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.

AB0344 EFFICACY OF SUBCUTANEOUS INFLIXIMAB (CT-P13 SC) COMPARED WITH INTRAVENOUS INFLIXIMAB IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A POST-HOC ANALYSIS OF A PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background

Subcutaneous (SC) CT-P13 is the first and only subcutaneous formulation of infliximab (IFX) approved by the EMA.1 In the pivotal study (NCT03147248), non-inferiority of SC IFX to intravenous (IV) was demonstrated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) C-reactive protein (CRP) improvement at Week 22, with a statistically significant treatment difference of 0.27 (95% CI 0.02, 0.52) favoring the SC versus the IV arm.2,3 At Week 30, numerical differences in efficacy outcomes were shown between SC and IV IFX favoring SC IFX. IV group patients switched to SC IFX by Week 30, and the difference between the groups was reduced at Week 54.2

Objectives

To investigate whether there was a statistically significant difference between SC and IV IFX at Weeks 30 and 54 in the phase 3 pivotal study of CT-P13 SC using conservative missing imputation methods.

Methods

Patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to MTX received IV IFX 3mg/kg at Weeks 0 and 2 for induction and were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive SC IFX 120mg every 2 weeks or IV 3mg/kg every 8 weeks thereafter for maintenance. Patients who were randomized to receive IV IFX switched to SC at Week 30. In this post-hoc analysis, non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observation carried forward (LOCF) methods were used to investigate whether the difference in efficacy outcomes between SC and IV IFX at Weeks 30 and 54 was statistically significant. Assessments included EULAR (CRP/ESR)/ACR response; remission rate and low disease activity (LDA) rate based on DAS28 (CRP/ESR), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI); Boolean remission rate; and the proportion of patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).

Results

Of the 343 randomized patients, 165 patients who received SC IFX and 174 patients who received IV IFX from the efficacy population were included in the analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in SC IFX compared to IV treated patients at Week 30 using both NRI and LOCF methods in almost all the clinical variables. However, the difference in efficacy outcomes between SC IFX and IV was reduced at Week 54 after the IV group switched to SC. This supports the improved efficacy of SC IFX at Week 30. Some of the key results (EULAR [CRP] responses, LDA rates based on DAS28 [CRP], CDAI, and SDAI) were presented in Figure 1. Analysis using LOCF and NRI methods yielded consistent results across most of the efficacy outcomes.

Figure 1.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between SC IFX and IV IFX in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

*P<0.05.

P-value for difference in proportion between SC and IV treatment group was obtained by asymptotic Wald test.

Low disease activity based on DAS28 (CRP) (< 3.2), CDAI (eatment group AI (≤ 11.0).

Conclusion

Statistical analyses using conservative missing imputation methods showed significantly greater improvements in clinical outcomes with SC IFX compared to IV at Week 30 in patients with RA. Between-group differences was reduced at Week 54, suggesting improved responses after switching from IV to SC.

References

[1]Remsima summary of product characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/remsima-epar-product-information_en.pdf. Published 2021. Accessed 10 January 2022.

[2]Westhovens R, Wiland P, Zawadzki M, et al. Efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous CT-P13 in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized phase I/III trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;60(5):2277-2287.

[3]Combe B, Allanore Y, Alten R, et al. Comparative efficacy of subcutaneous (CT-P13) and intravenous infliximab in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-regression of individual patient data from two randomised trials. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021;23(1):119.

Disclosure of Interests

Arnaud Constantin Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, MSD, UCB, Roche,Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Christopher John Edwards Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: Celltrion, Pfizer, Abbvie, Joao Eurico Fonseca Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Ache, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Florenzo Iannone Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, MSD, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, MSD, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS, MSD, Edward Keystone Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Celltrion, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Myriad Autoimmune, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Consultant of: Celltrion, Taeksang Kwon Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Seungmin Kim Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Sangwook Yoon Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Dong-Hyeon Kim Employee of: Celltrion Healthcare, Gahee Park Employee of: Celltrion Inc., DaeHyun Yoo Speakers bureau: Celltrion, Celltrion Healthcare

POS1246 COVID-19 IN RITUXIMAB TREATED PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Background

At the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the influence of anti-inflammatory therapy on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) was unknown. In the meantime, several data indicate an association of severe courses of COVID-19 with the use of rituximab (RTX).

