Evaluating the associations between dysautonomia, gastrointestinal transit, and clinical phenotype in patients with systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with a high burden of autonomic symptoms and to determine whether they have a distinct clinical phenotype, gastrointestinal (GI) transit or extraintestinal features. METHODS: In a prospective cohort of SSc patients with GI disease, clinical data were systematically obtained at routine visits. Dysautonomia was identified by the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score (COMPASS)-31questionnaire. GI transit was measured by whole-gut scintigraphy. Associations between total COMPASS-31 scores and clinical features, GI symptoms, and transit were evaluated. Comparisons between patients with global autonomic dysfunction [(GAD); ≥5 positive COMPASS-31 subdomains] and those with limited autonomic dysfunction [(LAD); <5 positive subdomains] were also studied. RESULTS: 91 patients with SSc and GI involvement were included [mean age 57, 90% female, 74% limited cutaneous disease, 83% significant GI disease (Medsger score ≥2)]. The mean COMPASS-31 score in SSc was higher than controls (38.8 vs. 7.2). 33% had GAD, 67% had LAD. Patients with GAD were more likely to have limited SSc (93% vs. 65%; p<0.01) and have sicca symptoms (100% vs. 77%; p=0.01). Gastric and colonic transit were faster in patients with GAD (p<0.05). Upper GI involvement (Medsger GI score of 1 or 2) was associated with higher total COMPASS-31 scores (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Symptoms of global dysautonomia are seen in up to one-third of patients with SSc and GI involvement. Identifying specific clinical characteristics associated with GAD in SSc will help to identify a population that may benefit from therapies that modulate the autonomic nervous system.

Attitudes and barriers to pulmonary arterial hypertension screening in systemic sclerosis patients: A survey of UK-based rheumatologists.

Objectives: The objectives were to explore rheumatologists' current clinical screening practices of pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with systemic sclerosis in the United Kingdom and to identify barriers to screening and consider potential solutions. Methods: A survey of 31 questions was developed and included six sections: clinician demographics, the importance of screening, screening practices, barriers to screening, treatment and patient education. The survey was disseminated among rheumatologists working in the United Kingdom. Results: Forty-four rheumatologists working in the United Kingdom participated in the study, and the majority completed all the questions. Around one-third (37.0%) worked in specialised systemic sclerosis units (university or general hospitals (54.5% and 45.4%, respectively)). The majority recognised that systemic sclerosis-pulmonary arterial hypertension is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Over half (60.0%) reported using the DETECT algorithm to screen for systemic sclerosis-pulmonary arterial hypertension, although other algorithms were also sometimes used. All of the respondents utilised transthoracic echocardiogram, and almost all (95.0%) performed pulmonary function tests for screening purposes. Various challenges and barriers were identified relating to systemic sclerosis-pulmonary arterial hypertension screening, with the difficulty in interpreting results from other hospitals and extended wait times for diagnostic tests being the most reported (76.0% and 74.0%, respectively). Most respondents agreed that access to key investigations (87.0%), ongoing clinician education (82.0%), multidisciplinary meetings (79.5%) and a better understanding of proposed screening algorithms (79.5%) could be potential solutions. Conclusion: Screening patients with systemic sclerosis for pulmonary arterial hypertension is crucial to improve survival, but variable practices exist among UK rheumatologists. Solutions include educating healthcare professionals on guidelines, sharing information between centres and integrating care services.

Long-Term Benefit of Perlingual Polybacterial Vaccines in Patients with Systemic Autoimmune Diseases and Active Immunosuppression.

INTRODUCTION: We have previously shown that trained-immunity-based vaccines, namely TIbV, significantly reduce the rate of recurrent infections, both of the respiratory tract (RRTI) and urinary tract infections (RUTI) in SAD patients on disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs). OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the frequency of RRTI and RUTI from 2018 to 2021 in those SAD patients that received TIbV until 2018. Secondarily, we evaluated the incidence and clinical course of COVID-19 in this cohort. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted in a cohort of SAD patients under active immunosuppression immunized with TIbV (MV130 for RRTI and MV140 for RUTI, respectively). RESULTS: Forty-one SAD patients on active immunosuppression that were given TIbV up to 2018 were studied for RRTI and RUTI during the 2018-2021 period. Approximately half of the patients had no infections during 2018-2021 (51.2% no RUTI and 43.5% no RRTI at all). When we compared the 3-year period with the 1-year pre-TIbV, RRTI (1.61 ± 2.26 vs. 2.76 ± 2.57; p = 0.002) and RUTI (1.56 ± 2.12 vs. 2.69 ± 3.07; p = 0.010) episodes were still significantly lower. Six SAD patients (four RA; one SLE; one MCTD) with RNA-based vaccines were infected with SARS-CoV-2, with mild disease. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the beneficial protective effects against infections of TIbV progressively decreased, they remained low for up to 3 years, with significantly reduced infections compared to the year prior to vaccination, further supporting a long-term benefit of TIbV in this setting. Moreover, an absence of infections was observed in almost half of patients.

Specific Cellular and Humoral Response after the Third Dose of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 RNA Vaccine in Patients with Immune-Mediated Rheumatic Diseases on Immunosuppressive Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Data on cellular and humoral immunogenicity after the third dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs) are scarce. Herein, we evaluated the adaptive immune response in IMRD patients treated with different immunosuppressive therapies (conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs], biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [bDMARDs], and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [tsDMARDs]) after the booster of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to determine whether any drug reduced the vaccine's response. METHODS: A single-center prospective study was conducted, including patients presenting with IMRD and healthy controls (HC). Specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) production was evaluated between 8-12 weeks after the third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In addition, anti-Spike IgG antibody titers were also measured. RESULTS: Samples were obtained from 79 IMRD patients (51 women, 28 men; mean age 57 ± 11.3 years old): 43 rheumatoid arthritis, 10 psoriatic arthritis, 14 ankylosing spondylitis, 10 undifferentiated spondyloarthritis, and 2 inflammatory bowel disease-associated spondyloarthritis (IBD-SpA). In total, 31 HC (mean age 50.9 ± 13.1 years old, 67.7% women) were included in the study. Post-vaccine results displayed positive T-cell immune responses in 68 out of 79 (86.1%) IMRD patients (82.3% of those without prior COVID-19). All HC and IMRDs patients had an antibody response against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain; however, the HC response was significantly higher (median of 18,048 AU/mL) than in IMRDs patients (median of 6590.3 AU/mL, p < 0.001). MTX and leflunomide were associated with lower titers of IgG and IFN-γ responses. Among bDMARDs, adalimumab, etanercept, and guselkumab are associated with reduced cellular responses. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data show that the majority of our IMRD patients develop cellular and humoral responses after the SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination, emphasizing the relevance of vaccination in this group. However, the magnitude of specific responses was dependent on the immunosuppressive therapy administered. Specific vaccination protocols and personalized decisions about boosters are essential for these patients.