IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON SEPTIC ARTHRITIS MANAGEMENT

BackgroundSince 2020, the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic has disrupted the organization of healthcare systems worldwide.ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the impact of this pandemic on septic arthritis management in a tertiary rheumatology department.MethodsIt was a single-center descriptive case-control study, which included patients hospitalized for septic arthritis between January 2018 and December 2021, whose diagnosis was retained after positive bacterial growthor on culture on according to presumptive criteria. Our patients were divided into two groups: G1: patients hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021), and G2: patients hospitalized during a similar period before the COVID-19 pandemic (2018-2019). In both groups, septic arthritis prevalence was calculated, socio-demographic characteristics, risk factors, clinical, paraclinical, and therapeutic data were collected. COVID-19 status was reported in the G1.ResultsTwenty-two patients were enrolled: G1 (n = 15), G2 (n = 7). The prevalence of septic arthritis was 0.77% and 0.36% respectively. The median age was 54.6±12.25 and 54.29±21.81 years old respectively. Diabetes was found in 26, 7% in G1 and 28.6% in G2. During the pandemic, arthropathy and oral corticosteroids use were noted in 53.3% and 28.6% of patients versus 26.7% and 14.3% in G2. The diagnosis delay and the prior use of antibiotic therapy were more significant in G1: 14.08[7-30] d versus 6.5[3.25-19.25] d, and 46.7% versus 14.3%. The knee was the most common localization in both groups. Other joints were affected in G1: shoulder (n = 2), hip (n = 1), and sacroiliac (n = 1). The most common germ was staphylococcus aureus. The duration of hospitalization and duration of antibiotic therapy in G1 and G2 were 26.07±9.12d versus 27.43±10.87d and 50±10d versus 48±25.79d, respectively. Concerning COVID-19 status, 33.3% of patients in G1 have received their vaccination and no recent SARS-Cov2 infection was noted before hospitalization. During the pandemic, synovectomy was required in three patients, one of whom was also transferred to intensive care for septic shock (two of these three patients are being followed for rheumatoid arthritis, and only one has never been vaccinated against COVID-19).ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of septic arthritis in our department was higher and the diagnosis was delayed. Duration of hospitalization was not impacted, however, atypical localisations, prior use of antibiotics, recourse to synovectomy, and transfer to intensive care were reported. These results suggest an inadequate and difficult access to healthcare services during the lockdown, as well as an impact of social distancing on the immune system [1, 2]. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.References[1]Robinson E. Pires et al, What Do We Need to Know about Musculoskeletal Manifestations of COVID-19? A Systematic Review, JBJS Rev. 2022 Jun 3;10(6)[2]Pantea Kiani et al, Immune Fitness and the Psychosocial and Health Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in The Netherlands: Methodology and Design of the CLOFIT Study, Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2021 Feb 20;11(1):199-218Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FLARE FOLLOWING COVID-19 VACCINATION IN MALAYSIAN POPULATION AND ITS ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS

BackgroundFlare of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) following COVID-19 vaccination has been reported with a low occurrence observed in those patients with disease remission. However, no local data is available in our multi-ethnic Malaysian population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of RA flare in Malaysian patients following COVID-19 vaccination and its associated risk factors.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study assessing RA flare based on patient-reported disease flare through self-administered questionnaires and physician-reported flare. Patient self-reported disease flare was defined as ‘a sudden worsening of rheumatology condition or arthritis within 1 month post-vaccination' while physician-reported flare was defined as ‘an increment of disease activity score 28-joint documented within 3 months post-vaccination‘ from either a scheduled or unscheduled clinic visit. A total of 186 RA patients attended the rheumatology clinic in Hospital Putrajaya from May to July 2022 who completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination under the Malaysian National Vaccination Programme were recruited. Demographic data, disease parameters including serology for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), cessation of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around vaccination, type of vaccines and adverse events were examined using descriptive and univariate analyses.ResultsMajority (93%) of RA patients enrolled were female with a mean age of 58 years old (standard deviation, SD 12.2) and mean disease duration was 12 years (SD 7.7). More than half were seropositive (66% RF, 63% ACPA) with 47.4% had double seropositivity (RF and ACPA positive). All patients received DMARDs with the majority (71%) were on methotrexate (MTX), 21.5% were on leflunomide, 17.7% on other DMARDs, with a small proportion (14%) of patients were receiving prednisolone. Only 4.8% of patients were on biologics or targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Half of the patients were in remission prior to vaccination. 62% of patients received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as the primary vaccine, followed by Sinovac-CoronaVac (24.6%) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (13.4%) vaccines. A booster dose had been administered to 80% of patients, of which 88.7% was Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. MTX therapy were discontinued in 39.4% of patients (n=52) post-vaccination for a week duration. The prevalence of RA flare was only 12.9% (n=24) in which 14 were self-reported and 10 were physician-reported flares (4 severe flare, 6 mild-moderate flare). Flare rates were higher during the first and second dose of vaccination with 29.2% respectively, and only 12.5% were reported after booster vaccination. Common vaccine adverse effects were fever (16.8%), myalgia (8.6%) and arthralgia (6.4%). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of flare post-vaccination between age, gender, disease activity prior to vaccination, types of vaccine, usage of MTX and prednisolone, and discontinuation of MTX post-vaccination. Although seropositivity did not exhibit statistically significant flare rate post vaccination, sub-analysis revealed four times higher rate of flare in those who has double positivity compared to seronegative RA patients (12% vs 4%).ConclusionPrevelance of RA flare post-COVID-19 vaccination in Malaysian RA population is low. No significant associated risk factors were identified although double seropositivity appeared to have higher number of flares.References[1]Bixio, R., Bertelle, D., Masia, M., Pistillo, F., Carletto, A. and Rossini, M. (2021), Incidence of Disease Flare After BNT162b2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission. ACR Open Rheumatology, 3: 832-833.[2]Li X, Tong X, Yeung WWY, Kuan P, Yum SHH, Chui CSL, Lai FTT, Wan EYF, Wong CKH, Chan EWY, Lau CS, Wong ICK. Two-dose COVID-19 vaccination and possible arthritis flare among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Hong Kong. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 Apr;81(4):564-568.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO ADJUVANTED RECOMBINANT ZOSTER VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED TRIAL SUB-STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.

SAFETY OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS (PTS) WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA) TREATED WITH FILGOTINIB (FIL) IN FILOSOPHY: INTERIM RESULTS FROM A PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

