Serial Ultrasonographic-measurement of Gastric Residual Volume in Critically Ill Patients for Prediction of Gastric Tube Feed Intolerance

Objective

To study the use of serial ultrasound gastric residual volume (GRV) measurements in predicting feed intolerance in critically ill patients.

Patients and methods

This study was conducted in various intensive care units (ICUs) of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Forty-three critically ill patients aged more than 18 years were studied for a total of 130 enteral feeding days. Gastric residual volume was obtained by calculating the antral cross-sectional area (CSA), which is the product of anteroposterior (AP) and craniocaudal (CC) diameters of gastric antrum obtained using ultrasound in the right lateral decubitus position. A baseline measurement was done before the initiation of the enteral feed and termed GRV0, the ultrasound scanning was repeated every 1 hour for the first 4 hours and termed GRV1, GRV2, GRV3, and GRV4, respectively, and the patients were watched for feed intolerance. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to correlate the GRV at each time with feed intolerance.

Results

The data from 43 medical and surgical critically ill patients were analyzed. Out of 130 feeding days, 13 were noted to be feed intolerant. Gastric residual volume at the end of the fourth hour of feed, that is, GRV4 was the best predictor of feed intolerance with 99.3% area under the curve (AUROC), sensitivity of 99%, specificity of 99.3%, and 95% CI, 0.89–0.98 followed by GRV3, with AUROC of 96% and sensitivity and specificity of 92.3 and 96%, respectively, with 95% CI, 0.92–0.99.

How to cite this article

Ankalagi B, Singh PM, Rewari V, Ramachandran R, Aggarwal R, Soni KD, et al. Serial Ultrasonographic-measurement of Gastric Residual Volume in Critically Ill Patients for Prediction of Gastric Tube Feed Intolerance. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(9):987–992.

Clinical profile of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19- and BBV152-vaccinated individuals among hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a pair-matched study

Background:

COVID-19 infections among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-vaccinated individuals are of clinical concern, especially in those requiring hospitalization. Such real-world data on ChAdOx1 nCoV-19- and BBV152-vaccinated individuals are scarce. Hence, there is an urgent need to understand their clinical profile and outcomes.

Methods:

A 1:1 pair-matched study was performed among vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted between March 2021 and June 2021 at a tertiary care centre in New Delhi, India. The vaccinated group (received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BBV152) was prospectively followed till discharge or death and matched [for age (±10 years), sex, baseline disease severity and comorbidities] with a retrospective group of unvaccinated patients admitted during the study period. Paired analysis was done to look for clinical outcomes between the two groups.

Results:

The study included a total of 210 patients, with 105 in each of the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In the vaccinated group, 47 (44.8%) and 58 (55.2%) patients had received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBV152, respectively. However, 73 patients had received one dose and 32 had received two doses of the vaccine. Disease severity was mild in 36.2%, moderate in 31.4% and severe in 32.4%. Two mortalities were reported out of 19 fully vaccinated individuals. All-cause mortality in the vaccinated group was 8.6% (9/105), which was significantly lower than the matched unvaccinated group mortality of 21.9% (23/105), p = 0.007. Vaccination increased the chances of survival (OR = 3.8, 95% CI: 1.42–10.18) compared to the unvaccinated group.

Conclusion:

In the second wave of the pandemic predominated by delta variant of SARS CoV-2, vaccination reduced all-cause mortality among hospitalized patients, although the results are only preliminary.

POS0855 IMPAIRED PROMIS PHYSICAL FUNCTION IN IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHY PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE MULTICENTER COVAD PATIENT REPORTED E-SURVEY

Background

Evaluation of physical function is fundamental in the management of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs). Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a National Institute of Health initiative established in 2004 to develop patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with improved validity and efficacy. PROMIS Physical Function (PF) short forms have been validated for use in IIMs [1].

Objectives

To investigate the physical function status of IIM patients compared to those with non-IIM autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) utilizing PROMIS PF data obtained in the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, a large-scale, international self-reported e-survey assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in AID patients [2].

Methods

The survey data regarding demographics, IIM and AID diagnosis, disease activity, and PROMIS PF short form-10a scores were extracted from the COVAD study database. The disease activity (active vs inactive) of each patient was assessed in 3 different ways: (1) physician’s assessment (active if there was an increased immunosuppression), (2) patient’s assessment (active vs inactive as per patient), and (3) current steroid use. These 3 definitions of disease activity were applied independently to each patient. PROMIS PF-10a scores were compared between each disease category (IIMs vs non-IIM AIDs vs HCs), stratified by disease activity based on the 3 definitions stated above, employing negative binominal regression model. Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and ethnicity was performed clustering countries, and the predicted PROMIS PF-10a score was calculated based on the regression result. Factors affecting PROMIS PF-10a scores other than disease activity were identified by another multivariable regression analysis in the patients with inactive disease (IIMs or non-IIM AIDs).

