at least one BTI, and 166 (2.3%) reported at least two BTIs. Among SLE patients, 867/1,218 (71.2%) were fully vaccinated. Among fully vaccinated SLE patients, 137 (15.8%) reported at least one BTI while 28 (3.2%) reported at least two BTIs. BTI frequencies in fully vaccinated SLE patients were comparable to those of other AIRDs (OR: 1.0;95% CI: 0.8–1.3;p=0.447) and nrAIDS (OR: 0.9;95% CI: 0.6–1.3;p=0.856) but higher compared with HCs (OR: 1.2;95% CI: 1.0–1.6;p=0.022).For SLE patients with three vaccine doses, 113/137 (82.5%) reported at least one BTI while the corresponding number for four vaccine doses was 24/137 (17.5%). Compared with HCs (OR: 10.6;95% CI: 1.2–93.0;p=0.032) and other AIRDs (OR: 3.5;95% CI: 1.08–11.5;p=0.036), SLE patients showed higher frequencies of hospitalisation.AID multimorbidity was associated with a 15-fold increased risk for a need of advanced treatment for COVID-19 (OR: 15.3;95% CI: 2.6–88.2;p=0.002).ConclusionCOVID-19 BTIs occurred in nearly 1 every 6th fully vaccinated patient with SLE, and 20% more frequently in this patient population compared with fully vaccinated HCs. Moreover, BTIs in SLE patients were more severe compared with BTIs in HCs or patients with AIRDs other than SLE, resulting in a greater need for hospitalisation. AID multimorbidity contributed to a more severe COVID-19 BTI requiring advanced management. These insights call for greater attention to vaccination in the vulnerable group of SLE patients, with appropriate risk stratification towards optimised vaccination strategies.Figure 1.Survival analysis across patients with SLE, AIRDs, or nrAIDs, and HCs. SLE: systemic lupus erythematosus;AIRD: autoimmune rheumatic disease;nrAID: non-rheumatic autoimmune disease;HC: healthy control.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsThe authors thank all survey respondents, as well as patient associations and all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the data collection.Disclosure of InterestsEmelie Kihlgren Olsson: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, and Lilly., Grant/research support from: EN holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Julius Lindblom: None declared, Sreoshy Saha: None declared, Syahrul Sazliyana Shaharir: None declared, Wanruchada Katchamart: None declared, Phonpen Akarawatcharangura Goo: None declared, Lisa Traboco: None declared, Yi-Ming Chen: None declared, Kshitij Jagtap: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau:

Post Covid-19 Syndrome in Patients with Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases: Results from the Covid-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (Covad) Study

Background/Aims Post COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) is an emerging cause of morbidity and poor quality of life in COVID-19 survivors. We aimed to assess the prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, and association with disease flares of PCS in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) and non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs), both vulnerable groups understudied in the current literature using data from the 2nd COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) global multicentre patient self-reported e-survey. Methods The survey was circulated from February to July 2022 by the international COVAD Study Group (157 collaborators from 106 countries), and demographics, comorbidities, AIRD/nrAID status, COVID-19 history, vaccination details, and PROMIS physical and mental function were recorded. PCS was defined as symptom resolution time >90 days following acute COVID-19. Predictors of PCS were analysed using regression models for the different groups. Results 7666 total respondents completed the survey. Of these, 2650 respondents with complete responses had positive COVID-19 infection, and 1677 (45.0% AIRDs, 12.5% nrAIDs, 42.5% HCs) completed the survey >90 days post acute COVID-19. Of these, 136 (8.1%) had PCS. Prevalence of PCS was higher in AIRDs (10.8%) than healthy controls HCs (5.3%) (OR: 2.1;95%CI: 1.4-3.1, p=0.002). Across the entire cohort, a higher risk of PCS was seen in women (OR: 2.9;95%CI: 1.1-7.7, p=0.037), patients with long duration of AIRDs/ nrAIDs (OR 1.01;95%CI: 1.0-1.02, p=0.016), those with comorbidities (OR: 2.8;95%CI: 1.4-5.7, p=0.005), and patients requiring oxygen supplementation for severe acute COVID-19 (OR: 3.8;95%CI: 1.1- 13.6, p=0.039). Among patients with AIRDs, comorbidities (OR 2.0;95%CI: 1.08-3.6, p=0.026), and advanced treatment (OR: 1.9;95%CI: 1.08-3.3, p=0.024), or intensive care (OR: 3.8;95%CI: 1.01-14.4, p=0.047) for severe COVID-19 were risk factors for PCS. Notably, patients who developed PCS had poorer PROMIS global physical [15 (12-17) vs 12 (9-15)] and mental health [14 (11-16) vs 11 (8-14)] scores than those without PCS. Conclusion Individuals with AIRDs have a greater risk of PCS than HCs. Associated comorbid conditions, and advanced treatment or intensive care unit admission for severe COVID-19 confer a higher risk of PCS. It is imperative to identify risk factors for PCS for immediate multidisciplinary management in anticipation of poor physical and mental health.