BackgroundConsideration is needed when using Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors to treat RA in pts aged ≥65 years or those with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. The JAK1 preferential inhibitor FIL was generally well tolerated in clinical trials[1];safety has not been determined in a real-world setting.ObjectivesTo report baseline characteristics and up to 6-month safety data from the first 480 pts treated with FIL in the FILOSOPHY study (NCT04871919), and in two mutually exclusive subgroups based on age and CV risk.MethodsFILOSOPHY is an ongoing, phase 4, non-interventional, European study of pts with RA who have been prescribed FIL for the first time and in accordance with the product label in daily practice. Baseline characteristics and the incidence of select adverse events (AEs) are assessed in pts aged ≥65 years and/or with ≥1 CV risk factor (Table 1), and in those aged <65 years with no CV risk factors.ResultsAs of the end of June 2022, 480 pts had been treated: 441 received FIL 200 mg and 39 received FIL 100 mg. Of the 480 pts, 148 (30.8%) were aged ≥65 years;332 (69.2%) were aged <65 years. In total, 86 (17.9%) were former smokers, 81 (16.9%) were current smokers and 203 (42.3%) were non-smokers (data were missing for 110 pts [22.9%]). In addition to smoking, the most frequent CV risk factors included a history of hypertension (32.3%), a history of dyslipidemia (10.2%) and a family history of myocardial infarction (8.5%;Table 1).23 pts (4.8%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. Of the 354 pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor, infections affected 64 pts (18.1%), 34 (9.6%) had COVID-19, 2 (0.6%) had herpes zoster, and cardiac disorders (angina pectoris, atrial fibrillation, palpitations and tachycardia) affected 5 pts (1.4%);no cases of malignancies were observed. In the subgroup aged <65 years and with no CV risk factors (n=126), infections occurred in 18 pts (14.3%) (9 [7.1%] had COVID-19;3 [2.4%] had herpes zoster) and malignancies (myeloproliferative neoplasm) affected 1 pt (0.8%);no pts had cardiac disorders. There were no cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in either subgroup.ConclusionIn this interim analysis of FILOSOPHY, no unexpected safety signals emerged at up to 6 months. Although infections and cardiac disorders affected a numerically greater proportion of pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk vs those aged <65 years with no CV risk, longer follow-up on a broader cohort is necessary to further characterize the safety of FIL in different groups of pts with RA.Reference[1]Winthrop K, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:184–92Table 1.Baseline characteristics and CV risk factorsBaseline demographics/CV risk factorsAll FIL-treated pts (N=480)≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor (n=354)<65 years and no CV risk factor (n=126)*Female sex, n (%)351 (73.1)252 (71.2)99 (78.6)Age, years, mean (SD)57.6 (11.5)60.4 (10.8)49.6 (9.6)Rheumatoid factor positive, n (%)†228 (47.5)167 (47.2)61 (48.4)Anti-citrullinated protein antibody positive, n (%)‡243 (50.6)176 (49.7)67 (53. 2)Body mass index, kg/m2, mean (SD)27.6 (5.7) n=43728.0 (5.4) n=33126.3 (6.4) n=106RA disease duration, years, mean (SD)10.4 (9.4) n=47810.5 (9.5) n=35310.0 (8.8) n=125Tender joint count 28, mean (SD)8.6 (6.9) n=4578.7 (7.1) n=3408.3 (6.3) n=117Swollen joint count 28, mean (SD)5.6 (5.2) n=4525.7 (5.4) n=3365.4 (4.4) n=116Former smoker, n (%)§86 (17.9)86 (24.3)0Current smoker, n (%)§81 (16.9)81 (22.9)0Non-smoker, n (%)§203 (42.3)130 (36.7)73 (57.9)Family history of myocardial infarction, n (%)41 (8.5)41 (11.6)0Medical history of: n (%) CV disease33 (6.9)33 (9.3)0 Diabetes35 (7.3)35 (9.9)0 Dyslipidemia49 (10.2)49 (13.8)0 Hypertension155 (32.3)155 (43.8)0 Ischemic CNS  vascular disorders11 (2.3)11 (3.1)0 Peripheral vascular disease17 (3.5)17 (4.8)0*Includes 53 pts with missing smoking status data who were aged <65 years with no other CV risk factors.†Missing/unknown in 154 pts;‡Missing in 153 pts;§Smoking status data missing in 110 pts (22.9%).AcknowledgementsWe thank the physicia s and patients who participated in this study. The study was funded by Galapagos NV, Mechelen, Belgium. Publication coordination was provided by Fabien Debailleul, PhD, of Galapagos NV. Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of InterestsPatrick Verschueren Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Roularta, Consultant of: Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Nordic Pharma, Sidekick Health, Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Pfizer, Jérôme Avouac Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Novartis, Pfizer, Karen Bevers Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Sanofi, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Lilly, MSD, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Thomas Debray Consultant of: Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, Francesco De Leonardis Employee of: Galapagos, James Galloway Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Medicago, Novavax, Pfizer, Monia Zignani Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi.

COMPARATIVE DISEASE BURDEN IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS OR ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: DATA FROM COVAD PATIENT-REPORTED E-SURVEY

BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis, including either Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), are some of the most diagnosed autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) in rheumatologists' routine clinical practice [1]. Understanding patients' health and functional status is crucial to provide personalized management strategies to optimize disease control and enhance the quality of life.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare disease burden in patients with RA, PsA or AS by assessing Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Health, Global Mental Health, Physical Function and Fatigue 4a together with VAS Pain.MethodsData were obtained in the international COVID vaccination in autoimmune rheumatic diseases study second e-survey (COVAD study). Demographics, AIRD diagnosis, disease activity, PROMIS Global Physical health, PROMIS Global Mental Health, PROMIS Physical Function SF10 and PROMIS Fatigue 4a score were extracted from the COVAD study database. For this study, we only included patients with self-reported RA or spondyloarthritis (either PsA or AS) undergoing active treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs) and/or biologic DMARDs, who answered all the survey questions. Active disease was defined as the patient's perception of their disease as active in the four weeks before their first COVID-19 vaccine shot. Analysis of Variance with Bartlett's and Tukey's test was used to compare continuous variables between groups.ResultsFrom January to June 2022, n.1907 patients with RA, female 87.62% (1671/1907), with mean age (±SD) 50.95 ±13.67, n.311 patients with PsA, female 67.20% (209/311), with a mean age of 50.42 ±12.70, and n.336 patients with AS, male 51.31% (209/311), with a mean age of 43.13 ±12.75 years, responded to the COVAD e-survey.In those with active disease, neither physical health, global mental health, physical function, fatigue, nor pain were different among groups (Table 1, Figure 1). Patients with inactive AS had higher mean global physical health scores than RA patients (13.13 ±2.93 VS RA 12.48 ±2.90, p=0.01, Table 1). Those with inactive RA or PsA showed more severe fatigue (PsA 10.58 ±2.22, RA 10.45 ±4.08 VS 9.4 ±4.13, p =0.01 for both). Patients with inactive RA also reported poorer physical function and more residual pain than those with AS (37.79 ±8.86 VS 41.13 ±7.79, p<0.001;3.87 ±2.45 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01, respectively). Similarly, residual pain was perceived as higher in patients with inactive PsA than those with AS (4.04 ±2.50 VS 3.34 ±2.39, p=0.01)ConclusionDisease burden is roughly comparable in patients with active RA, PsA or AS. Patients with inactive RA and PsA suffer higher disease burden than those with inactive AS.Reference[1]Mease PJ, Liu M, Rebello S, Kang H, Yi E, Park Y, Greenberg JD. Comparative Disease Burden in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, or Axial Spondyloarthritis: Data from Two Corrona Registries. Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Dec;6(4):529-542.Table 1.Patient-Reported Outcome Measures between groups.Inactive diseaseAS (n.185)PsA (n.179)RA (n.1167)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health13.13*2.9512.433.2712.482.90p=0.01, VS RAPROMIS Global Mental Health13.313.3612.973.3312.843.17PROMIS Fatigue 4a9.44.1310.58*4.2210.45*4.08p=0.01, bothPROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score41.137.3939.279.0137.79*8.86p<0.001, VS ASVAS Pain3.342.394.04*2.503.87*2.45p=0.01, bothActive DiseaseAS (n.35)PsA (n.38)RA (n.189)MeanSDMeanSDMeanSDPROMIS Global Physical Health11.053.1910.102.7611.243.41PROMIS Global Mental Health11.313.2610.843.6311.893.30PROMIS Fatigue 4a12.944.8712.844.4211.754.68PROMIS Physical Function SF10 Score35.829.6233.528.7634.909.80VAS Pain4.682.775.02.544.682.61Figure 1.Violin plots showing kernel densities, quartiles and median for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for patients with RA, PsA and AS, stratified by disease activity status.[Figure omitted. See PDF]Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVincenzo Venerito: None declared, Marc Fornaro: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Naveen Ravichandran: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Mrudula Joshi: 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, Parikshit Sen: None declared, James B. Lilleker Speakers bureau: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: JBL has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, and Biogen. None is related to this manuscript., Arvind Nune: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Chris Wincup: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees, and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre;none are related to this manuscript, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Carlo Vinicio Caballero: None declared, COVAD Study: None declared, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Speakers bureau: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies: Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roivant., Latika Gupta: None declared.