Objectives

To gather further knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 infections in RTX-treated IRD patients, data from the German COVID-19-IRD-registry were analysed.

Methods

Hospitalisation was used as a surrogate of COVID-19 severity. Baseline characteristics, disease features, medication and outcome of COVID-19 were compared in RTX-treated inpatients and outpatients.

Results

In total, 3592 cases were reported in the registry, which included 130 RTX patients (3.6%) for our analysis. RTX-treated inpatients were older than RTX-treated outpatients (median age 63 y vs 56 y, p=0.007). Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis treated with RTX (n=32) showed a significant higher COVID-19 related hospitalisation rate (33% vs 11%, p=0.005), which was not the case for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (49% vs 50%). Cardiovascular comorbidities were reported more frequently in hospitalised RTX-treated patients (20% vs. 6%, p=0.032). More than 50% of the RTX-treated inpatients developed COVID-19 related complications, e.g. acute respiratory distress syndrome. The median time period between the last RTX treatment and SARS-CoV-2 infection was shorter in inpatients than in non-hospitalised patients (3 (range 0-17) vs. 4 months (range -29), p=0.039). The COVID-19 related mortality rate was 14% (n=19) in RTX-treated IRD patients. In RTX-treated inpatients and outpatients, there were no relevant differences with respect to the use of concomitant glucocorticoids or other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, disease activity, median last RTX dose or median number of immunomodulatory drugs prior to RTX treatment.

Conclusion

In addition to general risk factors, such as age and comorbidities, it is already known that IRD patients treated with RTX show a higher rate of severe COVID-19. In our registry, RTX-treated patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis appear to be at even higher risk to develop severe COVID-19 compared to other IRD. Moreover, the shorter the time since the last RTX treatment, the higher seems to be the risk of developing severe COVID-19. This might be explained by a more profound B-cell depletion in the first weeks after RTX treatment warranting further studies.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OP0043 TOCILIZUMAB SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES SERUM AMYLOID A IN PATIENTS WITH FAMILIAL MEDITERRANEAN FEVER – DATA FROM THE PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND TOFFIFE STUDY

Background

Uncontrolled inflammation in patients with familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) can lead to severe organ failure due to amyloidosis. Colchicine is still the standard treatment and the only therapy that has been proven to reduce the risk for amyloidosis. Besides colchicine the Interleukin (IL)1-antagonists Anakinra and Canakinumab are approved, but new treatment options are still needed. The IL-6 antagonist Tocilizumab (TCZ) effectively reduces inflammation and is approved in several other rheumatic indication. Here we present data from our phase II study TCZ for the treatment of FMF – TOFFIFE.

Objectives

To explore the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in FMF.

Methods

The TOFFIFE study was a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of TCZ in patients with colchicine resistant (cr)FMF. The physician’s global assessment of disease activity (PGA) based on a 5 point-scale for 6 symptoms (range 0-24) was used as a clinical score and had to be >2 at screening. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either receive monthly TCZ intravenously with 8 mg/kg bodyweight or placebo over a period of 24 weeks. Patients with inadequate response after week 12 had the opportunity to receive open label TCZ at week 16. The primary endpoint was the number of patients achieving an adequate response to treatment at week 16, defined as a PGA ≤ 2 + normalized ESR or CRP (the item that led to inclusion had to be normalized) + normalized SAA. Secondary endpoints included normalization of SAA during treatment and safety of TCZ in FMF patients.

Results

25 patients were randomized with a median age of 31 years (range 18 - 53y), of which 14 (56%) were female. At week 16, which was the timepoint for the primary end point, 2 (15.4%) patients in the TCZ arm reached the primary end point with a PGA ≤ 2 and normalization of SAA and CRP and/or ESR but none of the patients in the placebo arm. Therefore, the superiority of TCZ compared to placebo could be shown concerning the pre-specified significance level of α=0.2 (p=0.089). SAA levels normalized with TCZ but not with PBO. This difference between TCZ und PBO was highly significant; SAA p < 0.015. At week 28 with 17 remaining patients and after having had the opportunity for a rescue treatment at week 16, the responder rates (PGA ≤ 2 + normalization of SAA, ESR and/or CRP) were 25% (n=1) in those patients who changed from placebo to TCZ (n=4) and 20% (n=2) in those patients who continued with TCZ (n=10). Of note, all 3 patients remaining on PBO were non-responders (p= 0.642). In 75% of patients (n=3) CRP and in 50% SAA (n=2) normalized after changing to TCZ. No new safety aspects occurred.