Flares Following Covid-19 Vaccination in Patients with Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: Combined Analysis from the Covid-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (Covad) Studies

Background/Aims Flares following COVID-19 vaccination are an emerging concern among patients with rare rheumatic disease like idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIMs), whereas data and understanding of this is rather limited. We aimed to study the prevalence, characteristics and determinants of IIM flares following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods CoVAD (COVID-19 Vaccination In Autoimmune Diseases) surveys are global patient self-reported e-surveys from 109 countries conducted in 2021 and 2022. Flares of IIM were defined by 4 definitions;a. patient self-reported, b. physician and immunosuppression (IS) denoted, c. sign directed (new erythematous rash, or worsening myositis or arthritis), d. MCID worsening of PROMISPF10a score between the patients who had taken both surveys. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression were used to describe the predictors of flare. Cox-regression analysis was used to differentiate flares by IIM subtypes. Results Among the 1,278 IIM patients, aged 63 (50-71) years, 276 (21.5%) were dermatomyositis, 237 (18.5%) IBM, 899 (70.3%) were female and most were Caucasian (80.8%). Flares of IIM were seen in 123/1278 (9.6%), 163/1278 (12.7%), 112/1278 (8.7%), and 16/96 (19.6%) by definitions a-d respectively with median time to flare being 71.5 (10.7- 235) days. Muscle weakness (69.1%), and fatigue (56.9%) were the most common symptoms of flare. The predictors of self-reported flare were: inactive/disease in remission prior to first dose of vaccine (OR=4.3, 95%CI=2.4-7.6), and anxiety disorder (OR=2.2, 95%CI=1.1-4.7). Rituximab use (OR=0.3, 95%CI=0.1-0.7) and IBM (OR=0.3, 95%CI=0.1-0.7) were protective. Physician defined flares were seen more often in females, mixed ethnicity, and those with asthma, ILD, and anxiety disorder (OR ranging 1.6-7.0, all p<0.05). Notably, overlap myositis (OM) had higher HR for flare compared to polymyositis (HR=2.3, 95%CI=1.2-4.4, p=0.010). Conclusion Nearly one in ten individuals with IIM develop flares after vaccination, more so among women, those with overlap myositis, and inactive disease prior to vaccination. Formal definition of flares in IIM is needed.

Autoimmune multimorbidity and higher fatigue VAS in women with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Results from the international COVAD patient-reported e-survey