BIOLOGIC TREATMENT SUSPENSION AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DATA FROM MEXICAN ADVERSE REGISTRY (BIOBADAMEX)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic triggered serious challenges in the treatment of chronic diseases due to the lack of access to medical attention. Patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) must have adequate treatment compliance in order to reach and maintain remission or low activity of their diseases. Treatment suspension because of non-medical reasons might lead to disease activation and organ damage.ObjectivesIdentify the frequency of biologic treatment (bDMARD) suspension in patients with RD during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the associated factors for suspension.MethodsIn this study we included all patients registered in the Mexican Biologics Adverse Events Registry (BIOBADAMEX), that started bDMARD before March 2019 and suspended treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used descriptive statistic to analyze baseline characteristics and main treatment suspension causes. We used Chi[2] and Kruskal Wallis tests to analyze differences between groups.ResultsA total of 832 patients patients registered in BIOBADAMEX were included in this study, 143 (17%) suspended bDMARD during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main causes of suspension were inefficacy in 54 (38%) patients, followed by other motives in 49 (34%) patients from which 7 (5%) was loss of medical coverage. Adverse events and loss of patients to follow up were the motive in 16 (11%) and 15 (11%) patients respectively.When we compared the group that suspended bDMARD with the non-suspenders (Table 1), we found statistical differences in patient gender, with 125 (87%) female patients that suspended bDMARD, with a median age of 52 (42-60) years, and a treatment duration of 3.8 years.ConclusionIn our study we found that 17% of patients with RD suspended bDMARD treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic and that non-medical motives such as lack of patients follow up and loss of medical coverage due to unemployment were important motives. These results are related to the effect of the pandemic on other chronic diseases.Table 1.Patients baseline characteristicsPatients that did not suspended bDMARD during pandemic (n = 689)Patients that suspended bDMARD during pandemic (n = 143)pFemale gender, n(%)549 (79.7)125 (87.4)0.02Age, median (IQR)55 (45 – 63)52 (42 – 60)0.04Body mass index, median (IQR)26.4 (23 – 30.4)27.23 (24.2 – 30.46)0.13Social security, n(%)589 (85.5)128 (89.5)0.2Diagnosis0.7- Rheumatoid arthritis444 (64.4)97 (67.8)- Juvenil idiopathic athritis29 (4.2)2 (1.4)- Ankyosing sponylitis93 (13.5)19 (13.3)- Psoriasic arthritis43 (6.2)6 (4.2)- Systemic lupus erithematosus32 (4.6)9 (6.3)- Others48 (6.9)10 (6.9)Disease duration, median (IQR)11 (7 – 19.5)12 (6 - 18)0.95Comorbidities, n(%)305 (44.3)73 (51)0.08Previos biologic, n(%)249 (36.1)60 (42)0.1Treatment at pandemic iniciation, n(%)0.8 - Etanercept a34 (4.9)5 (3.5)- Infliximab a24 (3.5)5 (3.5)- Adalimumab130 (18.9)22 (15.4)- Rituximab a61 (8.9)25 (17.5)- Abatacept76 (11)20 (14)- Tocilizumab82 (11.9)18 (12.6)- Certolizumab92 (13.4)28 (19.6)- Rituximab b7 (1)0- Golimumab36 (5.2)5 (3.5)- Tofacitinib14 (2)1 (0.7)- Infliximab b4 (0.5)2 (1.4)- Etanercept b31 (4.5)6 (4.2)- Baricitinib12 (1.7)1 (0.7)- Belimumab5 (0.7)1 (0.7)- Secukinumb8 (1.2)3 (2.1)Steroids use, n(%):254 (36.9)57 (39.9)0.2Steroids dose (mg), median (IQR)6 (5 – 10)6 (5 – 10)0.47DMARD use, n(%):538 (78.1)118 (82.5)0.1Treatment duration, median (IQR)5.06 (4.04 – 5.78)3.82 (3.35 – 4.95)0.001Suspension motive, n(%)NA- Inefficacy-54 (37.8)- Adverse event-16 (11.2)- Pregnancy-2 (1.4)- Loss of patient-15 (10.5)- Remission-7 (4.9)- Others-49 (34.2)Adverse events, n(%):102 (14.8)24 (16.8)0.3- Severe, n(%)13 (1.9)5 (3.5)0.4a original, b biosimilarREFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsVijaya Rivera Teran: None declared, Daniel Xavier Xibille Friedmann: None declared, David Vega-Morales: None declared, Sandra Sicsik: None declared, Angel Castillo Ortiz: None declared, Fedra Irazoque-Palazuelos: None declared, Dafhne Miranda: None declared, Iris Jazmin Colunga-Pedraza: None declared, Julio Cesar Casasola: None declared, Omar Elo Muñoz-Monroy: None declared, Sandra Carrilo: None declared, Angélica Peña: None declared, Sergio Duran Barragan: None declared, Luis Francisco Valdés Corona: None declared, Estefanía Torres Valdéz: None declared, Azucena Ramos: None declared, Aleni Paz: None declared, ERICK ADRIAN ZAMORA-TEHOZOL: None declared, Deshire Alpizar-Rodriguez Employee of: Scientific Advisor in GSK México.

ANTI-TNF TREATMENT MODIFIES PAIN MODULATION DESCENDING PATHWAYS. A PROSPECTIVE, 6 MONTHS STUDY IN ACTIVE CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATISM PATIENTS' NAÏVE OF BDMARD

BackgroundIn rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (Spa), persistent pain remains challenging. In active disease, diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (assessed through conditioned pain modulation (CPM)) are impaired [1]. Little is known regarding impairment of pain pathways in patients under bMDARD.ObjectivesThe main objective of the RAPID (Rheumatism Pain Inhibitory Descending pathways) study, was to assess descending pain modulation (through CPM paradigm) in patients with active RA or Spa, after introduction of first bDMARD with anti-TNF.MethodsWe included 50 RA and 50 Spa patients with active disease, naïve of bDMARD. We assessed clinical disease variables for patients, together with responses to various psychological questionnaires. All participants underwent QST with the determination of heat and cold pain thresholds (HPT-CPT) on dominant forearm and CPM. CPM paradigm require a conditioning stimulus, here applied to the non-dominant foot (cold circulating bath at 8°C during 1min). Descending pain control was assessed as the change in HPT (in °C) following the conditioning stimulus: the higher the CPM effect, the more efficient the inhibitory control. Patients were followed at 3 and 6 months after TNF inhibitor initiation. At both follow-up visits, clinical monitoring of the rheumatism and repeated thermal QST and CPM.ResultsOne hundred patients were included, 59 women, mean age 45.8 (± 14.6) and mean disease duration 7.93 (± 7.96) years. Due to COVID surge 87 patients initiated an anti-TNF, 74 patients completed the follow-up. At 6 months, 40 patients achieved a good therapeutic response (good EULAR response or ASDAS major improvement), 19 patients had a moderate therapeutic response (moderate EULAR response or clinically important improvement) and 15 patients had no therapeutic response. At the end of follow-up, 51 patients were in remission or low disease activity and 47 patients had a pain intensity <4/10. Thermal pain thresholds did not significantly change during follow-up. Mean HPT was at beaseline 42.35°C (+/- 3.68) and at 6 months 42.17°C (+/- 3.67). Mean CPT was at baseline 13.11°C (+/- 10.04) and at 6 months 12.86°C (+/- 9.45). Conditioned pain modulation was significantly changed during follow-up. Mean CPM effect was at baseline 0.25°C (±2.57), 2.64°C (±2.12) at 3 months and 2.96°C (±2.50) at 6 months. At the end of the 6 months follow-up, mean CPM effect was significantly higher in patients with residual mean pain intensity <4/10 compared to patients with persisting pain ≥ 4/10: 3,25°C (± 2,68) vs 2,47 (± 2,11) (p=0.04).ConclusionAfter TNF inhibitor initiation in active RA or SpA, impaired diffuse noxious inhibitory controls are significantly improved. Apart from their articular efficacy, TNF inhibitor have an action on the central nervous system and pain modulation pathways. In patients with persisting pain under bDMARD, diffuse noxious inhibitory controls are not as efficient as patient without residual pain.Reference[1]Trouvin AP, Simunek A, Coste J, Medkour T, Carvès S, Bouhassira D, Perrot S. Mechanisms of chronic pain in inflammatory rheumatism: the role of descending modulation. Pain. 2022 Aug 3. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002745.Figure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