Results

1057 IIM patients, 3635 non-IIM AID patients, and 3981 HCs responded to the COVAD survey until August 2021. The median age of the respondents was 43 [IQR 30-56] years old, and 74.8% were female. Among IIM patients, dermatomyositis was the most prevalent diagnosis (34.8%), followed by inclusion body myositis (IBM) (23.6%), polymyositis (PM) (16.2%), anti-synthetase syndrome (11.8%), overlap myositis (7.9%), and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) (4.6%). The predicted mean of PROMIS PF-10a scores was significantly lower in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs (36.3 [95% (CI) 35.5-37.1] vs 41.3 [95% CI 40.2-42.5] vs 46.2 [95% CI 45.8-46.6], P < 0.001), irrespective of disease activity or the definitions of disease activity used (physician’s assessment, patient’s assessment, or steroid use) (Figure 1). The largest difference between active IIMs and non-IIM AIDs was observed when the disease activity was defined by patient’s assessment (35.0 [95% CI 34.1-35.9] vs 40.1 [95% CI 38.7-41.5]). Considering the subgroups of IIMs, the scores were significantly lower in IBM in comparison with non-IBM IIMs (P < 0.001). The independent factors associated with low PROMIS PF-10a scores in the patients with inactive disease were older age, female gender, and the disease category being IBM, PM, or IMNM.

Conclusion

Physical function is significantly impaired in IIMs compared to non-IIM AIDs or HCs, even in patients with inactive disease. The elderly, women, and IBM groups are the worst affected, suggesting that developing targeted strategies to minimize functional disability in certain groups may improve patient reported physical function and disease outcomes.

References

[1]Saygin D, Oddis CV, Dzanko S, et al. Utility of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function form in inflammatory myopathy. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021; 51: 539-46.

[2]Sen P, Gupta L, Lilleker JB, et al. COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune disease (COVAD) survey protocol. Rheumatol Int. 2022; 42: 23-9.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0899 HIGH FATIGUE SCORES IN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: A MULTIGROUP COMPARATIVE STUDY FROM THE COVAD E-SURVEY

Background

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a rare, multisystem, heterogeneous diseases, and contribute to high psychological burden. The patients’ perception of physical health, deteriorating independence and social and environmental relationships may not always be a direct function of disease activity. To face with these aspects, several worldwide specialized organization have recommended the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) both in clinical trials and observational studies to highlight patient’s perception of the disease (1). Unfortunately, data on fatigue scores in IIM is limited.

Objectives

We compared fatigue VAS scores in patients with IIM, autoimmune diseases (AIDs) and healthy controls (HCs) and triangulated them with PROMIS physical function in a large international cohort made up of answers from the e-survey regarding the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study.

Methods

Data of 16327 respondents was extracted from the COVAD database on August 31th 2021. VAS fatigue scores were compared between AID, HC and IIM using univariate followed by multivariate analysis after adjusting for baseline differences. We further performed a propensity score matched analysis on 1827 subjects after adjusting for age, gender and ethnicity. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables, and Bonferroni’s correction was applied for the post hoc analyses considering IIMs as a reference group.

Results

We analyzed answers from 6988 patients, with a mean age of 43.8 years (SD 16.2). The overall percentage of female was 72% and the population ethnicity was mainly composed of White (55.1%), followed by Asian (24.6%), and Hispanic (13.8%). The overall fatigue VAS was 3.6 mm (SD 2.7). IIMs VAS was 4.8 mm (SD 2.6), AIDs 4.5 mm (SD 2.6), and HC 2.8 mm (SD 2.6) (P <0,001). VAS fatigue scores of IIMs were comparable with AIDs (P 0.084), albeit significantly higher than the HCs (P <0,001). Notably, fatigue VAS was lower in IIMs than AIDs in two distinct subsets: inactive disease as defined by the patient’s perception and the “excellent” general health condition group, where IIMs had worse scores (P <0,05). Interestingly, fatigue VAS was comparable in active disease defined by physician assessment, patient perception, based on general functional status, or when defined by steroid dose being prescribed. Notably, after propensity matched analysis of patients adjusting for gender, age and ethnicity (1.827 answers, i.e. 609 subjects per group, P =1) the differences disappeared and IIMs and AIDs had comparable fatigue levels across all levels of disease activity, although the fatigue discrepancies with HCs were substantially confirmed.

After application of a multivariate linear regression analysis we found that lower fatigue VAS scores were related to HC (P <0,001), male gender (P <0,001), Asian and Hispanic ethnicities (P <0,001 and 0,003).

Conclusion

Our study confirms that there is a higher prevalence of fatigue in all the AIDs patients, with comparable VAS scores between IIMs and other AIDs. We can also read our data commenting that females and/or Caucasians patients suffer a higher impact of this manifestation of chronic autoimmune diseases upon their lives. This is why these subjects, to our judgement, should be carefully evaluated during outpatients visits and to whom we should spend some extra time to discuss health related issues and how to improve them.

References

[1]Regardt, M. et al. OMERACT 2018 Modified Patient-reported Outcome Domain Core Set in the Life Impact Area for Adult Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies. J. Rheumatol.46, 1351–1354 (2019).