Background/Purpose: Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) are a group of rare systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) with considerable heterogeneity. Little is reported about gender difference in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of those with IIMs, which have a significant impact on health-related quality of life. We aimed to investigate the gender difference in PROs and treatment regimens of IIM patients utilizing data obtained in the COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD) study, a large-scale, international self-reported e-survey assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with various AIRDs including IIMs. Method(s): The COVAD study was launched in April 2021 and continued until December 31, 2021. The survey data regarding demographics, AIRD diagnosis, autoimmune multimorbidity (defined as three or more AIRD diagnoses for each patient), disease activity, current corticosteroid or immunosuppressant use, and PROs including fatigue and pain VAS, PROMIS Short Form -Physical Function 10a (PROMIS PF-10a), general health status, and ability to carry out routine activities were extracted from the COVAD database. Each PRO, disease activity, and treatments were compared between women and men. Patients with inclusion body myositis (IBM) were analyzed separately due to significant difference in treatment regimens and outcomes compared to other IIM subtypes. Factors affecting each PRO were determined by multivariable analysis. Result(s): 1197 complete responses from IIM patients as of August 2021 were analyzed. 845 (70.6%) patients were women. Women were younger (58 [48-68] vs. 69 [58-75] years old, median [interquartile range (IQR)], P0.001), and more likely to suffer from autoimmune multimorbidity compared to men (11.1% vs. 3.1%, P 0.001;Table 1). In patients with non-IBM IIMs, disease activity and corticosteroid use were comparable in both genders, while the distribution of immunosuppressant use was different (P = 0.002), with more hydroxychloroquine use in women (18.3% vs. 6.9%). The median fatigue VAS was significantly higher in women than in men (5 [IQR 3-7] vs. 4 [IQR 2-6], P = 0.004), whereas gender difference in the other PROs was not statistically significant (Table 2). In patients with IBM, on the other hand, no significant gender differences in PROs and treatment regimens were observed. The multivariable analysis in non-IBM IIMs revealed women, living in high-income countries, overlap myositis, and autoimmune multimorbidity as independent factors for higher fatigue VAS. Conclusion(s): Women with IIMs frequently suffer from autoimmune multimorbidity, and also experience more fatigue compared to men, calling for greater attention and further research on targeted treatment approaches. (Table Presented).

COVID19 vaccination-related short-term adverse events in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and autoimmune multimorbidity: Results from the COVAD survey

Background: COVID-19 vaccines are safe & effective, though patients with rheumatic diseases like idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIMs), and those with multiple comorbidities continue to be hesitant. Adverse events after vaccination are not extensively studied in those with multiple coexisting autoimmune diseases. Patients with IIM often have multiple autoimmune rheumatic and autoimmune non-rheumatic comorbidities (IIM-AIDs), with potentially increased risk of AEs. The COVAD study aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs till 7 days post-vaccination in IIM-AIDs compared to IIMs and healthy controls (HCs) group. Method(s): T he C OVAD s tudy g roup c omprised > 110 c ollaborators across 94 countries. The study was conducted from March-December 2021. A survey monkey platform-based self-reported online survey captured data related to COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs in IIMs, AIDs, and HCs. We compared COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs among IIM-AID patients and IIM alone and HCs, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, vaccine type, immunosuppression, and numbers of AIDs, using binary logistic regression. Statistically significant results following multivariate regression are reported. Result(s): Among 6099 participants, 1387 (22.7%) IIM, 4712 (77.2%) HC, 66.3% females, were included from 18 882 respondents: 573 (41.0%) people with IIM-AIDs;814 (59.0%) with IIM without other AIDs;and 4712 HCs. People with IIM were older [median 54 (45-66) IIM-AIDs, 64 (50-73) IIM, 34 (26-47) HC years, P < 0.001]. BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (37.5%) and ChAdOx1nCoV-19 (Oxford) (11.1%) were the most common vaccines. When compared to IIM alone, IIM-AID patients reported higher overall AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.1)], minor AE [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.1)] &major AE [OR 3 (1.5-5.8)]. IIM-AIDs patients also reported higher body ache, nausea, headache, & fatigue (OR ranging 1.3-2.3). After adjusting for the number of AIDs, the major AEs equalized but overall AEs, & minor AEs, such as fatigue remained higher. When compared to HCs, IIM-AIDs patients reported similar overall AEs, minor AEs but higher major AEs [OR 2 (1.2-3.3)] nausea/ vomiting [OR 1.4 (1.01-2)], headache [OR 1.2 (1.01-1.6)], and fatigue [OR 1.3 (1.03-1.6)]. Dermatomyositis with AIDs (n = 183) reported higher major AEs [OR 4.3 (1.5-12)] compared to DM alone (n = 293). Active IIM with AIDs (n = 482) reported higher overall AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.2)], minor AEs [OR 1.5 (1.1-2.2)] and major AEs [OR 2.6 (1.2-5.2)] compared to active IIM alone (n = 643). Conclusion(s): COVID-19 vaccination is safe with minimal to no risks of short-term AEs in patients with IIM without other concomitant autoimmune diseases. The presence of autoimmune multimorbidity conferred higher self-reported short-term risks of overall, major, and minor COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs 7 days post-vaccination, particularly in those with active IIM.