POSSIBLE ROLE OF PEPTIDE EPITOPES OF COVID-19 BNT-162B2 MRNA VACCINE IN FOMENTING AUTOIMMUNITY: AN IN SILICO ANALYSIS

BackgroundFollowing the launch of the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there have been increased reports of autoimmune diseases developing de novo following vaccination. These cases include rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune hepatitis, immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, and connective tissue diseases. Nevertheless, COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with autoimmune diseases and are strongly recommended.ObjectivesThe aim of this in silico analysis is to investigate the presence of protein epitopes encoded by the BNT-162b2 mRNA vaccine, one of the most commonly administered COVID-19 vaccines, that could elicit an aberrant adaptive immune response in predisposed individuals.MethodsThe FASTA sequence of the protein encoded by the BNT-162b2 vaccine was retrieved from http://genome.ucsc.edu and used as a key input to the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (www.iedb.org). Linear peptides with 90% BLAST homology were selected, and T-cell, B-cell, and MHC ligand assays without MHC restriction were searched and evaluated. HLA-disease associations were screened on the HLA-SPREAD platform (https://hla-spread.igib.res.in) by selecting only positive markers.ResultsA total of 183 epitopes were found, corresponding to 178 SARS-CoV-2 and 5 SARS-CoV spike epitopes, respectively. Results were obtained from 22 T-cell assays, 398 B-cell assays, and 2 MHC ligand assays. Complementary receptors included 1080 T-cell receptors and 0 B-cell receptors.Specifically, the IEDB_epitope:1329790 (NATNVVIKVCEFQFCNDPFLGVYY) was shown to bind to HLA-DRB1*15:02 and HLA-DRB1*15:03 alleles, whereas the IEDB_epitope:1392457 (TKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPT) was reported to bind to HLA-DRB1*07:01, HLA-DRB1*03:01, HLA-DRB3*01:01, and HLA-DRB4*01:01 alleles. The HLA alleles detected were found to be positively associated with various immunological disorders (Table 1).Table 1.MHC-restricted epitopes of the BNT-162b2 vaccine and potentially associated immunological conditionsEpitopeAssayMHC moleculeAssociated disease (population)NATNVVIKVCEFQFCNDPFLGVYY + OX(C10)cellular MHC/mass spectrometry ligand presentationHLA-DRB1*15:02Takayasu arteritis (Japanese) Arthritis (Taiwanese) Scleroderma (Japanese) Colitis (Japanese)HLA-DRB1*15:03Systemic lupus erythematosus (Mexican American)TKCTLKSFTVEKGIYQTSNFRVQPT + SCM(K2)as aboveHLA-DRB1*07:01Allergy, hypersensitivity (Caucasian)HLA-DRB1*03:01Type 1 diabetes (African) Sarcoidosis, good prognosis (Finnish)HLA-DRB3*01:01Graves' disease (Caucasian) Thymoma (Caucasian) Sarcoidosis (Scandinavian) Autoimmune hepatitis (Caucasian)HLA-DRB4*01:01Vitiligo (Saudi Arabian)ConclusionSimilar to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the protein product of the BNT-162b2 mRNA vaccine contains immunogenic epitopes that may trigger autoimmune phenomena in predisposed individuals. Genotyping for HLA alleles may help identify at-risk individuals. However, further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and potential clinical implications.References[1]Vita R, Mahajan S, Overton JA et al. The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB): 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D339-D343. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1006.[2]Dholakia D, Kalra A, Misir BR et al. HLA-SPREAD: a natural language processing based resource for curating HLA association from PubMed s. BMC Genomics 23, 10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-08239-0[3]Parker R, Partridge T, Wormald C et al. Mapping the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein-derived peptidome presented by HLA class II on dendritic cells. Cell Rep. 2021 May 25;35(8):109179. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109179.[4]Knierman MD, Lannan MB, Spindler LJ et al. The Human Leukocyte Antigen Class II Immunopeptidome of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein. Cell Rep. 2020 Dec 1;33(9):108454. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108454.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

A prolonged pandemic impacts the mental health of orthopaedic patients

Background and aimsMajority of elective orthopaedic operations are postponed to accommodate the reallocation of healthcare resources to combat the pandemic. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the mental state of orthopaedic patients amidst limited orthopaedic management options. The secondary aim of this paper is to identify areas of significant stressors and to provide avenues for improvements.MethodsA survey was administered on patients in outpatient clinics within a tertiary institution from 31 May to 13 June 2021 where government interventions prevented elective orthopaedic surgeries from being performed. Individuals' fatigue level were assessed with Chalder fatigue scale (CFS) and they were surveyed on their areas of stressors.ResultsA total of 160 orthopaedic patients (67 males and 93 females) were surveyed with an average age of 48.3 years old (range 17-88). 65 out of 160 (40.6%) were deemed to be severely fatigued (CFS > 4) with a higher prevalence amongst females than males (47.3% vs 31.3% respectively.) The top three areas identified as stressors included transmitting to family/friends, travel restrictions/quarantine orders and limitation on recreational/social activities (67.5%, 45.6% and 57.5% respectively). 25.6% of the patients indicated that the increased difficulty in accessing healthcare was a stress factor.Discussion and conclusionThere is a high proportion of severe fatigue amongst orthopaedic patients. Combined with postponement of orthopaedic care and treatment, the detrimental effects of a prolong pandemic can be more pronounced on orthopaedic patients. Identified areas of stressors provide avenues for improvements to safeguard the mental health of orthopaedic patients.

INTAKE OF ACETAMINOPHEN SUPPRESSES ANTIVIRAL HUMORAL IMMUNE RESPONSES IN PATIENTS WITH RA FOLLOWING VACCINATION WITH ANTI SARS-CoV-2 mRNA BASED VACCINES

BackgroundAcetaminophen (APAP = paracetamol) may potentially impact vaccine-associated immune responses as the intake of APAP has been associated with a worse outcome in tumor patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors.[1]Different DMARD regimen have been shown to impair the humoral immune response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis but the effect of paracetamol has not been explored thus far.ObjectivesTo analyse whether the intake of APAP may interfere with antiviral humoral immune responses following two doses of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA based vaccine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on DMARD therapy.MethodsThe RECOVER trial (Rheumatoid Covid-19 Vaccine Immune Response) was a non-randomised, prospective observational control group trial and enrolled 77 RA patients on DMARD therapy and 21 healthy controls (HC). We performed a posthoc analysis of blood samples taken before the first vaccine dose (T0), two (T1) and three (T2) weeks after the first and second vaccine dose, and at 12 (T3) weeks. APAP intake was measured using ELISA. The antibody response (anti-S) to the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein was measured with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) test. The neutralizing activity NT50 at week 12 was assessed using an HIV-based pseudovirus neutralization assay against Wuhan-Hu-1.ResultsBaseline characteristics of participants are detailed in Table 1. The immunogenicity analyses were based on 73 RA patients after exclusion of 4 patients with previously unnoticed SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive for anti-nucleoprotein at baseline). APAP was detected in serum samples from 34/73 (25%) RA patients and in 7/21 (33%) HC (least at one timepoint T0, T1 and/or T2). APAP intake in HC did not affect levels of anti-S at any timepoint and all HC developed potent neutralizing activity (NT50 ≥ 250) at week 12. RA patients, who tested positive for APAP at T1, showed comparable anti-S levels at T1, T2 and T3 compared to RA patients not exposed to APAP. The detection of APAP at T2 corresponded to lower anti-S levels at T2 (Figure 1 A, B). The detection of APAP at T2 was associated with a significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity at week 12 compared to patients without perivaccination APAP exposure (p =0.04) (Figure 1 C).ConclusionA decrease of antiviral humoral immune responses was observed in RA patients (but not in HC) who were exposed to APAP at the time of the second mRNA vaccine dose compared to patients in whom APAP was not detected. Our data suggest that the use of paracetamol within the time period around vaccination may impair vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with an already higher risk for blunted immune responses.Reference[1]Bessede A et al. Ann Oncol 2022;33: 909-915Table 1.Baseline characteristics: RA patients and HC with/without APAP exposureRA APAP – n = 37RA APAP + n = 36p-valueHC APAP – n = 8HC APAP + n = 13p-valueAge (yrs), mean (± SD)62 (13)67 (10)0.07 (NS)45 (12)44 (14)0.90 (NS)Female sex, n (%)24 (65)19 (53)0.29 (NS)2 (25)5 (38)0.53 (NS)Vaccination type/schedulemRNA-1273, n (%)4 (11)8 (22.2)0.19 (NS)0 (0)0 (0)BNT162b2, n (%)33 (89)28 (77.8)0.19 (NS)8 (100)13 (100)RA disease characteristicsACPA ± RF, n (%)17/37 (46)19/36 (53)0.56 (NS)NANANARA disease duration (yrs ± SD)9.2 (9.8)10.2 (8.1)0.67 (NS)NANANADMARD therapycsDMARD-mono, n (%)13/37 (35)9/36 (25)0.35 (NS)NANANAbDMARD-mono/combo, n (%)16/37 (43)16/36 (44)0.92 (NS)NANANAtsDMARDs-mono/combo, n (%)8/37 (22)11/36 (31)0.38 (NS)NANANAPrednisone, n (%)15/37 (41)12/36 (33.3)0.52 (NS)NANANAMean daily dose prednisone (mg ± SD)4.6 ± 1.13.9 ± 2.30.39 (NS)NANANA* APAP = acetaminophenFigure 1.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ADHERENCE TO ANTI TNF-Α THERAPY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

BackgroundRheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients are effectively treated with anti-TNF-α therapy. However, pharmacological non-adherence limits the achievement of the therapeutic objective. This is a multifactorial behavior where factors such as the route of administration, frequency, tolerance, perception of improvement, polypharmacy and social factors are involved [1,2].ObjectivesTo explore the factors associated with non-adherence to anti TNF-α in RA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis is a cohort of RA patients treated with anti TNF-α in Medicarte SAS, a Colombian center for Immune-Mediated Diseases, between January to December 2021. The program implements strategies such as pharmacotherapeutic support, informed dispensing, phone calls, text messages and home care services to increase adherence. Adherence was defined as dispensing at least 10/12 (>0.80) prescribed monthly doses for 1 year. Sociodemographic characteristics, time in the program, DAS28-CRP, HAQ and treatment were included as exposure variables. For continuous variables, median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with logistic regression were calculated, and a p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.Results565 patients were included, 85.8% (n=485) were women, median age 56 years (IQR: 49-65), disease evolution time 13.7 years (IQR: 7.7-20.8), 51% (n=288) had been in the program for more than 3 years, the median time in treatment with anti TNF-α was 3 years (IQR: 1-3) and DAS-28-CRP 2.4 (IQR: 1.6-3.4). The most frequently anti TNF-α prescribed was etanercept 46.0% (n=260), followed by adalimumab 23% (n=130), subcutaneous golimumab 13.3% (n=75), certolizumab 11.0% (n=62) and intravenous golimumab 6.7% (n=38). At the admission, 18.2% (n=103) of the patients had high activity, 38.6% (n=218) mild activity, 9.2% (n=52) low activity and 34% (n=192) were in remission. At the end of follow-up, 6.4% (n=36) of patients had high activity, 18.2% (n=103) mild activity, 14.3% (n= 81) low activity and 61.1% (n= 345) were in remission. The 51.5% (n=291) did not have pharmacological adherence. The use of etanercept (AOR 0.36 CI95% 0.23- 0.58, p < 0.001) and adequate functionality measured through HAQ (AOR 0.64 CI95% 0.42- 0.97, p < 0.04) were associated with a lower risk of non-adherence. Higher DAS28-CRP at the end of follow up was associated with non-adherence (AOR 1.29 CI95% 1.12 - 1.48, p < 0.001).ConclusionDuring COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of strategies in the home care patient program guaranteed adherence close to 50% in our cohort. Higher values of DAS28-CRP were associated with non-adherence, whilst etanercept use and a normal HAQ value were associated with a higher probability of adherence.References[1]Marengo MF, Suarez-Almazor ME. Improving treatment adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: what are the options? Int J Clin Rheumtol. 2015 Oct 1;10(5):345-356.[2]Smolen JS, Gladman D, McNeil HP, Mease PJ, Sieper J, Hojnik M, et al. Predicting adherence to therapy in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis: a large cross-sectional study. RMD Open. 2019 Jan 11;5(1):e000585.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsWilmer Gerardo Rojas Zuleta Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Jannsen Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli lilly, Mario Barbosa: None declared, Oscar Jair Felipe Díaz Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Jannsen Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli lilly, Adelis Enrique Pantoja Marquez: None declared, Jeixa Canizales: None declared, Carolina Becerra-Arias: None declared, Jorge Hernando Donado Gómez: None declared, Natalia Duque Zapata: None declared.

A comprehensive review on technological advances in alternate drug discovery process:Drug repurposing

The traditional de novo drug discovery is time consuming, costly and in some instances the drugs will fail to treat the disease which result in a huge loss to the organization. Drug repurposing is an alternative drug discovery process to overcome the limitations of the De novo drug discovery process. Ithelps for the identification of drugs to the rare diseases as well as in the pandemic situationwithin short span of time in a cost-effective way. The underlying principle of drug repurposing is that most of the drugs identified on a primary purpose have shown to treat other diseases also. One such example is Tocilizumab is primarily used for rheumatoid arthritis and it is repurposed to treat cancer and COVID-19. At present, nearly30% of the FDA approved drugs to treat various diseases are repurposed drugs. The drug repurposing is either drug-centric or disease centric and can be studied by using both experimental and in silico studies. The in silico repurpose drug discovery process is more efficient as it screens thousands of compounds from the diverse libraries within few days by various computational methods like Virtual screening, Docking, MD simulations,Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), etc. with certain limitations.These limitationscan be addressed by effective integration of advanced technologies to identify a novel multi-purpose drug.Copyright © 2023, Association of Biotechnology and Pharmacy. All rights reserved.

IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH A WORSE OUTCOME -EXITUS- IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND SEVERE INFECTION

BackgroundInfections constitute an important and frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic inflammatory and systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), this increased risk has been related to the immune system alterations inherent to the disease, the drugs used to control it (corticosteroids, DMARDs and immunosuppressants) and associated comorbidities. Most studies focus on the search for factors associated with the development of infections but do not explore the worst outcome: patient failure.ObjectivesTo identify factors that help to predict an unfavorable outcome (exitus) after a severe infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsThis study was a retrospective case-control study at a single institution over a 10-year period. Patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis with hospital admission for infection from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019 (pre-pandemic SARS-COV-2) were selected. The main variable was exitus due to the infectious episode. We collected: age, sex, time of evolution of RA, previous treatment and at the time of admission, number of admissions for infection, location of the infection, comorbidities, and other associated serious diseases. The statistics included a descriptive analysis of the different variables (expressed as median and interquartile range -IR- for quantitative variables and percentages for qualitative variables), and the association study using the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for qualitative variables, and t-student or Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis for quantitative variables.ResultsWe obtained 152 patients (71.7% female, 28.3% male), with a total of 214 episodes of admission for infection (115 patients with 1 episode (75.7%), 25 (16.4%) with 2 episodes, 6 being the maximum number of episodes recorded). The median age at admission was 77 years, and the median time of RA evolution was 8 years (IR 4-16). The location of the infection responsible for admission was mainly respiratory and urinary. Forty-eight patients died in the episode (31.6% of the sample, 15 males and 33 females, median age 81.5 years (IR 69.5-86.5)). Comparing the patients with unfavorable outcomes (exitus) with the rest, we only found a statistically significant difference in the number of previous admissions (p=0.011), and in the coexistence of some other serious disease (exitus 85.4%, rest 61.5% p=0.003). There were no differences by sex, age, time of RA evolution, drugs, location of the infection, or comorbidities.ConclusionA history of hospital admission due to infection, and having another serious disease, are factors associated with an unfavorable outcome (exitus) in patients with RA admitted for an infectious process.References[1] Listing J, Gerhold K, Zink A. The risk of infections associated with rheumatoid arthritis, with its comorbidity and treatment. Rheumatology 2013;52(1):53-61.[2] George MD, Baker JF, Winthrop K, Hsu JY, Wu Q, Chen L, et al. Risk for serious infection with low-dose glucocorticoids in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(11):870-8.[3] Singh JA, Cameron C, Noorbaloochi S, Cullis T, Tucker M, Christensen R, et al. Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2015;386(9990):258-65.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