Conclusion

In this first randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with active crFMF TCZ significantly reduced and normalized SAA levels. The trial met the primary endpoint to demonstrate the superiority of TCZ over PBO although only a small numerical difference was found. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients with a successful TCZ-therapy was lower than expected due to very strict response criteria; patients had to achieve a complete remission with a PGA ≤2 (on a 0-24 scale) and normalization of the inflammatory parameters (CRP/ESR and SAA). This required no or only mildest symptoms during the last 4 weeks. A larger multicenter study is therefore justifiable and needs to clarify the benefit of TCZ treatment in FMF.

Figure 1.

Secondary endpoint: Serum Amyloid A over time, showing a clear reduction in the TCZ but not in the PBO arm and rerise of SAA after discontinuation after week 28. Normal SAA value = < 10mg/l. Outliers > 100mg/l were excluded in this graph.

Disclosure of Interests

Jörg Henes Speakers bureau: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Consultant of: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Grant/research support from: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Sebastian Saur: None declared, David M Kofler: None declared, Claudia Kedor: None declared, Christoph Meisner: None declared, Martin Krusche Speakers bureau: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Ina Kötter Speakers bureau: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Consultant of: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Theodoros Xenitidis: None declared, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Speakers bureau: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Consultant of: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Eugen Feist Speakers bureau: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai, Consultant of: SOBI, Novartis, Roche/Chugai.

POS0679 CLINICAL OUTCOMES UP TO WEEK (W) 48 IN THE ONGOING FILGOTINIB (FIL) LONG-TERM EXTENSION (LTE) TRIAL OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA) PATIENTS (pts) WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE (IR) TO METHOTREXATE (MTX) INITIALLY TREATED WITH FIL OR ADALIMUMAB (ADA) DURING THE PHASE 3 PARENT STUDY (PS)

Background

The preferential Janus kinase-1 inhibitor FIL is approved for treatment of moderate to severe active RA in Europe and Japan.

Objectives

Efficacy and safety of FIL were assessed in pts with IR to MTX who completed a Phase 3 trial (NCT02889796)1 and enrolled in an LTE (NCT03025308).

Methods

Pts completing the PS1 on study drug were eligible to enter the LTE (data cutoff: June 1, 2020). Median exposure: 2.2 years (y). Efficacy data to W48 are reported for 4 treatment groups (all with background MTX): pts receiving FIL 200 mg (FIL200) or FIL 100 mg (FIL100) in the PS and continuing their dose in LTE (FIL200/FIL200, FIL100/FIL100) and ADA pts rerandomized, double blind, to FIL200 or FIL100 for LTE (ADA/FIL200, ADA/FIL100); safety data are reported.

Results

As of June 1, 2020, 522/571 (91%) FIL200/FIL200, 502/570 (88%) FIL100/FIL100, 118/128 (92%) ADA/FIL200, and 115/130 (89%) ADA/FIL100 pts remained on study drug. LTE baseline disease characteristics were similar between groups: mean duration of RA approximately 8.7 y; DAS28(CRP) 2.55, and mean concurrent MTX dosage was 15.0 mg/week. Proportions of pts achieving ACR20/50/70, DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, <2.6, and CDAI ≤10, ≤2.8 were generally maintained in all LTE groups through W48 (Figure 1). Numerically greater proportions of pts met response criteria at W48 in the FIL200 groups vs FIL100, regardless of PS treatment. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAE), serious AEs, and AEs Grade ≥3 were largely comparable between groups and lowest in ADA/FIL100. There were 10 deaths (Table 1). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs)/100 pt-y of exposure for deaths were lower for FIL/FIL vs ADA/FIL.

Table 1.

