POS0194 MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY OF BREAKTHROUGH COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH IMMUNE MEDIATED CONDITIONS ON B CELL DEPLETING THERAPIES AND THE EFFECTS OF MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY TREATMENT

Background

Among immunocompromised patients with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), those undergoing therapy with B cell depleting agents are among the most vulnerable to both severe COVID-19 disease and sub-optimal response to COVID-19 vaccines(1). Numerous studies have documented suppressed humoral, but relatively maintained cell mediated, responses to COVID-19 vaccines in these patients. However, the clinical significance of such immunity in terms of protection from infection and its sequelae are poorly understood. We have analyzed a large cohort of vaccinated IMIDs patients undergoing B cell depleting therapy for the presence of breakthrough infection and assessed their outcomes.

Objectives:

To define the frequency and outcomes of COVID-19 breakthrough infection in fully or partially vaccinated IMIDs patients receiving B cell depleting therapies.

To assess the characteristics and risk factors for severe outcomes and death.

Methods

All pharmacy records from within a large health care system were electronically searched for patients undergoing B cell depleting therapies with approved monoclonal antibodies in 2020. Records with ICD codes for IMIDs but not malignancies were included; patients must also have had at least one documented COVID-19 vaccine. From this cohort all patients with breakthrough COVID-19 disease from time of 1st vaccination through December 15, 2021 were identified; each record was hand-reviewed to extract clinical data including vaccine history, demographics, comorbidities, use of monoclonal antibodies, dose and timing of B cell depleting therapy, and outcomes as assessed by an 8 point NIH ordinal scale. Univariate and multivariable logistic/proportional-odds regression models were used to examine the risk factors for severe outcomes.

Results

A total of 1677 IMIDs patients were identified who received any B cell depleting monoclonal antibody and at least one COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. From this cohort 74 patients (4.4%) experienced a breakthrough COVID-19 infection. Among the breakthrough patients 34 (46%) had a rheumatic disease (RA 11, AAV 15, SLE 2), 34 (46%) had CNS inflammatory disease (MS 32, 2 other), and 6 (8%) had immune hematologic/miscellaneous diseases. Four patients had a previous history of COVID-19 infection. Overall 24 (35%) were hospitalized with 11 patients requiring critical level care (15%) and 6 deaths (8 %). All fatal cases had rheumatic diseases. Monoclonal antibodies were given as outpatient therapy to 21 patients and among these only 1 patient was hospitalized without requiring O2 and none died. In univariate analysis only number of comorbidities had a significant positive effect (p=.001) on severe outcomes (i.e. groups 1-4 vs. groups 5-8: Table 1) while monoclonal antibody therapy was associated with more favorable outcomes (p=.005 group 1-2 vs.3-8, Table 1). There were no associations between the dose, duration or timing of the B cell therapy, concomitant therapies including glucocorticoids, vaccine status (incomplete, complete, boosted) or date of vaccination with severe outcomes.

Conclusion

In IMIDs patients treated with B cell depleting therapies breakthrough infections are common with many experiencing severe outcomes. Concomitant comorbidities were associated with risk of severe disease. Monoclonal antibody therapy was used in only 28% but was associated with enhanced clinical outcomes with only 1 in 21 requiring hospitalization and zero mortality. This population of immunocompromised patients remains vulnerable to COVID-19 disease despite vaccination. More aggressive use of outpatient management with monoclonal antibody therapy and other preventive and therapeutic measures are urgently needed.

Reference

[1]Samuel Bitoun et al Rituximab impairs B-cell response but not T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccine in auto-immune diseases First published: 28 December 2021 Arthritis and Rheumatology https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42058

Disclosure of Interests

cassandra calabrese Speakers bureau: Sanofi-regeneron, Consultant of: Sanofi-regeneron, Elizabeth Kirchner Consultant of: Janssen, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB, Regeneron, Janssen, Brandon Moss Consultant of: Biogen advisory board, Grant/research support from: Genentech/Roche and Novartis as part of investigator-initiated studies, Anthony Fernandez Consultant of: Consulting: AbbVie, Novartis, Mallinckrodt, UCB, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Alexion, Grant/research support from: Research: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Corbus, Mallinckrodt, Yuxuan Jin: None declared, Leonard Calabrese Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Janssen, AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, GSK, AstraZeneca, Consultant of: Sanofi, Jansen, AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, GSK, AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech

Modelling of Phase Transitions and Residual Thermal Stress of CTBN Rubber Modified Epoxy Resins during a Pultrusion Process

The implicit finite difference and fourth order Runge-Kutta method are used both to solve the heat transfer problem in the pultrusion reaction and to calculate the temperature and conversion distributions within a thermoset composite profile. The aim of our work is to study the influence of a rubbery phase added to the epoxy matrix in production conditions. The results have shown that the rubber modified systems have a low exothermic temperature peak value, so that neither the amount of cured resin nor the final product properties are limited.