SAFETY OF BIVALENT SARS-COV-2 VACCINES AS A SECOND BOOSTER DOSE IN ARTHRITIS PATIENTS ON IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE THERAPIES

BackgroundSafety and efficacy of updated bivalent vaccines, containing both the original vaccine variant of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and either Omicron variants BA.1 or BA.4/5, are of particular interest in arthritis patients on immunosuppressive therapies. With the continuous emergence of new viral variants, it is important to evaluate whether updated vaccines induce more adverse events in this patient group.ObjectivesTo examine if a second booster dose with updated bivalent vaccine increases the risk of adverse events, compared to the first booster dose with monovalent vaccines.MethodsThe prospective Nor-vaC study investigates vaccine responses in patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressive therapies (1). The present analyses included arthritis patients who received two booster doses. Patients received available vaccines according to the Norwegian vaccination program. The current recommendation in the Norwegian arthritis population is a three-dose primary vaccination series followed by two booster doses. Adverse events following vaccines doses were self-reported through questionnaires. Adverse events following the first (monovalent) and second (bivalent) booster were compared with McNemar's test.ResultsBetween 7th of July 2021 and 6th of December 2022 a total of 243 arthritis patients (127 rheumatoid arthritis, 65 psoriatic arthritis, 51 spondyloarthritis) on immunosuppressive therapies (Table 1) received a first, monovalent (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) and a second, bivalent booster dose (BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1), mRNA-1273.214, BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)). Adverse events were recorded within 2 weeks in all patients (Figure 1). In total, 45 vs 49 (19% vs 20 %) patients reported any adverse event after a second, bivalent booster dose, compared to the first, monovalent booster, respectively. There was no significant difference in adverse events overall (p= 0.57). The most common adverse events after the second booster were pain at injection site (12 %), flu-like symptoms (9 %) and headache (6 %). No new safety signals emerged. A total of 15 (6 %) patients reported a disease flare after receiving the second, bivalent booster, compared to 21 (8 %) after the first, monovalent booster.ConclusionThere was no difference in adverse events between the monovalent, first booster, and the bivalent, second booster, indicating that bivalent vaccines are safe in this patient group.Reference[1]Syversen S.W. et al Arthritis Rheumatol 2022Table 1.Demographic characteristics and immunosuppressive medication in patients receiving a 1st monovalent and a 2nd bivalent booster dose.CharacteristicsPatients, n (%)Total243Age (years), median (IQR)61 (52-67)Female152 (63)Immunosuppressive medicationTNFi monoa75 (31)TNFi comboa+b72 (30)Methotrexate62 (26)Rituximab9 (4)IL-inhibitorsc6 (2)JAK-inhibitorsd11 (5)Othere8 (3)1st boosterBNT162b2106 (44)mRNA-1273137 (56)2nd boosterBNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.1)65 (25)BNT162b2 (WT/OMI BA.4/BA.5)120 (47)mRNA-1273.214 (WT/OMI BA.1)58 (23)Results in n (%) unless otherwise specified.aTumor necrosis factor inhibitors: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol.bCombination therapy: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.cInterleukin inhibitors: tocilizumab, secukinumab.dJanus kinase inhibitors: filgotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, tofacitinib.eOther: abatacept, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, azathioprine.Figure 1.Adverse events after bivalent vaccine as a 2nd booster dose compared to a monovalent vaccine as a 1st booster dose.[Figure omitted. See PDF]AcknowledgementsWe thank the patients and health-care workers who have participated in the Norwegian study of vaccine response to COVID-19. We thank the patient representatives in the study group, Kristin Isabella Kirkengen Espe and Roger Thoresen. We thank all study personnel, laboratory personnel, and other staff involved at the clinical departments involved, particularly Synnøve Aure, Margareth Sveinsson, May Britt Solem, Elisabeth Røssum-Haaland, and Kjetil Bergsmark.Disclosure of InterestsHilde Ørbo: None declared, Ingrid Jyssum: None declared, Anne Therese Tveter: None declared, Ingrid E. Christensen: None declared, Joseph Sexton: None declared, Kristin Hammersbøen Bjørlykke Speakers bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Grete B. Kro: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celltrion, Egis, Evapharma, Ewopharma, Hikma, Oktal, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ludvig A. Munthe Speakers bureau: Novartis, Cellgene, Gunnveig Grodeland Speakers bureau: Bayer, Sanofi, ThermoFisher, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Siri Mjaaland: None declared, John Torgils Vaage: None declared, Espen A Haavardsholm Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Kristin Kaasen Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Silje Watterdal Syversen: None declared, Guro Løvik Goll Speakers bureau: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie/Abbott, Galapagos, Pfizer, UCB.

REFERRAL BEHAVIOUR OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS TO RHEUMATOLOGY CLINIC IN MALAYSIA

BackgroundThe workload at rheumatology clinics have been growing relentlessly and an audit on new.referrals helps to identify referral behaviour of primary care doctors and improvement can be done by providing further training.ObjectivesTo audit on new referral cases to rheumatology clinic from 2020-2022 and to identify new cases with misdiagnosis for future training purpose.MethodsThis was a retrospective study. The medical records of all new referral to rheumatology clinic Hospital Sultan Ismail and Hospital Pakar Sultanah Fatimah from 1st January 2020 to 31th November 2022 were reviewed. The referral diagnosis and final diagnosis were identified and analysed.ResultsThere were total of 927 new cases referral throughout the 35 months during Covid-19pandemic. Majority of them were diagnosed to have rheumatoid arthritis (217/927)followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (190/927), psoriatic arthritis (147/927),gout (62/927), osteoarthritis (58/927), systemic sclerosis (25/927), ankylosing spondylitis (25/927), soft tissue rheumatism (24/927), Sjogren syndrome (24/927),mixed connective tissue disease (14/927), vasculitis (11/927), fibromyalgia (10/927),polymyositis (7/927) and miscellaneous (39/927).45 out of the new cases were diagnosed as unlikely rheumatic diseases. There were 29pending cases awaiting final diagnosis.212 of the referrals were identified as misdiagnosis with the highest as nodal osteoarthritis.(55/212) followed by unlikely rheumatic disease (43/212), soft tissue rheumatism (24/212),psoriatic arthritis (20/212), Sjogren syndrome (14/212), gout (8/212), rheumatoid arthritis (7/212), fibromyalgia (6/212), systemic lupus erythematosus (5/212), ankylosing spondylitis (4/212), mixed connective tissue disease (3/212), systemic sclerosis (2/212), polymyositis (2/212) and others (19/212): diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis, hypermobility syndrome, RS3PE syndrome, idiopathic uveitis, graft versus host disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, antiphospholipid syndrome, hypothyroidism, post streptococcal arthritis, prolapsed intervertebral disc, cerebrovascular disease, traumatic sternoclavicular joint subluxation, ledderhose disease, paraspinal muscle spasm and viral myalgia).ConclusionNodal osteoarthritis and soft tissue rheumatism can be great mimicker for inflammatory.arthritis and if wrongly diagnosed will lead to unnecessary anxiety or wrong treatment. More training is needed to improve clinical skills amongst primary care doctors.ReferencesNA.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

COVID-19 OUTCOME IN AN ITALIAN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS COHORT