EAIRs of TEAEs in LTE, as of June 1, 2020

1TEAE, n (%)3FIL200+MTX → FIL200+MTX6ADA+MTX → FIL200+MTX9FIL100+MTX → FIL100+MTX12ADA+MTX → FIL100+MTX2EAIR (95% CI)4n=5717n=12810n=57013n=1305PYE=859.48PYE=197.811PYE=852.314PYE=192.6TEAE429 (75.1)91 (71.1)443 (77.7)88 (67.7)49.9 (45.4, 54.9)46.0 (37.5, 56.5)52.0 (47.4, 57.0)45.7 (37.1, 56.3)TEAE Grade ≥364 (11.2)15 (11.7)72 (12.6)7 (5.4)7.4 (5.8, 9.5)7.6 (4.6, 12.6)8.4 (6.7, 10.6)3.6 (1.7, 7.6)TE serious AE52 (9.1)13 (10.2)60 (10.5)9 (6.9)6.1 (4.6, 7.9)6.6 (3.8, 11.3)7.0 (5.5, 9.1)4.7 (2.4, 9.0)Death3 (0.5)2 (1.6)3 (0.5)2 (1.5)0.3 (0.1, 1.1)1.0 (0.3, 4.0)0.4 (0.1, 1.1)1.0 (0.3, 4.2)TE infections243 (42.6)52 (40.6)249 (43.7)43 (33.1)28.3 (24.9, 32.1)26.3 (20.0, 34.5)29.2 (25.8, 33.1)22.3 (16.6, 30.1)TE serious infections7 (1.2)2 (1.6)13 (2.3)1 (0.8)0.8 (0.4, 1.7)1.0 (0.3, 4.0)1.5 (0.9, 2.6)0.5 (0.1, 3.7)Opportunistic infections2 (0.4)02 (0.4)00.2 (0, 0.8)0 (0, 1.9)0.2 (0, 0.8)0 (0, 1.9)TE herpes zoster16 (2.8)5 (3.9)13 (2.3)1 (0.8)1.9 (1.1, 3.0)2.5 (1.1,6.1)1.5 (0.9, 2.6)0.5 (0.1, 3.7)TE MACE (adjudicated)1 (0.2)03 (0.5)3 (2.3)01 (0, 0.6)0 (0, 1.9)0.4 (0.1, 1.1)1.6 (0.5, 4.8)TE DVT/PE (adjudicated)3 (0.5)03 (0.5)00.3 (0.1, 1.0)0 (0, 1.9)0.4 (0.1, 1.0)0 (0, 1.9)Malignancies (excluding NMSC)5 (0.9)3 (2.3)4 (0.7)00.6 (0.2, 1.4)1.5 (0.5, 4.7)0.5 (0.1, 1.2)0 (0, 1.9)NMSC3 (0.5)02 (0.4)00.3 (0.1, 1.0)0 (0, 1.9)0.2 (0, 0.8)0 (0, 1.9)

DVT, deep vein thrombosis; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; NMSC, nonmelanoma skin cancer; PE, pulmonary embolism; TE, treatment-emergent

Figure 1.

Conclusion

During the LTE through W48, response rates generally were maintained for FIL/FIL and ADA/FIL pts. Though there were differences between LTE groups, safety was largely comparable and consistent with PS observations1 and previously reported results from 7 trials2: rates of AEs of special interest were low; all confidence intervals were overlapping. Limitation: the LTE was not formally randomized for comparison between FIL/FIL and ADA/FIL treatment groups, the groups were of unequal size, and the switch from ADA to FIL for LTE was by design, rather than based on disease activity.

References

[1]Combe B et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:848–58.

[2]Winthrop K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72(suppl 10); abstract 0229.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA. Medical writing support was provided by Claudine Bitel, PhD, of AlphaScientia, LLC, San Francisco, CA; and funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA.

Disclosure of Interests

Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: BMS, Eli Lilly & Co., Gilead Sciences, Inc., MSD, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly & Co., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Chugai, Daiichi- Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi- Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda, Paul Emery Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, and Samsung, Alena Pechonkina Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Albert Kuo Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Qi Gong Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Katrien Van Beneden Shareholder of: Galapagos NV, Employee of: Galapagos NV, Vijay Rajendran Shareholder of: Galapagos NV, Employee of: Galapagos NV, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis

OP0179 CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF SARS-CoV-2 BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS AMONG DOUBLE AND TRIPLE VACCINATED PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Background

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines offer the most effective way to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19. Recent data indicate sufficient immune response after vaccination in most patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) on immunomodulatory treatments.