First of all we will show that the phase transition (gelation and vitrification) zones within the die change as the amount of rubber varies in the resin. The relationship between the position and of these zones and the resin systems will be discussed. We calculate the residual thermal stresses for all the investigated fibre/resin systems, showing a reduction when the rubber amount increases in the epoxy blend.

POS0454 COMPARISON OF MBDA SCORE, PATIENT GLOBAL ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATOR GLOBAL ASSESSMENT FOR PREDICTING RISK OF RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION

Background:

Busy rheumatologists may assess disease activity and risk for radiographic progression (RP) in RA with informal, qualitative versions of evaluator and/or patient global assessments (EGA and PGA). RA patient care may be improved by having a convenient, objective disease activity measure that predicts risk for RP more accurately than EGA or PGA.

Objectives:

To compare the abilities of MBDA score, patient global assessment and evaluator global assessment to assess risk for radiographic progression (RP), and to assess the ability of MBDA score to predict RP among patients with concordant or discordant PGA and EGA.

Methods:

Patients were pooled from two RCTs of patients with recent onset RA treated with conventional and biologic DMARDs (OPERA and SWEFOT, N=386) and from a registry of patients with predominantly established RA and diverse treatments (BRASS, N=380). Pearson correlations were determined between MBDA scores (adjusted for the effects of age, sex and adiposity) (scale 1-100), PGA and EGA (each on a scale of 1-10) at baseline. PGA and EGA were considered discordant when they differed by >2.5. Univariable logistic regression assessed ability to predict RP (change in TSS >5 over 1 year) for MBDA score, PGA and EGA as continuous variables; and for discordance of PGA and EGA as 2-level (concordant vs. discordant) or 3-level (PGA>EGA, concordant, EGA>PGA) categorical variables. Multivariable regression considered the main effect and interaction terms of the MBDA score, as a continuous variable, paired with each other variable, to test the ability of each pair to assess risk of RP. All models included a random effect on cohort. Odds ratios were reported for every 10-unit increase in MBDA score. Frequency of RP was determined in subgroups with MBDA score low (<30), moderate (30-44) or high (>44) for patient groups based on PGA/EGA concordance or discordance.

Results:

The 766 patients studied were 76% female, 76% positive for RF and/or anti-CCP Ab, with mean age 55 years, DAS28-CRP 4.7, CRP 22 mg/L, CDAI 26, SJC 9.1, PGA 4.4, EGA 3.4, MBDA score 53. No interaction was seen between MBDA score and type of cohort (early vs established RA). PGA and EGA were discordant in 294 of 766 (38%) patients and were weakly to moderately correlated (r=0.38). Among discordant patients, PGA was >EGA in 227 cases and EGA was >PGA in 67 cases. Correlations between MBDA score and PGA or EGA were r=0.41 and r=0.34, respectively. In univariable analyses, MBDA score was a statistically significant predictor of radiographic progression (OR=1.53, p=6.3x10-8) whereas PGA, EGA, 2-level discordance and 3-level discordance were not (p=0.38, 0.47, 0.74, 0.83, respectively). In multivariable analyses, significant interactions were observed between MBDA score and discordance (2-level, p=0.0029; 3-level, p=0.0087). The interaction analysis demonstrated, in PGA/EGA-concordant patients, low risk of radiographic progression when MBDA score was low and elevated risk when it was high (OR=1.33 [1.1, 1.59]). A relationship between MBDA score and RP risk was also demonstrated, with heightened trend, among discordant patients with PGA >EGA (OR=2.04 [1.53, 2.81]) and EGA >PGA (OR=3.43 [1.37, 13.8]) (Figure 1).

Conclusion:

MBDA score was a significant predictor of radiographic progression, whereas PGA and EGA were not. MBDA score predicted progression whether PGA and EGA were concordant or discordant. These results suggest that MBDA score detects joint-damaging disease activity more accurately than PGA and EGA and it does so whether or not PGA and EGA are in agreement.