Vaccine hesitancy among patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and rheumatic diseases patients in 2021-2022: Covad survey

Background: Patients with comorbidities and active rheumatic disease have increased morbidity and hospitalization following SARS-CoV- 2 infection. While vaccination has decreased this, many unknown factors still influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The data on predictors of vaccine hesitancy is regional and scarce. We aimed to analyze the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy in 2022 and compare them with those in 2021 through multicentre international e-surveys (The COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases Studies -COVAD study 1 and 2). Method(s): COVAD 1 and 2 are multi-centre international e-survey with 152 collaborators in 106 countries including patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM), autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), other autoimmune diseases (AIDs), and healthy controls (HCs) conducted in March-December 2021 and February-June 2022 (ongoing), respectively. Descriptive and multivariable regression adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, and stratified by country of residence was performed. Result(s): Among the 18 882 (2021) and 7666 complete responses (2022), and 3109 (16.5%) and 387 (5.1%) did not receive any COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. The prevalence of vaccine hesitancy has decreased [OR 0.26 (0.24-0.3), P < 0.001]. Among the 387 vaccine non-recipients in 2022, numbers were as follows: IIM 69 (17%), AIRDs 179 (46%), other AIDs 80 (20.6%), and HC 59 (15%). The reasons for vaccine hesitancy in 2022 included: doctor advising against it 47 (12%), do not believe in the science behind the vaccine 79 (21%), long-term safety concerns 152 (39%), awaiting more safety data 105 (27%), and not recommended due to recent infection 30 (7%). Compared to AIRDs and HCs, IIM patients were more disbelievers of the science behind the vaccine [OR 1.8 (1.08-3.2), P = 0.023 AIRDs, OR 4 (1.9-8.1), P < 0.001 HC], had more long-term safety concerns [OR 1.9 (1.2-2.9), P = 0.001 AIRDs, OR 5.4 (3-9.6), P < 0.001 HC] and had more doctors recommending against the vaccine [OR 12.9 (2.8-59), P < 0.001 HC]. Vaccine non-recipients had higher pain visual analog score (VAS) (P < 0.001), lower fatigue VAS (P = 0.003), lower PROMIS10a physical health (P < 0.001), and mental health scores (P = 0.015). The factors predicting vaccine hesitancy in regression were lower PROMIS10a global physical health score [OR 0.9 (0.8-0.97), P = 0.014] and Caucasian ethnicity [OR 4.2 (1.7-10.3), P = 0.001]. Compared to 2021, doctor's advising against vaccination [OR 2.5 (1.8-3.6), P < 0.001] and long-term safety concerns [OR 3.6 (2.9-4.6), P < 0.001] were more frequent causes of vaccine hesitancy overall whereas vaccine non-availability [OR 0.05 (0.02-0.11), P < 0.001] and have scheduled the vaccination but not received [OR 0.1 (0.06-0.3), P < 0.001] were less frequent causes in 2022. Conclusion(s): Overall, the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has decreased. Long-term safety concerns and the need for more safety data are now the major reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Caucasian ethnicity and lower physical health scores are predictors of vaccine hesitancy. The increase in physicians recommending against vaccination calls for more physician awareness to mitigate vaccine hesitancy.

COVID-19 VACCINATION-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS among AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE PATIENTS: RESULTS from the COVID-19 VACCINATION in AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY

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.

HIGH FATIGUE SCORES in PATIENTS with IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: A MULTIGROUP COMPARATIVE STUDY from the COVAD E-SURVEY

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.

COVID-19 SEVERITY and VACCINE BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS in IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES, OTHER SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE and INFLAMMATORY DISEASES, and HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS: RESULTS from the COVID-19 VACCINATION in AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY

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.

SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW on the SCREENING and PROPHYLAXIS of CHRONIC and OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTIONS

Background: Opportunistic and chronic infections can arise in the context of treatment used for Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases (ARDs). Although it is recognized that screening procedures and prophylactic measures must be followed, clinical practice is largely heterogeneous, with relevant recommendations not currently developed or disparately located across the literature. Objectives: To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in ARDs. This is preparatory work done by members of the respective EULAR task force (TF). Methods: Following the EULAR standardised operating procedures, we conducted an SLR with the following 5 search domains;1) Infection: infectious agents identifed by a scoping review and expert opinion (TF members), 2) Rheumatic Diseases: all ARDs, 3) Immunosuppression: all immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, 4) Screening: general and specifc (e.g mantoux test) terms, 5) Prophylaxis: general and specifc (e.g trimethop-rim) terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from domains 1 AND 2 AND 3, plus terms from domains 4 OR 5. Databases searched: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane. Exclusion criteria: post-operative infections, pediatric ARDs, not ARDs (e.g septic arthritis), not concerning screening or prophylaxis, Covid-19 studies, articles concerning vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Quality of studies included was assessed as follows: Newcastle Ottawa scale for non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane tool for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs. Results: 5641 studies were initially retrieved (Figure 1). After title and screening and removal of duplicates, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 293 articles were included in the SLR. Most studies were of medium quality. Reasons for exclusion are shown in Figure 1. Results categorized as per type of microbe, are as follows: For Tuberculosis;evidence suggests that tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. Conversion of TST/IGRA occurs in about 10-15% of patients treated with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). Various prophylactic schemes have been used for latent TB, including isoniazide for 9 months, rifampicin for 4 months, isoniazide/rifampicin for 3-4 months. For hepatitis B (HBV): there is evidence that risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. These patients should be referred for HBV treatment. Patients who are positive for anti-HBcore antibodies, are at low risk for reactivation when treated with glucocorticoids, cDMARDs and bDMARDs but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and HBV-viral load. Patients treated with rituximab display higher risk for HBV reactivation especially when anti-HBs titers are low. Risk for reactivation in hepatitis C RNA positive patients, treated with bDMARDs is low. However, all patients should be referred for antiviral treatment and monitored periodically. For pneumocystis jirovecii: prophylaxis with trimeth-oprim/sulfamethoxazole (alternatively with atovaquone or pentamidine) should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone: 15-30mg/day for more than 4 weeks. Few data exist for screening and prophylaxis from viruses like E B V, CMV and Varicella Zoster Virus. Expert opinion supports the screening of rare bugs like histoplasma and trypanosoma in patients considered to be at high risk (e.g living in endemic areas). Conclusion: The risk of chronic and opportunistic infections should be considered in all patients prior to treatment with immunosuppressives/immunomod-ulators. Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics. Collaboration between different disciplines is important.

IMPAIRED PROMIS PHYSICAL FUNCTION in IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHY PATIENTS: RESULTS from the MULTICENTER COVAD PATIENT REPORTED E-SURVEY

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.

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS' PERSPECTIVES on the USE of JANUS KINASE INHIBITORS to TREAT PATIENTS with INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS

Background: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are relatively new to the feld of rheumatology and provide health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) with more therapeutic options for treating infammatory arthritis (IA), specifcally rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) [1]. Aside from a different target, JAKi differ from often currently prescribed biologics by being administered orally. To date, there is a lack of evidence on what HPRs think about their real-world use and how the COVID-19 pandemic affects JAKi prescription. Objectives: To explore UK-based HPRs' perspectives towards JAKi use in IA patients, and in the context also of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A 15-item anonymous online survey, with both closed and open-ended questions, was designed and piloted on 5 HPRs with amendments made based on their feedback. The survey was advertised on Twitter and shared by email in September 2021. Data were exported from the online survey platform and analysed descriptively with the assistance of statistical software. Results: Fifty-one HPRs responded to the survey: 37 Consultants, 7 Registrars, 5 Clinical Nurse Specialists, 1 Clinical Fellow and 1 'other rheumatology role' (not stated). Responses were received from 11/12 UK regions. Most represented was Greater London (18%) and North-West England (16%). 69% of respondents worked in secondary care, with the remaining 31% in tertiary care. The majority (40%) spent 1-25% of their job role doing research, followed by 27% who were not research active. 60% of HPRs indicated that 1-5% of their RA and/or PsA patients take a JAKi (no HPRs had more than 15% of their RA/PsA patients on a JAKi). 96% of HPRs indicated that they prescribe JAKi in their clinical practice, with 91% of those who prescribe following their local guidelines. 72% of respondents who prescribe JAKi, prescribed them 'frequently' as a monotherapy. Figure 1 shows responses chosen for when JAKi therapy is usually started and for feeling less confdent with JAKi prescription. Of those HPRs who prescribe, 17% have continued JAKi in their patients. When discontinuation occurred, the most common reasons chosen (multiple responses allowed) were 'due to inefficacy' (60%), 'due to other adverse events' i.e., non-major adverse cardiovascular events (32%) and 'due to herpes zoster infection' (28%). 55% of HPRs would consider switching patients to another JAKi after initial failure. Across prescrib-ers, 49% indicated no impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their prescribing of JAKi. Common reasons chosen for a change in prescribing patterns for JAKi as a result of the pandemic (multiple responses allowed) included: prescribing them more as 'an alternative to infusions, in order to reduce hospital visits' (23%) and as 'an alternative to injections, in order to reduce at-home training visits' (21%). This was followed by 'other reason' (15%) with the free text from all 7 respondents highlighting the benefts of the shorter half-life of JAKi e.g., 'Prescribed more as quick on and quick off so can be discontinued quickly in event of severe infection' (Registrar, Greater London). Safety concerns around the use of JAKi were raised in 13/14 free text comments left at the end of the survey e.g., 'I am concerned about recent reports of increased VTE [venous thromboembolism] and malignancies' (Consultant, Yorkshire and the Humber) and 'Concerns about cardiovascular safety' (Clinical Fellow, Scotland). Conclusion: A large proportion of HPRs indicate confdence in prescribing JAKi to their patients with IA, adhering to local guidelines. JAKi are largely prescribed as monotherapy, with the most frequent reason for discontinuation being ineffi-cacy. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have positively impacted JAKi prescription, however, safety concerns over JAKi use remain for some HPRs.

