The efficacy and safety of systemic corticosteroids as first line treatment for granulomatous lymphocytic interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Granulomatous and lymphocytic interstitial lung disease (gl-ILD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with common variable immunodeficiency. Corticosteroids are recommended as first-line treatment for gl-ILD, but evidence for their efficacy is lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed the effect of high-dose corticosteroids (≥0.3 mg/kg prednisone equivalent) on gl-ILD, measured by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans, and pulmonary function test (PFT) results. METHODS: Patients who had received high-dose corticosteroids but no other immunosuppressive therapy at the time (n = 56) and who underwent repeated HRCT scanning or PFT (n = 39) during the retrospective and/or prospective phase of the Study of Interstitial Lung Disease in Primary Antibody Deficiency (STILPAD) were included in the analysis. Patients without any immunosuppressive treatment were selected as controls (n = 23). HRCT scans were blinded, randomized, and scored using the Hartman score. Differences between the baseline and follow-up HRCT scans and PFT were analyzed. RESULTS: Treatment with high-dose corticosteroids significantly improved HRCT scores and forced vital capacity. Carbon monoxide diffusion capacity significantly improved in both groups. Of 18 patients, for whom extended follow-up data was available, 13 achieved a long-term, maintenance therapy independent remission. All patients with relapse were retreated with corticosteroids, but only one-fifth of them responded. Two opportunistic infections were found in the corticosteroid treatment group, while overall infection rate was similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Induction therapy with high-dose corticosteroids improved HRCT scans and PFT results of patients with gl-ILD and achieved long-term remission in 42% of patients. It was not associated with major side effects. Low-dose maintenance therapy provided no benefit and efficacy was poor in relapsing disease.

Safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ianalumab (VAY736) in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b dose-finding trial.

BACKGROUND: Sjögren's syndrome is an autoimmune disease characterised by dry eyes and mouth, systemic features, and reduced quality of life. There are no disease-modifying treatments. A new biologic, ianalumab (VAY736), with two modes of suppressing B cells, has previously shown preliminary efficacy. This dose-finding trial aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of different subcutaneous doses of ianalumab in patients with moderate to severe primary Sjögren's syndrome. METHODS: VAY736A2201 was a randomised, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b dose-finding study done in 56 centres in 19 countries. Patients aged 18-75 years with primary Sjögren's syndrome with moderate to severe disease activity (European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology [EULAR] Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index [ESSDAI] score ≥6) and symptom severity (EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index score ≥5) were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous placebo or ianalumab (5 mg, 50 mg, or 300 mg) every 4 weeks for 24 weeks using a secure, online randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by the ESSDAI score at baseline (≥10 or <10). Study personnel and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the change in ESSDAI score from baseline to 24 weeks in all randomly assigned patients. Dose-related change in disease activity (ESSDAI) from baseline at week 24 was assessed by multiple comparison procedure with modelling analysis. Safety was measured in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02962895. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2017, and Dec 06, 2018, 293 patients were screened, 190 of whom were randomly assigned (placebo n=49, ianalumab 5 mg n=47, ianalumab 50 mg n=47, ianalumab 300 mg n=47). Statistically significant dose-responses were seen for overall disease activity (ESSDAI score) in four of the five dose-response models tested (p<0·025 in four models, p=0·060 in one model). The ESSDAI score decreased from baseline in all ianalumab groups, with the maximal ESSDAI score change from baseline observed in the ianalumab 300 mg group: placebo-adjusted least-squares mean change from baseline -1·92 points (95% CI -4·15 to 0·32; p=0·092). There were four serious adverse events in three patients considered treatment-related (pneumonia [n=1] and gastroenteritis [n=1] in the placebo group; appendicitis plus tubo-ovarian abscess in the same patient in the ianalumab 50 mg group). INTERPRETATION: The study met its primary objective, showing a dose-related decrease in disease activity as measured by ESSDAI at week 24. Overall, ianalumab was well tolerated and safe, with no increase in infections. To our knowledge, this is the first large, randomised, controlled trial in primary Sjögren's syndrome that met its primary endpoint, and its results mean there is potential for more studies of this mechanism in the future. FUNDING: Novartis.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update.