Disclosure of Interests:

Leonard Calabrese Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cresecendo, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi., Michael E. Weinblatt Shareholder of: Canfite, Inmedix, Scipher, and Vorso, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Corrona, EqRX, GSK,Genosco, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Set Point, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, Inc.,Eli Lilly and Sanofi, Nancy Shadick Consultant of: BMS, Grant/research support from: Lilly, mallinckrodt, BMS, Amgen and Sanofi, Cecilie Heegaard Brahe: None declared, Mikkel Østergaard Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Centocor, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Takeda, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Janssen, and Merck, Merete L. Hetland Speakers bureau: Orion, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, CelltrionRoche, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Eli Lily, MSD, Pfizer, and UCB, Megan Horton Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Darl Flake Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Eric Sasso Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Autoimmune

POS0220 INTEGRATED SAFETY PROFILE OF UPADACITINIB WITH UP TO 4.5 YEARS OF EXPOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

The safety and efficacy of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib (UPA) has been evaluated across a spectrum of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program.1–6

Objectives:

To describe the long-term integrated safety profile of UPA relative to active comparators (cutoff date: June 30, 2020) in patients with RA treated in the SELECT clinical program.

Methods:

This analysis included updated data from 6 randomized controlled UPA RA trials.1–6 Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; onset after first dose and ≤30 days after last dose of study drug or ≤70 days for adalimumab [ADA]) including AEs of special interest were summarized as follows: pooled UPA 15 mg once daily (QD; UPA15, 6 trials); pooled UPA 30 mg QD (UPA30, 4 trials); methotrexate (MTX, 1 trial), and ADA (1 trial). TEAEs were reported as exposure-adjusted adverse event rates (EAERs; events/100 patient-years [E/100 PY]), which included both incident and recurrent events.

Results:

4413 patients (UPA15, n=3209; UPA30, n=1204) received ≥1 dose of UPA, providing 10,115.4 PY of exposure. EAERs for AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation were similar for UPA15, MTX, and ADA; rates for UPA30 were numerically higher than UPA15 (Table 1). The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and urinary tract infection for both UPA doses, and for UPA30 only, increased creatine phosphokinase (CPK). Pneumonia was the most common SAE for both UPA15 and UPA30. Serious infection rates were similar for UPA15, MTX, and ADA but higher for UPA30 (Figure 1). Rates of herpes zoster (HZ) were higher for both UPA groups (dose-dependent) vs MTX and ADA. Most HZ cases with UPA were non-serious (94%) and involved a single dermatome (74%). CPK elevations, which were mostly asymptomatic, were more common for both UPA groups (dose-dependent) vs MTX and ADA. EAERs of adjudicated gastrointestinal perforations were <0.1 and 0.2 E/100 PY for UPA15 and UPA30, respectively. Rates of non-melanoma skin cancer (due in part to more recurrent events with UPA30), anemia, and neutropenia were higher with UPA30 vs other treatment groups. Events of anemia and neutropenia were generally mild/moderate and treatment discontinuation due to these events was uncommon (<0.4%). Rates of other AEs of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic events, were broadly similar across treatment groups. The rate of deaths in UPA-treated patients with RA was not higher than expected for the general population (standardized mortality ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: UPA15, 0.43 [0.29, 0.63]; UPA30, 0.68 [0.40, 1.08]).

Table 1.

TEAEs in patients treated with UPA, MTX, and ADA

UPA 15 mg QDUPA 30 mg QDADA 40 mg EOWMTXn32091204579314ExposureTotal, PY7023.83091.61051.8637.4Mean (SD), weeks114 (64)134 (66)95 (70)106 (67)Median (range), weeks136 (0, 232)160 (0, 231)118 (2, 231)144 (1, 221)E/100 PY (95% CI)Any AE230.7 (227.2, 234.3)283.6 (277.7, 289.6)216.6 (207.8, 225.7)227.8 (216.2, 239.8)Any SAE13.0 (12.2, 13.9)18.8 (17.3, 20.4)13.3 (11.2, 15.7)10.4 (8.0, 13.2)Any AE leading to discontinuation of study drug5.6 (5.0, 6.1)8.5 (7.5, 9.6)6.8 (5.3, 8.5)6.3 (4.5, 8.5)Deathsa0.4 (0.3, 0.6)0.6 (0.3, 0.9)0.9 (0.4, 1.6)0.5 (0.1, 1.4)

aBoth treatment and non-treatment-emergent deaths

EOW, every other week

Conclusion:

The updated safety profile of UPA with up to 4.5 years of exposure in patients with RA was comparable to previous analyses,7 with no new safety signals reported. With the exception of HZ and elevated CPK, the safety profile of UPA15, the approved dose for RA, was similar to that observed for ADA.

