Immune responses and disease biomarker long-term changes following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a cohort of rheumatic disease patients.

Introduction: The longitudinal responses towards multiple doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases remain incompletely understood. While observational studies suggested the safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in rheumatic disease patients, laboratory evidence is lacking. Methods: Here we evaluated seroreactivity, clinical manifestions, and multiple disease biomarkers after 2 or 3 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in a cohort of patients with rheumatic diseases. Results: Most patients generated high SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific neutralizing antibodies comparable to those in healthy controls after 2 doses of mRNA vaccines. The antibody level declined over time but recovered after the third dose of the vaccine. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remained without significant flares post-vaccination. The changes in anti-dsDNA antibody concentration and expression of type I interferon (IFN) signature genes were highly variable but did not show consistent or significant increases. Frequency of double negative 2 (DN2) B cells remained largely stable. Discussion: Our data provide experimental evidences indicating the efficacy and safety of repeated COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in rheumatic disease patients.

Immune responses and disease biomarker long-term changes following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a cohort of rheumatic disease patients.

Objective: To evaluate seroreactivity and disease biomarkers after 2 or 3 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in a cohort of patients with rheumatic diseases. Methods: We collected biological samples longitudinally before and after 2-3 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from a cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis, Sjogren's syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and inflammatory myositis. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG and IgA and anti-dsDNA concentration were measured by ELISA. A surrogate neutralization assay was utilized to measure antibody neutralization ability. Lupus disease activity was measured by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI). Expression of type I interferon signature was measured by real-time PCR. The frequency of extrafollicular double negative 2 (DN2) B cells was measured by flow cytometry. Results: Most of the patients generated high SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific neutralizing antibodies comparable to those in healthy controls after 2 doses of mRNA vaccines. The antibody level declined over time but recovered after the third dose of the vaccine. Rituximab treatment substantially reduced antibody level and neutralization ability. Among SLE patients, no consistent increase in SLEDAI scores was observed post-vaccination. The changes in anti-dsDNA antibody concentration and expression of type I IFN signature genes were highly variable but did not show consistent or significant increases. Frequency of DN2 B cells remained largely stable. Conclusion: Rheumatic disease patients without rituximab treatment have robust antibody responses toward COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Disease activity and disease-associated biomarkers remain largely stable over 3 doses of vaccines, suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may not exacerbate rheumatic diseases. KEY MESSAGES: Patients with rheumatic diseases mount robust humoral immunity towards 3 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.Disease activity and biomarkers remain stable following 3 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

A Flare Risk Index Informed by Select Immune Mediators in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is marked by immune dysregulation linked to varied clinical disease activity. Using a unique longitudinal cohort of SLE patients, this study sought to identify optimal immune mediators informing an empirically refined flare risk index (FRI) reflecting altered immunity prior to clinical disease flare. METHODS: Thirty-seven SLE-associated plasma mediators were evaluated by microfluidic immunoassay in 46 samples obtained in SLE patients with an imminent clinical disease flare (preflare) and 53 samples obtained in SLE patients without a flare over a corresponding period (pre-nonflare). SLE patients were selected from a unique longitudinal cohort of 106 patients with classified SLE (meeting the American College of Rheumatology 1997 revised criteria for SLE or the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 revised criteria for SLE). Autoantibody specificities, hybrid SLE Disease Activity Index (hSLEDAI) scores, clinical features, and medication usage were also compared at preflare (mean ± SD 111 ± 47 days prior to flare) versus pre-nonflare (99 ± 21 days prior to nonflare) time points. Variable importance was determined by random forest analysis with logistic regression subsequently applied to determine the optimal number and type of analytes informing a refined FRI. RESULTS: Preflare versus pre-nonflare differences were not associated with demographics, autoantibody specificities, hSLEDAI scores, clinical features, nor medication usage. Forward selection and backward elimination of mediators ranked by variable importance resulted in 17 plasma mediator candidates differentiating preflare from pre-nonflare visits. A final combination of 11 mediators best informed a newly refined FRI, which achieved a maximum sensitivity of 97% and maximum specificity of 98% after applying decision curve analysis to define low, medium, and high FRI scores. CONCLUSION: We verified altered immune mediators associated with imminent disease flare, and a subset of these mediators improved the FRI to identify SLE patients at risk of imminent flare. This molecularly informed, proactive management approach could be critical in prospective clinical trials and the clinical management of lupus.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis: a novel clinical entity with striking similarities to seronegative rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical and serologic similarities and differences between inflammatory arthritis induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (IA-irAE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional comparative study, 20 patients with IA-irAE were age and sex matched to 40 seropositive and 40 seronegative RA patients. Electronic medical records were reviewed from diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis through May 2019. Arthritis characteristics, treatment, and relevant laboratory and serologic studies were captured. RESULTS: Clinically, IA-irAE differed from seropositive and seronegative RA with respect to disease duration (4.18 versus 11.59 and 13.3 months, respectively, p = 0.005 (IA-irAE vs seropositive RA), p = 0.002 (IA-irAE vs seronegative RA)), polyarticular joint involvement at presentation (75% versus 97.5% and 100%, p = 0.013, p = 0.003), absence of erosive changes (5.9% vs 43.6% and 53.8%, p = 0.005, p = 0.001), mean prednisone dose (24.7 mg versus 16.53 mg and 15.68 mg, p = 0.008, p = 0.005), and use of methotrexate (5.0% versus 85.0% and 70.0%, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001). Serologically, IA-irAE closely resembled seronegative RA. ANA positivity was seen in a minority of patients and did not differ significantly between all groups; however, the ANA staining pattern (speckled) was similar between IA-irAE and seronegative RA (100% versus 75%, respectively) and was not commonly observed in seropositive RA (18.2%). CONCLUSION: IA-irAE is a new subset of IA that resembles seronegative RA immunologically. Our findings suggest that further study of IA-irAE might provide a window into underlying pathogenic mechanisms of early-stage seronegative RA. Key Points • Comprehensive comparison of clinical features between inflammatory arthritis irAE (IA-irAE) and regular rheumatoid arthritis indicates IA-irAE as a new subset of inflammatory arthritis. • IA-irAE resembles seronegative RA immunologically, suggesting that study of IA-irAE may provide a window into underlying pathogenic mechanisms of early-stage seronegative RA.