Characteristics associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE): Results from the covid-19 global rheumatology alliance (COVID-19 GRA)

Background: An increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes may be seen in patients with autoimmune diseases on moderate to high daily doses of glucocorticoids, as well as in those with comorbidities. However, specific information about COVID-19 outcomes in SLE is scarce. Objectives: To determine the characteristics associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in a multi-national cross-sectional registry of COVID-19 patients with SLE. Methods: SLE adult patients from a physician-reported registry of the COVID-19 GRA were studied. Variables collected at COVID-19 diagnosis included age, sex, race/ethnicity, region, comorbidities, disease activity, time period of COVID-19 diagnosis, glucocorticoid (GC) dose, and immunomodulatory therapy. Immunomodulatory therapy was categorized as: antimalarials only, no SLE therapy, traditional immunosuppressive (IS) drug monotherapy, biologics/targeted synthetic IS drug monotherapy, and biologic and traditional IS drug combination therapy. We used an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome defined as: not hospitalized/hospitalized without supplementary oxygen;hospitalized with non-invasive ventilation;hospitalized with mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation;and death. An ordinal logistic regression model was constructed to assess the association between demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications, disease activity and COVID-19 severity. This assumed that the relationship between each pair of outcome groups is of the same direction and magnitude. Results: Of 1069 SLE patients included, 1047 (89.6%) were female, with a mean age of 44.5 (SD: 14.1) years. Patient outcomes included 815 (78.8%) not hospitalized/hospitalized without supplementary oxygen;116 (11.2) hospitalized with non-invasive ventilation, 25 (2.4%) hospitalized with mechanical ventilation/ extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and 78 (7.5%) died. In a multivariate model (n=804), increased age [OR=1.03 (1.01, 1.04)], male sex [OR =1.93 (1.21, 3.08)], COVID-19 diagnosis between June 2020 and January 2021 (OR =1.87 (1.17, 3.00)), no IS drug use [OR =2.29 (1.34, 3.91)], chronic renal disease [OR =2.34 (1.48, 3.70)], cardiovascular disease [OR =1.93 (1.34, 3.91)] and moderate/ high disease activity [OR =2.24 (1.46, 3.43)] were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared with no use of GC, patients using GC had a higher odds of poor outcome: 0-5 mg/d, OR =1.98 (1.33, 2.96);5-10 mg/d, OR =2.88 (1.27, 6.56);>10 mg/d, OR =2.01 (1.26, 3.21) (Table 1). Conclusion: Increased age, male sex, glucocorticoid use, chronic renal disease, cardiovascular disease and moderate/high disease activity at time of COVID-19 diagnosis were associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes in SLE. Potential limitations include possible selection bias (physician reporting), the cross-sectional nature of the data, and the assumptions underlying the outcomes modelling.