References:

[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2503–12;

[2]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet 2019;393:2303–11;

[3]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:1788–800;

[4]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24;

[5]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72:1607–20;

[6]Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1511–21;

[7]Cohen SB, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79(Suppl 1):319–20.

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Hilary Wong, PhD, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Stanley B. Cohen Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Ronald van Vollenhoven Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Pfizer, and UCB, Jeffrey R. Curtis Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and UCB, Leonard Calabrese Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Crescendo, Genentech, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi, Cristiano Zerbini Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Takeda, and UCB, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Christophe Richez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, and Pfizer, Ivan Lagunes-Galindo Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Samuel Anyanwu Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB

THU0218 INCIDENCE AND RISK FACTORS FOR HERPES ZOSTER IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The background rate of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA is around 0.98/100 person years (PY)1. Pts with RA receiving JAK inhibitors have been reported to have an increased risk of HZ.

Objectives:

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for HZ in pts with RA receiving UPA relative to active comparators in the Phase 3 clinical trial program.

Methods:

The incidence rate of HZ was determined in pts receiving UPA (as monotherapy [mono] or combination therapy) in five randomized Phase 3 trials (SELECT-EARLY, SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, SELECT-NEXT, SELECT-COMPARE, and SELECT-BEYOND), of which 4 evaluated both the UPA 15 and 30 mg once-daily (QD) doses and 1 trial (SELECT-COMPARE) evaluated only the 15 mg QD dose. Incidence of HZ was also determined in pts receiving adalimumab (ADA) + methotrexate (MTX) in SELECT-COMPARE and MTX mono in SELECT-EARLY. Risk factors for HZ were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Data cut-off was 30 June 2019.

Results:

Overall, 2629 pts who received UPA 15 mg QD (4565.8 patient-years [PY]), 1204 pts who received UPA 30 mg QD (2309.7 PY), 579 pts who received ADA + MTX (768.6 PY), and 314 pts who received MTX mono (456.0 PY) were analyzed. Fewer than 5% of pts across the treatment groups reported prior HZ vaccination. HZ (n/100 PY [95% CI]) occurred in 142 pts (3.1 [2.6–3.7]) with UPA 15 mg, 126 pts (5.5 [4.5–6.5]) with UPA 30 mg, 8 pts (1.0 [0.4–2.1]) with ADA + MTX, and 5 pts (1.1 [0.4–2.6]) with MTX mono. Most of the HZ cases (~71%) with UPA (Table) and all cases with ADA + MTX and MTX mono involved a single dermatome. Ophthalmic involvement was seen in 6 (4.2%) and 3 (2.4%) cases in the UPA 15 and 30 mg groups, respectively, and unilateral involvement with multiple dermatomes was seen in 26 (18.3%) and 23 (18.3%) cases. There was a single case of HZ meningitis reported in a Japanese pt on UPA 30 mg. In multivariate analyses, prior history of HZ and Asian region were associated with an increased risk of HZ in both the UPA groups (p≤0.01;Figure). In addition, pts ≥65 years old had increased risk of HZ in the 15 mg group.

Conclusion:

HZ events in pts with RA receiving UPA were more common in the 30 mg vs 15 mg group, and in both UPA groups compared with the ADA + MTX and MTX groups.

References:

[1]Smitten AL, et al. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1431–8

Table.

Summary of extent of involvement in pts with HZ

Categories, n (%)aAny UPA 15 mg QD(N=2629)Any UPA 30 mg QD(N=1204)Total patients with ≥1 HZ event142 (5.4)126 (10.5)Single dermatome101 (71.1)89 (70.6)Ophthalmic involvement6 (4.2)3 (2.4)HZ Oticus (Ramsay Hunt Syndrome)2 (1.4)1 (0.8)Multidermatomal (unilateral)b26 (18.3)23 (18.3)Disseminated, cutaneous only (no CNS involvement)c7 (4.9)8 (6.3)Disseminated with CNS or visceral involvement01 (0.8)dMissing8 (5.6)5 (4.0)

aPts may fall into >1 category;b≤2 adjacent dermatomes;c≥3 dermatomes, unilateral nonadjacent dermatomes, or bilateral dermatomes;dHZ meningitis

Figure.