BACKGROUND: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. METHODS: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. RESULTS: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

Efficacy of subcutaneous vs intravenous infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase III trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary endpoint of the pivotal phase III study of infliximab (IFX) s.c. demonstrated non-inferiority of s.c. to i.v. IFX, based on 28-joint DAS-CRP (DAS28-CRP) improvement at week (W) 22 (NCT03147248). This post-hoc analysis investigated whether numerical differences in efficacy outcomes at W30/54 were statistically significant, using conservative imputation methods. METHODS: Patients with active RA and inadequate response to MTX received IFX i.v. 3 mg/kg at W0 and W2 (induction) and were randomized (1:1) to IFX s.c. 120 mg every 2 weeks or i.v. 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks thereafter (maintenance). Patients randomized to IFX i.v. switched to IFX s.c. from W30-54. This post-hoc analysis compared efficacy outcomes for s.c. and i.v. groups pre-switch (W30) and post-switch (W54) using last observation carried forward (LOCF) and non-responder imputation (NRI) methods. RESULTS: Of 343 randomized patients, 165 (IFX s.c.) and 174 (IFX i.v.) were analysed. At W30, significantly improved outcomes were identified with s.c. vs i.v. IFX for DAS28-CRP/DAS28-ESR/Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)/Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) scores (LOCF); ACR/good EULAR responses, DAS28-CRP/Boolean remission, and DAS28-CRP/DAS28-ESR/CDAI/SDAI low disease activity and remission (LOCF and/or NRI); and minimal clinically important difference in HAQ score (LOCF and NRI). After switching to IFX s.c. from IFX i.v., fewer significant between-group differences were identified at W54. CONCLUSION: IFX s.c. showed improved efficacy at W30 compared with IFX i.v., and the reduced between-group difference in efficacy outcomes at W54 after switching supports the results suggesting benefits of IFX s.c. compared with IFX i.v. at W30. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincialTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03147248, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03147248.

[Rheumatological side effects of checkpoint inhibitors and their treatment]. / Rheumatologische Nebenwirkungen von Checkpointinhibitoren und deren Behandlung.

The spectrum of tumors for which checkpoint inhibitor (CI) treatment is used is constantly expanding. The European Medicines Agency has currently approved nine CIs: one anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) CI, one anti-lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3) CI, four anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) CIs and three anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) CIs. By blocking immune checkpoints the physiological downregulation of T cell activity against autologous tissue is prevented. This results in an immunologically unregulated activation of T cells directed against malignant cells. Healthy tissue also expresses antigens and thereby continuously activates autologous T cells. Thus, the blockade of immune checkpoints can lead to T cell activity against healthy tissue (immune-related adverse events, irAE). The irAEs can occur in any organ system and approximately 10% of all patients under CI treatment develop rheumatological irAEs, mostly arthralgia and myalgia. The classification criteria of rheumatological diseases do not need to be met to initiate treatment and the primary goal of treatment of irAEs is to enable continuation of CI treatment. Rheumatological irAEs should be recognized and treated quickly. In the treatment of musculoskeletal irAEs, three stages can be defined. In the first stage, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or intra-articular as well as systemic glucocorticoids are used. In the second stage, conventional synthetic and in the third stage, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are used. The most severe musculoskeletal irAE is myositis with cardiac and/or respiratory involvement and/or myasthenia gravis. In addition to high-dose glucocorticoids, intravenous immunoglobulins or plasma exchange are used in treatment.

Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients with RA aged≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg two times per day or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for infections, overall and by age (50-<65 years; ≥65 years). Probabilities of infections were obtained (Kaplan-Meier estimates). Cox modelling identified infection risk factors. RESULTS: IRs/HRs for all infections, serious infection events (SIEs) and non-serious infections (NSIs) were higher with tofacitinib (10>5 mg two times per day) versus TNFi. For SIEs, HR (95% CI) for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively, were 1.17 (0.92 to 1.50) and 1.48 (1.17 to 1.87). Increased IRs/HRs for all infections and SIEs with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi were more pronounced in patients aged≥65 vs 50-<65 years. SIE probability increased from month 18 and before month 6 with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively. NSI probability increased before month 6 with both tofacitinib doses versus TNFi. Across treatments, the most predictive risk factors for SIEs were increasing age, baseline opioid use, history of chronic lung disease and time-dependent oral corticosteroid use, and, for NSIs, female sex, history of chronic lung disease/infections, past smoking and time-dependent Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: Infections were higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi. Findings may inform future treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To update the EULAR points to consider (PtCs) on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19. METHODS: According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review up to 14 July 2021 was conducted and followed by a consensus meeting of an international multidisciplinary task force. The new statements were consolidated by formal voting. RESULTS: We updated 2 overarching principles and 12 PtC. Evidence was only available in moderate to severe and critical patients. Glucocorticoids alone or in combination with tocilizumab are beneficial in COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen therapy and in critical COVID-19. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib and tofacitinib) is promising in the same populations of severe and critical COVID-19. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma may find application in early phases of the disease and in selected subgroups of immunosuppressed patients. There was insufficient robust evidence for the efficacy of other immunomodulators with further work being needed in relation to biomarker-based stratification for IL-1 therapy CONCLUSIONS: Growing evidence supports incremental efficacy of glucocorticoids alone or combined with tocilizumab/Janus kinase inhibitors in moderate to severe and critical COVID-19. Ongoing studies may unmask the potential application of other therapeutic approaches. Involvement of rheumatologists, as systemic inflammatory diseases experts, should be encouraged in clinical trials of immunomodulatory therapy in COVID-19.

EULAR recommendations for the management and vaccination of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the context of SARS-CoV-2: the November 2021 update.

The first EULAR provisional recommendations on the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) in the context of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), largely based on expert opinion, were published in June 2020. Since then, an unprecedented number of clinical studies have accrued in the literature. Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been approved for population-wide vaccination programmes in EULAR-affiliated countries. Studies regarding vaccination of patients with (inflammatory) RMDs have released their first results or are underway.EULAR found it opportune to carefully review to what extent the initially consensus expert recommendations stood the test of time, by challenging them with the recently accumulated body of scientific evidence, and by incorporating evidence-based advice on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. EULAR started a formal (first) update in January 2021, performed a systematic literature review according to EULAR's standard operating procedures and completed a set of updated overarching principles and recommendations in July 2021. Two points to consider were added in November 2021, because of recent developments pertaining to additional vaccination doses.

Diagnostic yield of axillary artery ultrasound in addition to temporal artery ultrasound for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.

OBJECTIVES: There are limited data on the additional diagnostic yield of axillary artery ultrasound (axUS) in addition to temporal artery ultrasound (tempUS) for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). METHODS: Retrospective study of consecutive patients with suspected GCA who underwent a standardized axUS and tempUS between 01/2015 and 03/2017. The diagnostic yield of axUS in addition to ultrasound of the temporal arteries with respect to the final clinical diagnosis was assessed, with a positive axUS defined as circumferential, hypoechogenic thickening of the far wall axillary artery intima media thickness (axIMT) ≥1.3 mm. A subgroup of patients underwent PET-CT within one week before or after the sonographic study. Separate analyses were performed regarding certain subgroups according to clinical presentation and to clinical pre-test probability for cranial GCA. RESULTS: Out of 228 patients, 92 received a final diagnosis of GCA. From the 92 patients with a final diagnosis of GCA, 50 (54.3%), 13 (14.1%) and 15 (16.3%) had a positive tempUS, positive axUS, and combined positive tempUS and axUS, respectively. The sensitivity of sonographic imaging for the final diagnosis of GCA increased from 69.6% to 84.8%, when axUS results were considered in addition to tempUS, while the specificity remained high (no false positive axUS). The diagnostic yield of axUS was highest in patients with a low clinical probability of cranial GCA and lowest in patients with symptoms of ocular ischemia. We observed a substantial rate (42.1%) of discordant results between axUS and PET-CT in a subgroup of 38 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, axUS offers a substantial diagnostic yield in addition to tempUS in subjects with suspected GCA, mainly in those subjects with low clinical probability for cranial GCA.