Objectives

To investigate the clinical profile of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double and triple vaccinated patients with IRD.

Methods

Data from the German COVID-19-IRD registry, collected by treating rheumatologists between February 2021 and January 2022 were analysed. Patients double or triple vaccinated against COVID-19 ≥14 days prior to proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, and type of IRD, vaccine, immunomodulation, comorbidities and outcome of the infection were compared with 737 unvaccinated IRD-patients with COVID-19.

Results

In total, 271 cases of breakthrough infections were reported, 250 patients (91%) had received two doses of vaccines, 21 (9%) patients three. More than 70% of the patients received Pfizer/Biontech vaccine for the first, second and third vaccination. The median time from second/third vaccine dose to infection was 148 days (range 14-302) days. Most of the patients were diagnosed with inflammatory joint diseases (Table 1). Most of the patients were treated with methotrexate (Table 1). The use of Januskinase inhibitors(i) was more frequently reported in double vaccinated patients (10.4% vs 4.8%), whereas tumor necrosis (TNF)i were reported more often in triple vaccinated patients (33.3% vs. 22.8). Hospitalisation rate was higher in unvaccinated IRD-patients than in vaccinated ones, while fatality rate was similar in unvaccinated and double vaccinated patients. Although the rate of comorbidities and median age were higher in triple-vaccinated patients, infected patients showed a lower rate of hospitalisation, neither COVID-19 related complications, nor the need of oxygen treatment or death.

Table 1.

Profile of vaccinated IRD patients

unvaccinated2ndvaccination3rdvaccinationNumber (737)%Number (250)%Number (21)%Age56 (18-93)57 (22-90)63 (35-88)Female47864.915863.21361.9BMI26.8 (17-53)26.7 (17-55)25.4 (18-41)Inflammatory rheumatic disease (multiple selections possible)Inflammatory joint diseases56175.918674.41676.2Connective tissue diseases10112.8301229.6Vasculitis719.6228.8314.3Other IRD638.52911.614.8Immunomodulation (multiple selections possible)Glucocorticoid21228.86726.8523.8Methotrexate27036.69036838.1Azathioprine192.672.8//Cyclosporine30.410.4//Leflunomide506.872.8//Hydroxychloroquine7910.7239.214.8Sulfasalazine202.793.6//JAKi547.32610.414.8TNFi15821.45722.8733.3Abatacept91.231.2//Rituximab212.8114.414.8Other biologics597.93212.829.6Mycophenolate15241.6//Immunoglobulines20.310.4//Apremilast40.5////Cyclophosphamide10.110.4//No immunomodulation7410228.814.8No/low disease activity62584.822389.21885.7Moderate/high disease activity10213.82710.8314.3ComorbiditiesCardiovascular diseases32944.6130521361.9Diabetes mellitus7610.32510//Osteoporosis435.8218.429.5Chronic renal failure405.4166.4419Cancer/history of cancer152.0104314.3COPD253.4104//ILD162.272.8//Bronchial asthma344.6166.4//Pregnancy70.910.414.8No comorbidity25434.59738.8523.8Complications due to COVID-19Hospitalisation13518.32911.629.5Oxygen treatment11415.5249.6//Invasive ventilation253.493.6//Death162.272.8//

Conclusion

In this cohort of triple-vaccinated IRD patients no fatal courses and no COVID-19 related complications were reported, although median age and rate of comorbidities were higher compared to double-vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. These results support the general recommendations to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 disease by administering three doses of vaccine, especially in patients with older age, presence of comorbidities, and on immunomodulatory treatment.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OA29 Clinical outcomes up to week 48 of filgotinib treatment in an ongoing long-term extension trial of RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate initially treated with filgotinib or adalimumab during the Phase 3 Parent Trial

Background/Aims

The preferential Janus kinase (JAK)-1 inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) is approved for treatment of moderately to severely active RA in Europe and Japan. We assessed efficacy and safety of FIL in patients (pts) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR) who completed a Phase 3 trial (NCT02889796) and went on to enroll in a long-term extension (LTE; NCT03025308).