Multivariable-adjusted risk factors for HZ in pts receiving UPA

Disclosure of Interests: :

Kevin Winthrop Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Kunihiro Yamaoka Speakers bureau: AbbVie GK, Astellas Pharma Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Pfizer Japan Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, Sandoz, Amgen, and Janssen., Consultant of: AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, Sandoz, Amgen, and Janssen., Leonard Calabrese Consultant of: AbbVie, GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, and Gilead, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, Novartis, Genentech, Janssen, and AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jose Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jeffrey R. Curtis Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and UCB

THU0197 SAFETY PROFILE OF UPADACITINIB UP TO 3 YEARS OF EXPOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

The safety and efficacy of upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, was evaluated in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program, which included 5 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials across a spectrum of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (pts)1-5.

Objectives:

To describe the long-term integrated safety profile of UPA relative to active comparators in pts with RA treated in the SELECT program up to a cut-off date of 30 June 2019.

Methods:

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs: AE onset ≥first dose and ≤30 days after last dose) were summarized for the following: methotrexate (MTX, 1 trial, mean exposure 76 wks); adalimumab (ADA, 1 trial, mean exposure 69 wks); pooled UPA 15 mg (5 trials, mean exposure 90 wks); pooled UPA 30 mg (4 trials, mean exposure 100 wks). TEAEs are reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs; events/100 patient years [E/100PYs]).

Results:

3833 pts received ≥1 dose of UPA 15 mg [n=2629, 4565.8 PYs] or 30 mg [n=1204, 2309.7 PYs] QD, with no option to switch doses. More than half of pts received UPA for ≥96 wks (median: UPA 15, 101.9 wks; UPA 30: 111.7 wks). The EAERs of overall SAEs and AEs leading to discontinuation on UPA 15 mg were comparable to MTX and ADA; rates on UPA 30 mg were numerically higher than UPA 15 mg (Table). The most common AEs (≥5 E/100 PYs) reported with UPA 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection (UTI), bronchitis, increased CPK, and increased ALT. For UPA 30 mg, the most common AEs reported were URTI, UTI, increased CPK, nasopharyngitis, bacterial bronchitis, and herpes zoster (HZ). Overall rates of serious infections and opportunistic infections were comparable between UPA 15 mg, MTX, and ADA groups but were higher on UPA 30 mg (Figure). Rates of HZ were higher in both UPA groups (30 mg higher than 15 mg) vs MTX and ADA. The majority of HZ cases were non-serious (96%) and involved a single dermatome (74%). Rates of VTE were comparable across treatment groups (0.3-0.5/100 PYs), as were rates of adjudicated MACE and malignancies (excluding NMSC). Rates of NMSC in UPA 15 mg and ADA were similar, with numerically higher rates on UPA 30 mg. SMR analysis demonstrated that the number of deaths in pts with RA exposed to UPA was not higher than what would be expected for the general population.

Conclusion:

Through long-term follow-up, the integrated safety profile of UPA remained consistent with previous analyses, with no new signals identified.

References:

[1]Burmester,et al.Lancet2018;391:2503-12.

[2]Genovese,et al.Lancet2018;391:2513-24.

[3]Smolen,et al.Lancet2019;393:2303-11.

[4]Fleischmann,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2019;71:1788-1800.

[5]van Vollenhoven,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2018;70(Suppl 10).

Table.

Overall TEAEs for UPA and Active Comparators (E/100 PYs [95% CI])

MTXn=314(456.0 PYs)ADA 40 mg eown=579(768.6 PYs)UPA 15 mg QDn=2629(4565.8 PYs)UPA 30 mg QDn=1204(2309.7 PYs)Any AE271.7 (256.8, 287.3)242.3 (231.4, 253.5)247.7 (243.2, 252.3)310.6 (303.5, 317.9)Any SAE12.7 (9.7, 16.4)14.6 (12.0, 17.5)12.9 (11.9, 14.0)19.8 (18.0, 21.7)Any AE leading to discontinuation7.7 (5.3, 10.7)8.2 (6.3, 10.5)6.3 (5.6, 7.1)10.0 (8.8, 11.4)Deathsa0.4 (0.1, 1.6)0.8 (0.3, 1.7)0.4 (0.2, 0.6)0.7 (0.4, 1.1)

aDeaths included non-treatment emergent deaths: ADA, 1; UPA 15 mg, 3; UPA 30 mg, 3.