Optimization of flare management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a flare management intervention guided by non-physician providers versus usual care between rheumatology visits on flare occurrence and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. METHODS: Adult patients with established RA (per 2010 ACR criteria, n = 150) were randomized to the intervention arm (n = 75) versus usual care (n = 75). The Flare Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis (FLARE-RA) questionnaire was administered monthly during 24 months to all patients in the intervention arm to assess flare status. Telephone nurse-led counseling or an expedited visit with a rheumatology provider was offered to patients in the intervention arm who indicated they were in flare. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention arm completed a median of 8.5 (range 1-24) questionnaires. RA flare was reported on 122 (19%) of these questionnaires; average FLARE-RA score, 4.72 on 0 (no flare) to 10 (maximum flare) scale. Patients preferred an expedited clinic visit with a rheumatology provider during 39 (32%) of flares. The majority of patients preferred to self-manage their flare (76, 62%); some patients received nursing advice on flare management over the phone (7, 6%). There were no differences in RA flare by OMERACT9 definition, DAS28-CRP, CDAI, SDAI, anti-rheumatic treatment change by rheumatology provider, or remission by CDAI between the study arms over 24-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The flare management intervention did not have any major effect on flare occurrence or RA disease activity metrics over the 24-month follow-up. The majority of patients in the intervention arm preferred self-management to an expedited visit with their rheumatology provider. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02382783 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02382783 ) Key Points • The flare management intervention had no effect on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. • Patients preferred self-management of their RA flares to expedited rheumatology provider visits.

Survival, Risk Factors, and Effect of Treatment in 101 Patients With Calciphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the survival and the associations of treatments upon survival of patients with calciphylaxis seen at a single center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis code of 275.49 and the keyword "calciphylaxis" in the dismissal narrative, we retrospectively identified 101 patients with calciphylaxis seen at our institution between January 1, 1999, through September 20, 2014, using a predefined, consensus-developed classification scheme. RESULTS: The average age of patients was 60 years: 81 (80.2%) were women; 68 (68.0%) were obese; 19 (18.8%) had stage 0 to 2 chronic kidney disease (CKD), 19 (18.9%) had stage 3 or 4 CKD; 63 (62.4%) had stage 5 or 5D (dialysis) CKD. Seventy-five patients died during follow-up. Six-month survival was 57%. Lack of surgical debridement was associated with insignificantly lower 6-month survival (hazard ratio [HR]=1.99; 95% CI, 0.96-4.15; P=.07) and significantly poorer survival for the entire duration of follow-up (HR=1.98; 95% CI, 1.15-3.41; P=.01), which was most pronounced in stage 5 or 5D CKD (HR=1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.56; P=.04). Among patients with stage 5/5D CKD, subtotal parathyroidectomy (performed only in patients with hyperparathyroidism) was associated with better 6-month (HR=0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.90; P=.04) and overall survival (HR= 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.87; P=.02). CONCLUSION: Calciphylaxis is associated with a high mortality rate. Significantly effective treatments included surgical debridement and subtotal parathyroidectomy in patients with stage 5/5D CKD with hyperparathyroidism. Treatments with tissue-plasminogen activator, sodium thiosulfate, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy were not associated with higher mortality.

Calciphylaxis: A Disease of Pannicular Thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify coagulation risk factors in patients with calciphylaxis and the relationship between anticoagulation use and overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study subjects were 101 patients with calciphylaxis seen at Mayo Clinic from 1999 to September 2014. Data including thrombophilia profiles were extracted from the medical records of each patient. Survival status was determined using patient registration data and the Social Security Death Index. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and associations were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Sixty-four of the 101 patients underwent thrombophilia testing. Of these, a complete test panel was performed in 55 and a partial panel in 9. Severe thrombophilias observed in 60% (33 of 55) of the patients included antiphospholipid antibody syndrome protein C, protein S, or antithrombin deficiencies or combined thrombophilias. Of the 55 patients, severe thrombophilia (85%, 23 of 27) was noted in patients who were not on warfarin at the time of testing (27). Nonsevere thrombophilias included heterozygous factor V Leiden (n=2) and plasminogen deficiency (n=1). For the comparison of survival, patients were divided into 3 treatment categories: Warfarin (n=63), other anticoagulants (n=20), and no anticoagulants (n=18). There was no statistically significant survival difference between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Laboratory testing reveals a strikingly high prevalence of severe thrombophilias in patients with calciphylaxis, underscoring the importance of congenital and acquired thrombotic propensity potentially contributing to the pathogenesis of this disease. These findings may have therapeutic implications; however, to date, survival differences did not vary by therapeutic choice.