Methods

Pts who completed the parent study (PS) on study drug were eligible to enter the LTE. LTE data cutoff was June 1, 2020, and safety data are reported to that date, with median exposure 2.2 years. Efficacy data to W48 are reported for 4 treatment groups (all with background MTX): pts who received FIL 200mg (FIL200) or FIL 100mg (FIL100) in the PS and continued their dose in LTE (FIL200/FIL200, FIL100/FIL100) and ADA pts who were re-randomized, double blind, to FIL200 or FIL100 for LTE (ADA/FIL200, ADA/FIL100). ACR20/50/70 response rates, DAS28[CRP] ≤3.2 and &lt;2.6, and CDAI ≤10 and ≤2.8 are reported. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR)/100 pt-years of exposure of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and AEs of special interest (AESIs) are summarized.

Results

As of June 1, 2020, 522/571 (91%) FIL200/FIL200, 502/570 (88%) FIL100/FIL100, 118/128 (92%) ADA/FIL200, and 115/130 (89%) ADA/FIL100 pts were still on study drug. LTE baseline (BL) disease characteristics were similar between groups: mean duration of RA was approximately 8.7 years; DAS28(CRP) was 2.55 and mean MTX dosage was 15.0 mg/week. Proportions of pts achieving ACR20/50/70, DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, &lt;2.6, and CDAI ≤10, ≤2.8 were maintained in all 4 LTE groups through W48. Numerically greater proportions of pts met response criteria at W48 in the FIL200 groups vs FIL100, regardless of PS treatment. TEAEs, serious AEs, and AEs Grade ≥3 were largely comparable between groups and lowest in ADA/FIL100 pts. There were 3 deaths in each PS FIL group and 2 in each PS ADA group; EAIRs for deaths were lower for FIL/FIL groups compared with ADA/FIL groups. Opportunistic infections occurred only in FIL/FIL pts (2 in each group). Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC; n = 5) occurred only in FIL/FIL groups, and malignancies excluding NMSC occurred in all groups except ADA/FIL100.

Conclusion

During the LTE through W48, response rates were maintained for FIL/FIL and ADA/FIL pts. Though there were differences between LTE groups, safety was largely comparable and consistent with that observed in the PS and in previously reported results of safety data from 7 trials: rates of AESIs were low, and all confidence intervals were overlapping. Limitation: the LTE was not formally randomized for comparison between FIL/FIL and ADA/FIL treatment groups, the groups were of unequal size, and the switch from ADA to FIL for LTE was by design, rather than based on disease activity.

Disclosure

B. Combe: Consultancies; AbbVie; Eli Lilly & Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi. Member of speakers’ bureau; for BMS; Eli Lilly & Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; MSD; Pfizer; Roche- Chugai; and UCB. Grants/research support; Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai. Y. Tanaka: Consultancies; Eli Lilly, Daiichi- Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, Abbvie. Member of speakers’ bureau; Daiichi- Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Eisai, Chugai, Abbvie, Astellas, Pfizer, Sanofi, Asahi-kasei, GSK, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Gilead, Janssen. Grants/research support; Abbvie, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Asahi-Kasei, Eisai, Takeda, Daiichi-Sankyo. P. Emery: Consultancies; AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, and Sandoz. Grants/research support; AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, and Samsung. A. Pechonkina: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee and shareholder in Gilead Sciences, Inc. A. Kuo: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee and shareholder in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Q. Gong: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee and shareholder in Gilead Sciences, Inc. K. Van Beneden: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos, NV. V. Rajendran: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos, NV. H. Schulze-Koops: Consultancies; from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis- Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. Grants/research support; AbbVie and Novartis.

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.

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.