Disclosure of Interests:

Stanley B. Cohen Grant/research support from: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, Consultant of: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Jeffrey R. Curtis Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and UCB, Leonard Calabrese Consultant of: AbbVie, GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, and Gilead, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, Novartis, Genentech, Janssen, and AbbVie, Cristiano Zerbini Grant/research support from: Amgen, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Casey Schlacher Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jose Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

FRI0141 CHARACTERIZATION OF SERIOUS INFECTIONS WITH UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with an approved dose of 15 mg once daily (QD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients (pts) receiving JAK inhibitors have been reported to be at increased risk of developing serious infection events (SIE) and opportunistic infections (OI).

Objectives:

To evaluate the incidence of SIEs and OIs in pts with RA receiving UPA and active comparators in the Phase 3 SELECT clinical trial program.

Methods:

The exposure-adjusted event rate (EAER) per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY) of SIEs and OIs was determined in pts receiving UPA in five randomized Phase 3 trials (SELECT-EARLY, SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, SELECT-NEXT, SELECT-COMPARE, and SELECT-BEYOND), of which four evaluated both UPA 15 mg and 30 mg QD doses and one (SELECT-COMPARE) evaluated only UPA 15 mg QD. Incidences of SIEs and OIs were also determined in pts receiving adalimumab (ADA) + methotrexate (MTX) in SELECT-COMPARE and MTX monotherapy in SELECT-EARLY. Data were analyzed descriptively, with no statistical comparisons between groups or doses. Risk factors for SIEs were determined using a univariate Cox regression model. The data cut-off was June 30, 2019.

Results:

Overall, 2629 pts who received UPA 15 mg, 1204 pts who received UPA 30 mg, 579 pts who received ADA + MTX, and 314 pts who received MTX monotherapy were included in this analysis. The EAERs (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) of SIEs were 3.2 (2.7–3.7) in the UPA 15 mg group, 5.7 (4.8–6.8) in the UPA 30 mg group, 3.9 (2.6–5.6) in pts receiving ADA + MTX, and 3.1 (1.7–5.2) in pts receiving MTX monotherapy. Pneumonia was the most common SIE, with EAERs (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) of 0.7 (0.5–1.0), 1.3 (0.9–1.9), 0.7 (0.2–1.5), and 0.7 (0.1–1.9) in the UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, ADA + MTX, and MTX monotherapy groups, respectively. Rates of OIs (including oral candidiasis and disseminated herpes zoster [HZ]) (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) were 0.7 (0.5–1.0), 1.3 (0.9–1.9), 0.4 (0.1–1.1), and 0 (0–0) in the UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, ADA + MTX, and MTX monotherapy groups, respectively. Oral candidiasis was the most frequent OI with EAERs (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) of 0.4 (0.2–0.6) in the UPA 15 mg group, 0.6 (0.3–1.0) in the UPA 30 mg group, 0.4 (0.1–1.1) in the ADA + MTX group, and 0 (0–0) in the MTX monotherapy group. Serious adverse events of HZ were only reported in the UPA groups (0.2 E/100 PYs [95% CI: 0.1–0.3] and 0.6 E/100 PYs [95% CI: 0.4–1.1] in the UPA 15 mg and 30 mg groups, respectively). Overall, there were 3 (4 coded events), 3, 1, and 0 pts who had active tuberculosis events in the UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, ADA + MTX, and MTX monotherapy groups, respectively. Risk factors for SIEs are shown in the Figure. For both UPA doses, age ≥75 years and smoking were noted to have hazard ratios >1.

Conclusion:

The incidence rate of SIEs and OIs was higher in the UPA 30 mg group than the UPA 15 mg group. SIEs observed with UPA 15 mg were similar to that seen with ADA although the rates of HZ were higher on UPA. Pts with RA who are ≥75 years old and/or smokers may be at higher risk than other pts with RA for SIEs while receiving UPA.

Figure.

Univariate analysis of SIE risk factors

Disclosure of Interests:

Kevin Winthrop Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Leonard Calabrese Consultant of: AbbVie, GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, and Gilead, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, Novartis, Genentech, Janssen, and AbbVie, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Kunihiro Yamaoka Speakers bureau: AbbVie GK, Astellas Pharma Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Pfizer Japan Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, Carlo Selmi Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, and Leo Pharma, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Regeneron, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Aesku, Alfa-Wassermann, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Grifols, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB Pharma, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Barbara Hendrickson Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ivan Lagunes-Galindo Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

FRI0494 RHEUMATIC IMMUNE RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS OF CHECKPOINT INHIBITORS: A RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW OF 70 PATIENTS

Background:

Immune Checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized cancer therapy by achieving remarkable survival benefits however, at the cost of a myriad of immune-related adverse events (irAEs)[1]. Rheumatic irAE can develop in 5-10% of patients although the true incidence is unknown given the lack of prospective studies [2]. Symptoms are heterogenous and probably underreported with few data available about their management and outcome [3].