BackgroundIt is known that rheumatologic patients often present a course of COVID-19 similar to that of the general population. Some factors are linked to a worse COVID-19 outcome, such as moderate glucocorticoid (GC) dose, high body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities.ObjectivesTo describe the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in terms of symptoms, therapy and need for hospitalization compared to a control group. Also, to evaluate the variation in disease activity before and after COVID-19.MethodsIn this monocentric prospective study, we recruited consecutive adult patients with RA classified according to ACR-EULAR 2010 criteria who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 through molecular or rapid antigen swab tests between September 2020 and December 2022. Demographic and clinical data, including age, BMI, smoking habit, comorbidities, treatment at the diagnosis of COVID-19, duration of COVID-19, symptoms related to the infection and therapy required, together with the vaccination status were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. We compared DAS28-CRP before the infection and at the first visit after the resolution. As controls (Cs), individuals with COVID-19 but with no referred diagnosis of rheumatic/autoimmune disease were recruited.ResultsWe enrolled 111 patients affected by RA (males 15%, median age 56 years, IQR 25) and 89 Cs (males 44%, median age 47 years, IQR 43), whose demographic and clinical characteristics are reported in Table 1. The median RA disease duration was 108 months (IQR 201). At the COVID-19 diagnosis, 62 patients (56%) were assuming csDMARDs, 67 (60%) bDMARDs, and 18 (16%) GC with a median prednisone equivalent dose of 4 mg/day (IQR 1). DAS28-CRP was available for 62 patients, with a median value of 1.67 (IQR 2.71);42 patients (60%) were in remission (Figure 1). Before developing COVID-19, only 35 (32%) RA patients and 42 (47%) Cs had completed the vaccinal cycle, which was performed by mRNA vaccine in all the patients and 87% of Cs. The median COVID-19 duration was 18 days (IQR 18) for RA patients and 14 days (IQR 13.5) for Cs (p>0.7). Cs reported a significantly higher frequency of constitutional symptoms (headache and asthenia) compared to RA patients (p<0.00001). When hospitalization was required, RA patients received heparin more frequently than Cs (p<0.039). Once COVID-19 was resolved, RA patients were evaluated after a median of 2 months (IQR 2). DAS28-CRP was available for 68 patients, with a median value of 1.61 (IQR 1.77);42 patients (68%) were in remission (Figure 1).No differences in terms of COVID-19 duration, clinical manifestations, and therapy emerged comparing RA patients in remission (40;58%) with patients with the active disease before COVID-19 (29;42%). Also, in vaccinated subjects, the outcome of COVID-19 was similar in RA patients and Cs, irrespective of RA activity.ConclusionCOVID-19's impact on patients with RA was not significantly different from the general population, even for patients with active RA. Patients did not suffer from reactivation of RA because of COVID-19. In our opinion, these positive results could be ascribed to the massive vaccination campaign.References[1]Conway R et al, Ir J Med Sci. 2023[2]Andersen KM et al, Lancet Rheumatol. 2022Table 1.Clinical characteristics, COVID-19 symptoms, and therapy of the two groups. Values in brackets are expressed as percentages unless specified. Musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.Rheumatoid arthritis N=111Controls N=89P value*ACTIVE SMOKERS13 (12)20 (22)BMI (IQR)24 (7)23(6)COMORBIDITIES64 (58)44 (49)Cardiovascular26 (23)18 (20)Endocrine24 (22)14 (16)Musculoskeletal11 (10)6 (7)Neoplastic12 (11)3 (3)CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS96 (86)74 (83)Fever50 (45)47 (53)Constitutional symptoms52 (47)75 (84)p <0.00001Respiratory symptoms100 (90)86 (97)Gastrointestinal symptoms12 (11)13 (15)THERAPY88 (79)74 (67)NSAIDs41 (37)31 (35)Glucocorticoids24 (22)21 (30)Antibiotics33 (30)27 (24)Oxygen6 (5)5 (6)Heparin8 (7)0 (0)p <0.039HOSPITALIZATION10 (9)6 (9)*Where not indi ated, p value >0.5Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

CLINICAL COURSE IN COVID 19 DISEASE IN IMMUNOSUPRESSED PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES

BackgroundPatients with pre-existing rheumatic diseases may be exacerbated during SARS-CoV-2 infection, or may develop new autoimmune features. Furthermore, immunosuppressive agents used to treat autoimmunity-inflammation as well as comorbidities can also affect the disease outcome.ObjectivesTo evaluate the outcome of rheumatic diseases after Covid 19 infection in patients diagnosed with rheumatic diseases, under various immunosuppressive treatment, as well as the effects of vaccines against Covid or antiviral treatment in this sensitive population group.MethodsDuring the pandemic, 1493 patients with autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease who were continuously followed up in two tertiaries hospitals in northern and northwestern Greece were included in the current study. The patients were compared with 769 controls after adjustment for age, sex, weight, vaccination status and comorbidities. Of the 1493 patients, 648 had rheumatoid arthritis, 282 psoriatic arthritis, 173 ankylosing spondylitis, 122 systemic lupus erythematosus, 98 Sjogren's syndrome, 43 polymyalgia rheumatica, 34 mixed connective tissue disease or overlapping syndromes, 31 vasculitis, 27 systemic sclerosis, 18 myositis, 10 Behcet syndrome, 5 primary antiphospholipid syndrome and 2 had Familial Mediterranean Fever. The vast majority of patients and controls were fully vaccinated (82%) and 397 patients received antiviral treatment, 94% of them were fully vaccinated.ResultsCovid 19 disease in vaccinated patients with rheumatic diseases was shown to perform the same or about the same as those in the control group after adjustment for risk factors for severe disease. 19 of our patients required admission in the intensive care unit (62% full vaccinated) while a total of 12 died (66% non vaccinated). Major risk factors for severe disease were previous respiratory failure, chronic renal impairment, obesity, and failure to receive antiviral therapy. It was also shown that infection with Covid led to an exacerbation or induction of autoimmune disorders in 25 of the participants.ConclusionIn this large cohort, Covid 19 disease was shown to affect patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases the same or approximately the same way as the general population if they are fully vaccinated and if they start timely antiviral treatment where indicated. Further research and monitoring of the results after the multiple mutations of the virus is advisable.ReferencesNone.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

EVALUATION OF TELENURSING FOLLOW-UP IN A COHORT OF STABLE/LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIDES: A FEASIBILITY STUDY

BackgroundPeriodic follow-up (FU) is necessary for patients with Rheumatic Diseases (RDs). In the case of a stable clinical condition or low disease activity, FU can be carried out also by rheumatology nurses (RNs). Recent studies focusing on FUs led by RNs either in Rheumatology Clinics and with Telenursing (TN), showed promising results in terms of outcomes, cost reduction and users' satisfaction.ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a Telenursing FU in a Rheumatology Centre in Florence, Italy.MethodsIn this pilot study, patients with stable inflammatory arthritis or low disease activity were contacted, after their first visit, through TN (T0) and then assessed during the following in-person visit (V12) by RNs for treatment adherence, for pain, for mental and physical health, for workability, for perception of disease activity and satisfaction concerning the TN service.ResultsOut of 27 interviewed patients, 59.3% (n=16/27) was affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), 18.5% (n=5/27) by Spondyloarthritis (AS), 14.8% (n=4/27) by Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and 7.4% (n=2/27) by Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. The mean age was 57.5±13.1 (M± DS) years and the treatment adherence level was optimal. 11.1% (n=3/27) of patients was referred for medical consultation because of the urgent clinical situation assessed by the RNs according to the clinical multidisciplinary checklist. After specialist consultation, 1 patient was revalued in presence for a transient ischemic attack;1 patient was contacted by the rheumatologist following independent discontinuation of methotrexate therapy;1 patient was redirected to urgent dermatology consultation because of a suspected cutaneous drug reaction.During the TN period (12 months), 33.3% (n=9/27) of the patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection and 11.1% (n=3/27) contracted urinary or upper respiratory tract infections.RA patients showed a mean Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease-RAID score of 2.4 at T0 and 2.5 at V12 (Range 0-10);AS patients showed a mean Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society-ASAS score of 0.3 in both periods and PsA showed a mean Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease-PSAID score of 0.7 and 0.8 at T0 and V12, respectively. Among RA, AS and PsA patients, as a pain score of 3 was recorded in both periods.In order to attend the in-person FU visit, 68.4% (n=13/19) of the patients took work leave. 37% (n=10/27) of them waited 40.9±18.6 minutes at V12 control. The average distance between the Rheumatology Centre and patients' home was 29.3±25.6 km. 15.4% (n=5/13) of the respondents did not own a car and 23.1% (n=3/13) was accompanied to visit by their caregiver.All the included patients expressed high satisfaction for the TN service, corresponding to 5 point Likert scale.ConclusionThe data show that TN FU is a valuable model for maintaining an adequate level of therapeutic adherence, reducing the travel time and working day loss, intercepting remotely clinical issues, as well as registering a high level of user acceptance and satisfaction. Further studies on larger samples are needed to confirm our findings.References[1] Bech B et al (2020) 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the role of the nurse in the management of chronic inflammatory arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases;79:61-68. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215458.[2] Alcazar B, Ambrosio L. (2019) Tele-nursing in patients with chronic illness: a systematic review. An Sist Sanit Navar;42(2):187-197. doi: 10.23938/ASSN.0645.[3] Larsson I et al. (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a nurse-led rheumatology clinic for monitoring biological therapy. Journal of Advanced Nursing;70(1), 164–175., 2013 doi:10.1111/jan.12183Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