Analysis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and higher radiographic progression: association of very high radiographic progression but not of intermediately high with worsening of patient-related outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-patients depending on their individual peak radiographic progression. METHODS: We selected for the individual peak radiographic progression (Δ Ratingen scores/time) in patients of the Swiss registry SCQM. The baseline disease characteristics were compared using standard descriptive statistics. The change of DAS 28 (disease activity sore) and HAQ-DI (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index) before and after peak progression was analysed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: Of the 4,033 patients in the analysis, 3,049 patients had a peak radiographic progression rate between 0 and ≤10 in the Ratingen score per year, 773 between 10 and ≤20, 150 between 20 and ≤30, and 61 of >30 (defining groups A-D). Rheumatoid factor was more frequent in patient groups with a higher peak radiographic progression (71.1%, 79.2%, 85.3%, 88.5%, groups A-D). Peak radiographic progression at a rate >20/year (groups C-D) was not detected after December 2012. When the rate of radiographic progression before and after peak progression was analysed, it was significantly lower. The DAS 28 was significantly higher in all patient groups before peak progression and lower thereafter (p<0.001). Average HAQ-DI scores increased after peak radiographic progression in group D (p=0.005) whereas it was stable or even decreased among the patients of the other patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that the highest radiographic progression rates are rare and get less frequent over the last years. Higher disease activity precedes radiographic peak progression. Only the highest individual peak (change of Ratingen score >30/year) radiographic progression was followed by an increase of HAQ-DI scores.

EULAR points to consider on pathophysiology and use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Severe systemic inflammation associated with some stages of COVID-19 and in fatal cases led therapeutic agents developed or used frequently in Rheumatology being at the vanguard of experimental therapeutics strategies. The aim of this project was to elaborate EULAR Points to consider (PtCs) on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory therapies. METHODS: PtCs were developed in accordance with EULAR standard operating procedures for endorsed recommendations, led by an international multidisciplinary Task Force, including rheumatologists, translational immunologists, haematologists, paediatricians, patients and health professionals, based on a systemic literature review up to 15 December 2020. Overarching principles (OPs) and PtCs were formulated and consolidated by formal voting. RESULTS: Two OPs and fourteen PtCs were developed. OPs highlight the heterogeneous clinical spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the need of a multifaceted approach to target the different pathophysiological mechanisms. PtCs 1-6 encompass the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 including immune response, endothelial dysfunction and biomarkers. PtCs 7-14 focus on the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection with immunomodulators. There was evidence supporting the use of glucocorticoids, especially dexamethasone, in COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen therapy. No other immunomodulator demonstrated efficacy on mortality to date, with however inconsistent results for tocilizumab. Immunomodulatory therapy was not associated with higher infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Multifactorial pathophysiological mechanisms, including immune abnormalities, play a key role in COVID-19. The efficacy of glucocorticoids in cases requiring oxygen therapy suggests that immunomodulatory treatment might be effective in COVID-19 subsets. Involvement of rheumatologists, as systemic inflammatory diseases experts, should continue in ongoing clinical trials delineating optimal immunomodulatory therapy utilisation in COVID-19.