Objectives:

To describe the clinical, biological, and radiological features of the largest cohort of rheumatic irAEs from ICI along with their therapeutic management, outcome and follow-up in real-world practice.

Methods:

A referral process for emergent rheumatic irAEs was initiated in February 2016 between the oncology and rheumatology departments at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All patients were evaluated by authors CC and/or LHC. Patients’ characteristics were retrospectively collected from medical charts after IRB approval.

Results:

70 patients referred for one or more rheumatic irAEs between February 2016 and January 2020 were included. 66% were male, median age was 60.8 years. Among them, 24 (34%) had pre-existing rheumatic complaints. Melanoma was the most frequent malignancy (56%). ICI therapy included anti-CTLA4 (40%), anti-PD1/L1 (79%), and dual therapy ipilimumab/nivolumab (41%). Rheumatic irAE occurred in a median 4 months after ICI initiation, with phenotypes including inflammatory arthritis (32 patients), sicca-like symptoms (12), polymyalgia rheumatica-like (7), and myositis (2). Oral, intravenous or intraarticular glucocorticoids (GC) were administered to 54 patients (77%). Of these 54 patients, 22 (41%) required long term GC, 19 had bone density scan and 15 received pneumocystis (PJP) prophylaxis. One PJP case, 1 osteoporotic fracture and 2 avascular necrosis cases were reported. 16 patients received conventional DMARDS (23%) and 9 received biologics (13%). ICI therapy was held for rheumatic irAE in 31% of cases and for another systemic irAE in 29%. Median follow-up was 13.6 months, at end of follow-up 51 patients were still on treatment for rheumatic irAE and 41% of them were still symptomatic despite ongoing treatment.

Conclusion:

Rheumatic irAEs are heterogeneous and often chronic requiring prolonged immunomodulatory therapy. Prospective studies are required to define optimal management of rheumatic irAEs that maintain long-term oncologic outcomes.

References:

[1]Suarez-Almazor ME, Kim ST, Abdel-Wahab N, Diab A. Review: Immune-Related Adverse Events With Use of Checkpoint Inhibitors for Immunotherapy of Cancer. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017;69:687–99.https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40043.

[2]Abdel-Wahab N, Suarez-Almazor ME. Frequency and distribution of various rheumatic disorders associated with checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Rheumatol (United Kingdom) 2019;58:vii40–8.https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kez297.

[3]Kostine M, Rouxel L, Barnetche T, Veillon R, Martin F, Dutriaux C, et al. Rheumatic disorders associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer-clinical aspects and relationship with tumour response: a single-centre prospective cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:393–8.https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212257.

Disclosure of Interests:

Tiphaine Lenfant: None declared, Leonard Calabrese Consultant of: AbbVie, GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, and Gilead, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, Novartis, Genentech, Janssen, and AbbVie, cassandra calabrese Consultant of: Abbvie

GSK, Speakers bureau: Sanofi-Genzyme

African statue with goiter

INTRODUCTION

Representations of thyroid swelling, intended as an enlarged anterior neck in the artworks of various periods are sporadically reported in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An African statue belonging to the African Yoruba culture has been analysed.

RESULTS

Members of Ogboni Society in Yoruba culture used this statues to represent a real subject and to communicate between the living and dead.

CONCLUSION

The statue reported seems to represent a case of real goiter.

Prognostic Value of Sentinel Node in Oral Cancer

Aims and Background

In stage I oral squamous cell carcinoma, clinical examination and imaging techniques are unable to identify 60-90% of patients at risk of micrometastasis, while the sentinel node biopsy technique allows to avoid the morbidity of elective neck dissection in patients not actually affected by micrometastases.

Materials and methods

Forty-one T1-T2N0 patients underwent lymphoscintigraphy after peritumoral injection of human albumin labeled with 99Tc. Focal areas of radiotracer uptake were marked on the skin preoperatively. The sentinel lymph node (SLN) was identified by the combined use of blue dye and gamma probe and subsequently removed. Complete neck dissection was then performed in all patients and the histological findings were compared with those of SLN biopsy.

Results

The SLN was identified in 95% of the patients; in four cases (10%) two SLNs were isolated. In 18% of our patients the SLNs were located outside the expected drainage area. When the histology of the negative SLNs was compared with the pathological status of the neck dissection specimens no false negatives were found. Five SLNs in four patients contained micrometastases and were the only positive lymph nodes.