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic dmards with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the COVID-19 global rheumatology alliance

Background: Targeted DMARDs may dampen the inflammatory response in COVID-19, perhaps leading to a less severe clinical course. However, some DMARD targets may impair viral immune defenses. Due to sample size limitations, previous studies of DMARD use and COVID-19 outcomes have combined several heterogeneous rheumatic diseases and medications, investigating a single outcome (e.g., hospitalization). Objectives: To investigate the associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs with a range of poor COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: We analyzed voluntarily reported cases of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases in the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (March 12, 2020 -January 6, 2021). We investigated RA treated with b/ tsDMARD at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL6i), or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). The outcome was an ordinal scale (1-4) for COVID-19 severity: 1) no hospitalization, 2) hospitalization without oxygen need, 3) hospitalization with any oxygen need or ventilation, or 4) death. Baseline covariates including age, sex, smoking, obesity, comorbidities (e.g., cardiovascular disease, cancer, interstitial lung disease [ILD]), concomitant non-biologic DMARD use, glucocorticoid use/ dose, RA disease activity, country, and calendar time were used to estimate propensity scores (PS) for b/tsDMARD. The primary analysis used PS matching to compare each drug class to TNFi. Ordinal logistic regression estimated ORs for the COVID-19 severity outcome. In a sensitivity analysis, we used traditional multivariable ordinal logistic regression adjusting for covariates without matching. Results: Of the 1,673 patients with RA on b/tsDMARDs at the onset of COVID-19, (mean age 56.7 years, 79.6% female) there were n=154 on ABA, n=224 on RTX, n=306 on JAK, n=180 on IL6i, and n=809 on TNFi. Overall, 498 (34.3%) were hospitalized and 112 (6.7%) died. Among all patients, 353 (25.3%) were ever smokers, 197 (11.8%) were obese, 462 (27.6%) were on glucocorticoids, 1,002 (59.8%) were on concomitant DMARDs, and 299 (21.7%) had moderate/ high RA disease activity. RTX users were more likely than TNFi users to have ILD (11.6% vs. 1.7%) and history of cancer (7.1% vs. 2.0%);JAK users were more likely than TNFi users to be obese (17.3% vs. 9.0%). After propensity score matching, RTX was strongly associated with greater odds of having a worse outcome compared to TNFi (OR 3.80, 95% CI 2.47, 5.85;Figure). Among RTX users, 42 (18.8%) died compared to 27 (3.3%) of TNFi users (Table). JAK use was also associated with greater odds of having a worse COVID-19 severity (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.02, 2.28). ABA or IL6i use were not associated with COVID-19 severity compared to TNFi. Results were similar in the sensitivity analysis and after excluding cancer or ILD. Conclusion: In this large global registry of patients with RA and COVID-19, baseline use of RTX or JAK was associated with worse severity of COVID-19 compared to TNFi use. The very elevated odds for poor COVID-19 outcomes in RTX users highlights the urgent need for risk-mitigation strategies, such as the optimal timing of vaccination. The novel association of JAK with poor COVID-19 outcomes requires replication.

“I literally convinced myself I was going to catch it and die": Lived experiences of the covid-19 pandemic by people with rheumatic diseases from four european countries