EULAR points to consider for the diagnosis and management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic and musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are observed in about 10% of patients with cancer receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Given the recent emergence of these events and the lack of guidance for rheumatologists addressing them, a European League Against Rheumatism task force was convened to harmonise expert opinion regarding their identification and management. METHODS: First, the group formulated research questions for a systematic literature review. Then, based on literature and using a consensus procedure, 4 overarching principles and 10 points to consider were developed. RESULTS: The overarching principles defined the role of rheumatologists in the management of irAEs, highlighting the shared decision-making process between patients, oncologists and rheumatologists. The points to consider inform rheumatologists on the wide spectrum of musculoskeletal irAEs, not fulfilling usual classification criteria of rheumatic diseases, and their differential diagnoses. Early referral and facilitated access to rheumatologist are recommended, to document the target organ inflammation. Regarding therapeutic, three treatment escalations were defined: (1) local/systemic glucocorticoids if symptoms are not controlled by symptomatic treatment, then tapered to the lowest efficient dose, (2) conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in case of inadequate response to glucocorticoids or for steroid sparing and (3) biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, for severe or refractory irAEs. A warning has been made on severe myositis, a life-threatening situation, requiring high dose of glucocorticoids and close monitoring. For patients with pre-existing rheumatic disease, baseline immunosuppressive regimen should be kept at the lowest efficient dose before starting immunotherapies. CONCLUSION: These statements provide guidance on diagnosis and management of rheumatic irAEs and aim to support future international collaborations.

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 physician registry.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. RESULTS: Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.

Updated recommendations of the German Society for Rheumatology for the care of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in times of SARS-CoV-2-methodology, key messages and justifying information.

A few days after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was declared a pandemic, the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) compiled the first group of recommendations for the care of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in light of SARS-CoV-2/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These first recommendations were based on an expert consensus and were largely non-evidence-based. Now that the first scientific data from registries, cross-sectional studies, case reports and case series are available, the DGRh has developed a timely update. This update is based on a literature search of publications available through 15 June 2020 and addresses preventive measures (such as hygiene measures or vaccinations) and the use of immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive drugs. Driven by the commitment to let patients benefit from these new evidence-based recommendations as quickly as possible, the DGRh published the update in German on its homepage and in the Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie immediately after completion. Here we report the key recommendations to make them available to the international community, provide the scientific methodology used to develop the recommendations, give additional thoughts and advice for the management of patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss our recommendations in the context of other international recommendations.

Temporal artery compression sonography for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis in elderly patients with acute ocular arterial occlusions.

OBJECTIVES: To validate cut-off values of quantitative high-resolution temporal artery compression sonography (TCS) for the diagnosis of cranial GCA (cGCA) in patients with acute arterial ocular occlusions and in an independent control group. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent TCS as part of the diagnostic workup of acute arterial ocular occlusions and controls not suffering from ocular ischaemia/systemic vasculitis were included. The diagnostic accuracy of the established TCS cut-off value of maximum temporal artery wall thickness (≥0.7 mm) and a novel numeric TCS score incorporating the degree of wall thickening in the four temporal artery segments assessed (0-3 points per segment) was tested by receiver operating characteristics analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed for female and male patients and patients older and younger than age of 70 years. RESULTS: Of 114 patients with acute ocular arterial occlusions, 30 patients received a final clinical diagnosis of cGCA. The sensitivity and specificity of the ≥0.7 mm TCS cut-off for the diagnosis of cGCA were 100 and 84.5% in the overall cohort. The TCS score did not improve the diagnostic yield (cut-off ≥5; sensitivity 100%, specificity 85.7%). In male patients >70 years of age, the specificity of TCS was limited, secondary to age- and sex-related differences in temporal artery wall thickness, which we confirmed in the independent control group. CONCLUSION: TCS yields high diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of cGCA in patients with acute ocular arterial occlusions. Age- and sex-related differences in temporal artery wall thickness influence the diagnostic accuracy of TCS.

Do patients with rheumatoid arthritis show a different course of COVID-19 compared to patients with spondyloarthritis?