Conclusion

SLN biopsy can be a valuable staging technique in T1 and T2 oral cancer with uninvolved neck in patients whose lymphatic drainage of the neck has not been altered by previous surgery or radiotherapy. It provides reliable detection of micrometastasis, indicating which level(s) should be removed ipsilaterally or contralaterally, and allows the surgeon to accurately plan neck dissection, taking into consideration the pattern of lymphatic drainage of each individual patient. In this way unnecessary neck dissection and its morphofunctional sequelae can be avoided in a considerable number of patients.

Cytology and molecular mechanisms of drug-induced gingival hypertrophy: a rewiew

Introduction

Gingival hypertrophy is a frequent condition associated to the increased number of patients taking some categories of drugs. The goal of this work is to emphasize the importance of diagnosis to set a proper therapy.

Material and methods

The plaque accumulation in patients having a poor oral hygiene damages the periodontium and requires the application of strict professional and home hygiene protocols.

Results and conclusion

The drug-induced gingival proliferation knowledge is essential in order to succeed in working with the internist and in planning a precise therapy, without interfering with the metabolism of drugs, often necessary and irreplaceable for patients' health.

Screening for metabolic syndrome in older patients with severe mental illness: Two-years observational study

Introduction

Patients with serious psychiatric illness (SMI) have a reduced quality of life and life expectancy than the general population. Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a clinical aspect determining who should be considered to reduce the risk of serious and chronic organic factors, even more significant in the elderly.

Objectives

To evaluate metabolic screening of elderly patients with severe mental illness (SMI).

Aims

To evaluate the importance of routine screening of metabolic parameters in elderly guests of residential facilities with or without SMI; metabolic screening at baseline and after two of hospitalization.

Methods

Elderly inpatients (44 Tot) with Severe Mental Illness (SMI: bipolar disorder: 34%; schizophrenia: 46%; other: 20%) vs elderly inpatients (78 Tot). Data collected at baseline: psychiatric diagnosis; any previous diagnosis of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia; ECG. At baseline and for two years were administered following scale: BPRS; PANSS; Qli; MMSE, ADL.

Results

After two years metabolic screening has recorded at least one of the new interactions between the five factors of MS (ATP III) in 50% of patients with: one (34%); two (21%); three (11%); four (3%) new altered parameters. In MS inpatients, 53% of new metabolic alterations were recorded in 53% (MS inpatients) vs 23% without MS after two years.

Conclusions

Our results showed a higher frequency of MS in patients with SMI than comparison subjects. Haloperidol was the antipsychotic medication that caused minor impact on the development of metabolic disorders.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

(18)F-FDG PET/CT versus bone scintigraphy in the follow-up of gastric cancer

A 53-year-old patient underwent a positron emission tomography/computed tomography with 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) in the suspicious of gastric tumor recurrence (mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes). PET/CT identified only an area of (18)F-FDGuptake in the twelfth thoracic vertebrae. Unexpectedly, a bone scintigraphy revealed many "hot" spots changing the diagnosis (single metastasis versus plurimetastatic disease) and impacting on patient's management.

Opportunistic infections and biologic therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: consensus recommendations for infection reporting during clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance

No consensus has previously been formed regarding the types and presentations of infectious pathogens to be considered as ‘opportunistic infections’ (OIs) within the setting of biologic therapy. We systematically reviewed published literature reporting OIs in the setting of biologic therapy for inflammatory diseases. The review sought to describe the OI definitions used within these studies and the types of OIs reported. These findings informed a consensus committee (infectious diseases and rheumatology specialists) in deliberations regarding the development of a candidate list of infections that should be considered as OIs in the setting of biologic therapy. We reviewed 368 clinical trials (randomised controlled/long-term extension), 195 observational studies and numerous case reports/series. Only 11 observational studies defined OIs within their methods; no consistent OI definition was identified across studies. Across all study formats, the most numerous OIs reported were granulomatous infections. The consensus group developed a working definition for OIs as ‘indicator’ infections, defined as specific pathogens or presentations of pathogens that ‘indicate’ the likelihood of an alteration in host immunity in the setting of biologic therapy. Using this framework, consensus was reached upon a list of OIs and case-definitions for their reporting during clinical trials and other studies. Prior studies of OIs in the setting of biologic therapy have used inconsistent definitions. The consensus committee reached agreement upon an OI definition, developed case definitions for reporting of each pathogen, and recommended these be used in future studies to facilitate comparison of infection risk between biologic therapies.