EVALUATION OF PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH REMOTE SELF-INJECTION TRAINING: A SINGLE-CENTRE PATIENT-REPORTED SURVEY

BackgroundSubcutaneous self-injection of methotrexate (SC MTX) is used for the treatment of several inflammatory diseases. All newly initiated patients should be educated and trained in the proper injection technique by their healthcare provider (HCP), with the first injection performed under medical supervision. This training has typically been conducted during face-to-face consultations, however since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic it has been necessary to conduct training remotely due to the cancellation of clinics.ObjectivesTo understand patient-reported experiences and satisfaction with remote SC MTX self-injection training.MethodsA cross-sectional electronic survey was administered between 11 October 2022 and 30 November 2022 to patients at Southern Health and Social Care Trust who had recently been trained via telephone or video conference [VC] on how to self-inject methotrexate using a pre-filled, auto-injector pen. Patients were aged ≥18 with a range of arthritis types, including rheumatoid, psoriatic, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic and chronic reactive inflammatory arthritis. Remote training was delivered by the patient's nurse as per routine practice (independently of this survey). Patients were sent a patient information pack (PIP) prior to the training consultation. During the training, the nurse discussed the process of injecting with the auto-injector pen before virtually supervising the first injection.The survey consisted of 14 questions;topics included experiences and satisfaction with preparation for the HCP appointment, the training consultation itself and post-training experiences and preferences. The responses were analysed descriptively on an item-by-item basis.ResultsIn total 73 patients completed the survey;77% (n=56/73) were female, and 96% (n=70/73) had no prior experience with a SC MTX auto-injector pen. The training was completed by telephone for 92% (n=67/73) of patients and by VC for 8% (n=6/73). 99% (n=72/73) received a PIP in advance of their training consultation and 92% (n=67/73) received this by post. 67% (n=49/73) of patients strongly agreed and 26% (n=19/73) agreed that they felt prepared for the training after receiving the PIP;78% (n=57/73) of patients strongly agreed and 22% (n=16/73) agreed that it was easy to read and understand, whilst 52% (n=38/73) strongly agreed and 32% (n=23/73) agreed that the PIP was helpful and did not require additional instructions before the appointment. 84% (n=61/73) took 15 minutes or less to complete the training with their HCP. None of the participants felt confused or did not understand the training instructions from their HCP, 78% (n=57/73) strongly agreed and 19% (n=14/73) agreed that the remote training was helpful and made them feel more confident to use the injector pen on their own and 97% (n=71/73) did not need to contact their HCP for more training or advice following their appointment. When asked about the main advantages of remote training, 32% (n=23/73) agreed it was more convenient, 25% (n=18/73) agreed that it was time saving and 30% (n=22/73) agreed that not having to attend the hospital was beneficial. 85% (n=62/73) strongly agreed and 14% (n=10/73) agreed that they were satisfied with the remote training provided and 82% (n=60/73) strongly agreed and 18% (n=13/73) agreed that they would recommend the remote training to another patient.ConclusionThese findings provide new insight into patients' experiences with self-injection training when delivered remotely by their HCP. The patient information pack and training consultation were well received as most patients found it helpful, convenient and time saving.References:NIL.AcknowledgementsThis survey was funded by Nordic Pharma. Medical writing support was provided by Angie Bonsu of Open Health and funded by Nordic Pharma.Disclosure of InterestsShannon McCourt Grant/research support from: Nordic Pharma, Mano Andiappan Employee of: Open Health who were paid by Nordic Pharma to support the work described in the .

COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS IN THE VINSCHGAU VALLEY IN SOUTH TYROL

BackgroundFor patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases, the Covid-19 pandemic carried some implications in addition to those faced by the general population. In particular, the question whether these patients are at increased risk of contracting Covid-19 or have an unfavourable disease course has been and is a matter of concern.In autumn 2020, the population of the Vinschgau valley in South Tyrol, northern Italy was still largely spared from infection with SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, incidence of the disease in the upcoming winter was anticipated to be high.ObjectivesThis prospective observational study aimed at characterizing Covid-19 infections in a population of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) residing in the Vinschgau valley. The study was conceived as companion project to an analogously designed prospective cohort study in the general population of the Vinschgau valley, the CHRIS Covid-19 study.MethodsBetween september and december 2020, IA patients (i.e. previously diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA] or peripheral spondyloarthritis [SpA]) residing in the Vinschgau valley (n=394 based on national healthcare system database) were contacted. Those who consented to participate in the study underwent a clinical baseline visit including TJC, SJC, VAS and assessment of RAID, PsAID9 or BASDAI (range 0-10, respectively). In addition, a Covid-19 screening questionnaire was administered. Then, active and/or past infection with SARS-CoV-2 were determined by nasopharyneal swab (PCR) and serum antibody test. In positively tested subjects, Covid-19 disease severity was graded according to WHO criteria (range 0-8, with 0 = no evidence of infection and 8 = death). Patients were followed-up with regular telephone interviews including Covid-19 screening questionnaire and RAID/PsAID/BASDAI for up to 12 months.Results111 patients (72 RA, 29 PsA, 10 SpA) were enrolled (see Table 1 for demographics and comorbidities).A total number of 19 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in 17 patients (10 RA, 7 PsA) were observed. Mean ± standard deviation 7-day incidence (incident cases/study population) was 0.003 ± 0.007.Fatigue, fever, anosmia and sore throat (present in 57.9%, 47.4%, 42.1% and 36.8% of infections, respectively) were the most frequent symptoms. Median (min-max) disease severity was 2 [1-4]. Two infections led to hospitalization, in one case oxygen supply was necessary. Four infections were asymptomatic (Figure 1).One patient died during follow-up due to pre-existing non-small cell lung cancer.Median absolute difference between post- and pre-infection disease activity was 0.4 and -0.8 for RAID and PsAID, respectively (both markedly below the minimal clinically important difference of 3 and 3.6 points, respectively).ConclusionIncidence of Covid-19 in the analysed cohort of patients with IA was low. Symptoms and comorbidities of SARS-CoV-2-positive IA patients reflected those known from the general population. Covid-19 seemed to have no relevant impact on IA disease activity. Comparison of these preliminary data with those of the general population is planned.Figure 1.Spectrum of clinical symptoms reported by study patients during infection with SARS-CoV-2[Figure omitted. See PDF]Table 1.Demographic data and selected comorbidities of study patients. Age and body mass index (BMI) are given in means ± standard deviation, female sex and comorbidities are given in n (% of column totals).TotalSARS-CoV-2 positiveHospitalized111172Age at inclusion (years)59.7 ± 9.462.5 ± 10.076.3 ± 9.0BMI at inclusion (kg/m2)27.9 ± 17.126.1 ± 3.330.5 ± 1.6Female sex76 (68.5)10 (58.8)1 (50)Active smokers22 (19.8)1 (5.9)0 (0)Arterial hypertension44 (39.6)8 (47.1)2 (50)Diabetes mellitus4 (3.6)1 (5.9)1 (50)Hyperlipidemia27 (24.3)2 (11.8)1 (50)Cardiac arrhythmias12 (10.8)2 (11.8)1 (50)History of cancer5 (4.5)1 (5.9)0 (0)Chronic bronchitis4 (3.6)1 (5.9)0 (0)Asthma3 (2.7%)0 (0)0 (0)Hospitalized in previous 12 months21 (18.9)3 (17.6)0 (0)Surgery with general anaesthesia in previous 12 months11 (9.9)2 (11.8)0 (0)Ack owledgementsThe authors thank Elena Cannavò and the CHRIS study team, whose support was of invaluable importance for the conduction of the study.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.