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) are the most common inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD). The aim of this study was to elucidate differences in the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in RA- and SpA-patients. METHODS: Data from the German COVID-19 registry for IRD patients from 30th March to 16th November 2020 were analysed. 208 RA and SpA patients were included in the study, matched for gender and age. RESULTS: 104 SpA patients (40% patients with ankylosing spondylitis, 54% with psoriatic arthritis and 6% with enteropathic arthritis) were compared to 104 RA patients. For both groups, median age was 56 years. TNF-i treatment was reported in 45% of the SpA and in 19% of RA patients (p=0.001). Glucocorticoids were used in 13% of the SpA and in 40% of the RA patients (p=0.001). In both groups, the majority of the patients (97% SpA, 95% RA) recovered from COVID-19. Hospitalisation was needed in 16% of the SpA and in 30% of the RA patients (p=0.05), and oxygen treatment in 10% and 18% respectively (p=ns). Three versus six (p=ns) fatal courses were reported in the SpA versus the RA group. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed that the hospitalisation rate during COVID-19 infection, but not the mortality, was significantly higher in RA as compared to SpA patients. This could be explained either by different treatment strategies or by different susceptibilities of the two diseases.

Methotrexate does not increase the risk of liver fibrosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: assessment by ultrasound elastography (ARFI-MetRA study).

OBJECTIVES: Only limited data are available on the risk of liver fibrosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis on long-term methotrexate treatment. To assess the risk of liver fibrosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate, non-invasive, ultrasound-based elastography [acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging] was applied. METHODS: In total, 119 patients were assessed using acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging between July 2018 and April 2019. In a cross-sectional, single-centre study design, ARFI scores were compared between patient subgroups with (n = 65) and without (n = 54) methotrexate exposure. The main outcome variable was the mean fibrosis score as measured by the ARFI method. The mean shear wave velocity was calculated from 10 valid ARFI measurements for each patient. Inferential statistical analyses (between group) were performed using ANOVA for independent samples in the case of continuous outcome variables. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients with and fifty-four patients without MTX exposure were assessed using the ARFI elastography method. Participating patients on MTX medication (1.113 m/s) showed ARFI scores that were comparable to those of participants without MTX exposure (1.062 m/s); P = 0.228. The mean cumulative dose in the group of MTX-exposed patients was 3602 mg. CONCLUSION: The mean value of the repeated determination of liver density using ARFI imaging did not differ significantly between the MTX-exposed and MTX-naive patients with RA. No increased rate of liver fibrosis was found among RA patients treated with MTX.

A survey to evaluate knowledge, perceptions and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations among rheumatologists in Germany.

The objective is to evaluate the attitude of rheumatologists regarding the use of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). From February 2nd until March 15th, 2021, rheumatologists from Germany were asked to participate anonymously in a survey addressing their attitude with respect to COVID-19 vaccinations of IRD patients. The survey was completed by 214 participants (107 men, 103 women, 4 unspecified). More than half of the physicians (61%) were working in rheumatologic private practices and 62% had more than 20 years of experience in rheumatology. 90% reported to be at least confidential in handling issues of COVID-19 vaccination and 99% would recommend COVID-19 vaccination for IRD patients. The majority would not recommend to stop or reduce immunomodulatory drugs for vaccination except for rituximab. More than 70% would prefer vaccination with a mRNA vaccine for their IRD patients. This study shows that almost all rheumatologists in Germany support the COVID-19 vaccination for their IRD patients without reducing or terminating the actual immunomodulatory medication to potentially improve the response to the vaccine. This attitude is in accordance with the current recommendations of the German Society of Rheumatology regarding COVID-19 vaccination in IRD patients, and indicates that these have been well accepted and work in everyday clinical practice.

[Current state of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2]. / Aktueller Stand der Impfung gegen SARS-CoV-2.

On 21 December 2020 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany; Pfizer, New York City, NY, USA) as the first vaccine against SARS-CoV­2 in the European Union and the second vaccine (Moderna®, Moderna, Cambridge, MA, USA) followed on 6 January 2021. Many more approvals will follow within a short period of time. With the availability of the vaccination many questions have arisen for patients as well as for physicians, which are addressed as up to date as possible in this hot topic article.