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unforeseen challenges for humanity, taking a significant toll, especially the immune-suppressed individuals. In this regard, the health and general well-being of people with rheumatic diseases, the great majority users of immunosuppressives, have been at stake. Objectives: To explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression during the first wave, concerning a) (self-)management of their disease;b) interaction with the health care team;c) emotional well-being and d) overall health. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted following a phenomenological approach. Adults (>18 years) with a rheumatic disease from four European countries (Cyprus, England, Greece, Portugal). Patients were recruited through patient's associations and social media and were invited to participate in semi-structured, audio-recorded interview or focus groups, between July -August 2020. Following a pilot study the information provided was transcribed verbatim, anonymized and translated into English where necessary. An inductive approach was adopted to carry out a thematic framework analysis with the assistance of ATLAS.ti to identify key themes and subthemes. Data validation strategies were employed, and Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. Results: Participants were 24 patients (21 women, age range 33 to 74 years) divided by 7 focus-groups and 1 individual interview. Most frequent diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (n=7), lupus (n=4), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (n=3). Three key themes with 3-7 subthemes were identified within the analytical framework, centred around the impact of the Covid-19 on patients' lives (Figure 1): i) individual person (e.g. fear for myself and family, social isolation and lack of personal freedom, more time with family) ii) health settings (e.g. (un)clear information about risks of contamination, fear or risk of shortages of medication, remote consultations), and iii) work and community (e.g. persistent stress due to mass media exposure, lack of awareness by others about patients' rheumatic disease and its disclosure, hope and suspicion about new vaccine development: "I hear that they will ask vulnerable groups to have the vaccine first (.) Why is that we will be again the innocent victims")?. Findings were similar across countries, except for spirituality (i.e. the pandemic as "the hand of God"), a coping subtheme particular to Portugal. These main themes resonated well with the social ecological model and Walsh's Family Resilience Process [1,2]. Conclusion: When experiencing a significant life-event people require some time to process the different lived experiences. This study provides insights on how patients from four countries coped with the new challenges. Such insights are invaluable for health care providers and policy makers, in guiding more meaningful support tailored to individual needs, especially at times of crisis. The study highlights the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of people with rheumatic disease. A follow-up study is currently underway to examine the effect of subsequent waves of the pandemic.

Predictors of toxicity with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine use: A systematic review

Background: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has attracted much attention especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. HCQ and closely related chloroquine (CQ) have known ocular and cardiac toxicity. However, although screening guidance now exists from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists for the former (RCOphth)1, little is known regarding predictors of both forms of toxicity. Objectives: To systematically explore the literature on predictors of toxicity limited to cardiac and ocular toxicity. Methods: A detailed search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane library, EMCare and Academic Search Premier. Studies addressing predictors of HCQ toxicity with relevant search terms used were included. Exclusion criteria were: non-English articles, pre-clinical and paediatric studies. Three authors (SR, NC, PK) independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion, ensuring each article was screened twice. Disagreement over inclusion was adjudicated by senior reviewers (EN, JG). Data extraction (SR, NC, PK) focused on predictors of toxicity. Results: The search strategy retrieved 3103 studies. 147 studies were included for data extraction, of which 92 were eventually excluded due to: not identifying predictors (n=17), reviews (n=19), not ocular or cardiovascular toxicity (n=18), case reports (n=3), paediatrics (n=1), screening articles that focused on detecting retinopathy (n=30), article unobtainable at time of abstract submission (n=4), leaving 55 studies for full review. Studies addressing cardiac toxicity (n=16) included: cohort, retrospective observational, a comparative pharmacovigilance, systematic monitoring protocol and a randomised control trial (RCT). The majority of these involved high-dose (>5mg/ kg/day) use for acute COVID-19 infection. The main significant predictors identified were: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use in combination with azithromycin (6/7 studies), cumulative dose (2 studies), pre-existing cardiovascular morbidity (2/3 studies) and prolonged baseline QTc (2 studies). Individual associations were also identified in the following: longer treatment duration, daily dosage, increased age, male gender, severe COVID-19 infection, abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) and concurrent use of loop-diuretics. Regarding predictors of ocular toxicity (n=39), only one study was a RCT. The remainder were observational studies: case-control, cohort, retrospective chart reviews and letters to the editor which included original patient data. Several predictors of retinopathy and maculopathy were examined in two or more studies and included: duration of use (16/18 studies), daily dosage (7/13 studies), cumulative dose (11/14 studies), increased age (10/11 studies), body weight or BMI (3/5 studies), renal impairment (5 studies), HCQ blood levels (2 studies), keratopathy (2 studies) and tamoxifen use (2 studies). Sex (2 studies) and history of cataract surgery (2 studies) were not found to be predictors of toxicity. Only few studies performed regression analysis presenting odds and/or hazard ratios with confidence intervals. Conclusion: The most recognised predictor of cardiac toxicity was co-administration with azithromycin. In ocular toxicity, commonly cited predictors included those already recognised by the RCOphth1, as well as cumulative dose, increased age, weight considerations, HCQ blood levels and keratopathy. Further research is warranted on better characterising predictors of cardiac and ocular toxicity in patients on HCQ and CQ therapy.