Effect of dose adjustments on the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of an open-label, long-term extension study (ORAL Sequel)

Introduction/objectives

We assess the impact of switching versus staying on the same tofacitinib dose on efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

ORAL Sequel was an open-label, long-term extension study of patients with RA receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID for up to 9.5 years. Tofacitinib doses could be switched during the study at investigator discretion. In this post hoc analysis, data from ORAL Sequel were stratified into four groups: 5 → 10 mg BID (Dose-up); 5 mg BID (Stay-on 5); 10 → 5 mg BID (Dose-down); and 10 mg BID (Stay-on 10). Efficacy assessments over 12 months included: change from baseline in 4-component Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28), and DAS28 minimum clinically important difference, remission, and low disease activity (LDA) rates. Safety was assessed for the study duration.

Results

Generally, DAS28 improvements and minimum clinically important difference rates were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in Dose-up versus Stay-on 5 up to month 12. DAS28 remission rates were significantly greater in Dose-up versus Stay-on 5 at month 12. Change from baseline in DAS28 was similar in Dose-down and Stay-on 10. No significant differences in DAS28 LDA rates were observed between groups. Safety data were similar overall across the four groups.

Conclusion

In patients with RA receiving open-label tofacitinib, this analysis found that some benefited from increasing dose from 5 to 10 mg BID and did not find that reducing dose from 10 to 5 mg BID affected efficacy or that dose switching in either direction affected safety.

Study registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00413699. Registered December 20, 2006. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00413699

Key Points • This post hoc analysis of data from the long-term extension study, ORAL Sequel, assessed the impact of dose switching between tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID), at the investigator’s discretion, on efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). • Dosing up from tofacitinib 5 to 10 mg BID was associated with improved efficacy up to 12 months versus staying on 5 mg BID, and dosing down from 10 to 5 mg BID was not generally associated with a significant loss of efficacy. • Safety outcomes were generally consistent across dose groups and did not change markedly after switching dose in either direction. • These findings can help to inform physicians on what may be expected in terms of efficacy and safety when adjusting tofacitinib dose according to clinical need. The recommended tofacitinib dosage for the treatment of RA in most jurisdictions is 5 mg BID.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10067-021-05908-z.

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.

TNFi is associated with positive outcome, but JAKi and rituximab are associated with negative outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with RMD

Introduction

Several risk factors for severe COVID-19 specific for patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) have been identified so far. Evidence regarding the influence of different RMD treatments on outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection is still poor.

Methods

Data from the German COVID-19-RMD registry collected between 30 March 2020 and 9 April 2021 were analysed. Ordinal outcome of COVID-19 severity was defined: (1) not hospitalised, (2) hospitalised/not invasively ventilated and (3) invasively ventilated/deceased. Independent associations between demographic and disease features and outcome of COVID-19 were estimated by multivariable ordinal logistic regression using proportional odds model.

Results

2274 patients were included. 83 (3.6%) patients died. Age, male sex, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, chronic lung diseases and chronic kidney disease were independently associated with worse outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared with rheumatoid arthritis, patients with psoriatic arthritis showed a better outcome. Disease activity and glucocorticoids were associated with worse outcome. Compared with methotrexate (MTX), TNF inhibitors (TNFi) showed a significant association with better outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.6, 95% CI0.4 to 0.9). Immunosuppressants (mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide and ciclosporin) (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.9), Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7) and rituximab (OR 5.4, 95% CI 3.3 to 8.8) were independently associated with worse outcome.

Conclusion

General risk factors for severity of COVID-19 play a similar role in patients with RMDs as in the normal population. Influence of disease activity on COVID-19 outcome is of great importance as patients with high disease activity—even without glucocorticoids—have a worse outcome. Patients on TNFi show a better outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients on MTX. Immunosuppressants, rituximab and JAKi are associated with more severe course.

TYK2 inhibition and its potential in the treatment of chronic inflammatory immune diseases

Immune-mediated chronic inflammatory diseases have emerged as a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Western countries over the last decades. Although multiple putative factors have been suspected to be causally related to the diseases, their overarching etiology remains unknown. This review article summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge and understanding of the role of non-receptor tyrosine kinases, with a special focus on the Janus kinase TYK2 in autoimmune and immune mediated diseases as well as on the clinical properties of its inhibition. A panel of experts in the field discussed the scientific evidence and molecular rationale for TYK2 inhibition and its clinical application. Reviewing this meeting, we aim at providing an integrated overview of the clinical profile of TYK2 inhibition and its potential in targeted pharmacological therapy of chronic autoimmune and immune-mediated diseases, with a special focus on inflammatory diseases of the skin.

Hyperechogenic intimal lesions and wall thickness of the temporal and facial arteries in elderly patients with arterial occlusions of the eye

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of arteriosclerosis, characterised by hyperechogenic intimal lesions (HIL), with wall thickness of the temporal and facial arteries in elderly patients with ocular arterial occlusions.

METHODS

Patients suffering from non-arteritic ocular perfusion disorders were included. High-resolution compression sonography (18 MHz) images of the temporal arteries (frontal and parietal branch at the upper margin of the auricle) and facial arteries (at the crossing point of the artery over the mandible) were analysed for the presence of HIL (grade 0: absent; grade 1: moderate; grade 2: severe). Characteristics of patients with and without evidence of HIL >grade 1 were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 330 cranial artery segments of 55 patients were analysed. HIL ≥grade 1 was present in 13.0% of all artery segments and in 38.1% of all patients. Patients with HIL ≥grade 1 in at least one arterial segment displayed significantly increased maximum wall thickness of the temporal arteries (0.62±0.23 mm vs 0.50±0.13 mm; p<0.01) and facial arteries (0.71±0.20 mm vs 0.54±0.19 mm; p=0.01). Patients with at least one temporal or facial artery segment with HIL were older, more often male and more frequently suffered from diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

The presence of HIL goes along with a significantly increased wall thickness of the temporal and facial arteries. These findings should be considered when interpreting the results of sonography of the cranial arteries in the diagnostic workup of suspected giant cell arteritis.

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.

[German registry www.Covid19-Rheuma.de : Status report after 1 year of the pandemic]

The COVID-19 registry ( www.covid19-rheuma.de ) of the German Society of Rheumatology was the first registry for the acquisition and systemic evaluation of viral infections in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD). This has enabled rapid generation of scientific data that will help to improve the care of patients with IRD in the context of the pandemic. In addition to confirming general risk factors, such as patient age and comorbidities (e.g. cardiovascular, chronic lung and kidney diseases), the use of glucocorticoids and the disease activity of the rheumatic disease could be identified as disease-specific independent risk factors for the need of hospitalization due to COVID-19. Evaluations of the continuously growing cohort of patients with IRD and COVID-19 enable recommendations for patient care to be based on better evidence. Cooperation with international rheumatology registries (e.g. European COVID-19 registry for IRD) enables analyses of aggregated cohorts of patients with IRD and COVID-19 for international comparisons and statistically even more reliable statements.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated sarcoidosis: A usually benign disease that does not require immunotherapy discontinuation

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the clinical patterns of sarcoidosis triggered by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The ImmunoCancer International Registry is a big data-sharing multidisciplinary network from 18 countries dedicated to evaluating the clinical research of immune-related adverse events related to cancer immunotherapies.

RESULTS

We identified 32 patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis. Underlying cancer included mainly melanoma (n = 24). Cancer immunotherapy consisted of monotherapy in 19 cases (anti-PD-1 in 18 and ipilimumab in 1) or combined ipilimumab + nivolumab in 13. The time median interval between initiation of ICI and sarcoidosis diagnosis was 3 months (range, 2-29 months). The use of combined ICI was associated with a shorter delay in developing sarcoidosis symptoms. The disease was symptomatic in 19 (59%) cases with mostly cutaneous, respiratory and general symptoms. The organs involved included mainly the mediastinal lymph nodes (n = 32), the lungs (n = 11), the skin (n = 10) and the eyes (n = 5). Pulmonary computed tomography studies showed bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy in all cases. There was no severe manifestation. Specific systemic therapy was required in only 12 patients (37%): oral glucocorticoids in 9, and hydroxychloroquine in 3. ICIs were held in 25 patients (78%) and definitively discontinued in 18 (56%) patients. Seven patients continued ICI treatment with a second flare in one case. In six additional patients, an ICI was reintroduced with no harm, and sarcoidosis relapsed in one of them.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that ICI-related sarcoidosis seems to have a specific profile, possibly more benign than that of idiopathic sarcoidosis, and does not necessarily imply ICI discontinuation.