Figure 1.

distribution of Fatigue VAS scores in the three population evaluated. IIM idiopathic inflammatory myositis; AID autoimmune diseases; HC healthy controls; * P < 0,05.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1260 COVID-19 VACCINATION-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS AMONG AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINATION IN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY

Background

COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective in the healthy population at large. However, significant gaps remain in the evidence of their safety in patients with systemic autoimmune and inflammatory disorders (SAIDs). Patients and rheumatologists have expressed concerns regarding vaccination triggered allergic reactions, thrombogenic events, and other adverse events (ADEs) contributing to vaccine hesitancy (1)

Objectives

This study aimed to assess and compare short term COVID-19 vaccination associated ADEs in patients with SAIDs and healthy controls (HC) seven days post-vaccination, as well as between patients with SAIDs receiving different vaccines.

Methods

We developed an comprehensive, patient self-reporting electronic-survey to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. ADEs were categorized as injection site pain, minor ADEs, major ADEs, and hospitalizations. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type (data as median, IQR).

Results

10900 respondents [42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 5,867 patients (54%) with SAIDs were compared with 5033 HCs. All respondents included in the final analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfizer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). Baseline demographics differed by an older SAID population (mean age 42 vs. 33 years) and a greater female predominance (M:F= 1:4.7 vs. 1:1.8) compared to HCs.

79% had minor and only 3% had major vaccine ADEs requiring urgent medical attention overall. In adjusted analysis, among minor ADEs, abdominal pain [multivariate OR 1.6 (1.14-2.3)], dizziness [multivariate OR 1.3 (1.2-1.5)], and headache [multivariate OR 1.67 (1.3-2.2)], were more frequent in SAIDs than HCs. Overall major ADEs [multivariate OR 1.9 (1.6-2.2)], and throat closure [multivariate OR 5.7 (2.9-11.3)] were more frequent in SAIDs though absolute risk was small (0-4%) and rates of hospitalization were similarly small in both groups, with a small absolute risk (0-4%). Specific minor ADEs frequencies were different among different vaccine types, however, major ADEs and hospitalizations overall were rare (0-4%) and comparable across vaccine types in patients with SAIDs (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A. Post Vaccination ADEs in SAIDs compared to HCs. B. Proportions of post COVID-19 vaccination ADEs in SAIDs by vaccine type.

Conclusion

Vaccination against COVID-19 is relatively safe and tolerable in patients with SAIDs. Certain minor vaccine ADEs are more frequent in SAIDs than HCs in this study, though are not severe and do not require urgent medical attention. SAIDs were at a higher risk of major ADEs than HCs, though absolute risk was small, and did not lead to increased hospitalizations. There are small differences in minor ADEs between vaccine types in patients with SAIDs.

References

[1]Boekel L, Kummer LY, van Dam KPJ, Hooijberg F, van Kempen Z, Vogelzang EH, et al. Adverse events after first COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 Aug;3(8):e542–5.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the collection of data. The authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.

Disclosure of Interests

Parikshit Sen: None declared, Naveen R: None declared, Arvind Nune: None declared, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Minchul Kim: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited., Marcin Milchert: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Speakers bureau: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Consultant of: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Grant/research support from: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Albert Selva-O’Callaghan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Grant/research support from: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, and holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Consultant of: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Grant/research support from: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra: None declared, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Consultant of: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript., Johannes Knitza: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Hector Chinoy Speakers bureau: HC has served as a speaker for UCB, Biogen., Consultant of: HC has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca, Grant/research support from: HC has received grant support from Eli Lilly and UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from for the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Kyverna, Janssen, Roivant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Argenx, Q32, Alexion, EMD Serono, Jubliant, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from for the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, Kyverna, Janssen, Roivant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Argenx, Q32, Alexion, EMD Serono, Jubliant, Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant., Latika Gupta: None declared

POS0198 COVID-19 OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH DERMATOMYOSITIS: A REGISTRY-BASED COHORT ANALYSIS

Background

Dermatomyositis (DM) patients have fewer risks of COVID-19 infection compared to the general population, however, certain subgroups with DM have worse outcomes. Men. African Americans, those with interstitial lung disease, exhibited higher risks of severe COVID-19. DMARD and glucocorticoid use was associated with frequent hospitalisations and severe sepsis.

Objectives

Rheumatic diseases (RDs) like DM, are previously known to be vulnerable towards various types of infections due to its aggressive activity mandating high dose immunosuppressive therapy. The severity of COVID-19 in RDs is limited in literature due to the heterogeneous nature of the condition. Therefore, specific details on mortality is essential to navigate any precautions required in the treatment.

Methods

Retrospective data of individuals with DM and COVID-19 and the general population with COVID-19 between January 2020 to August 2020 was retrieved from the TriNetX database. A one-to-one matched COVID-19 positive control was selected using propensity score (PS) matching. We assessed COVID-19 outcomes such as mortality, hospitalisation, ICU admission, severe COVID-19, mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), ischemic stroke, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), renal replacement therapy (RRT) and sepsis. Subgroup analyses included gender, race, ILD, cancer patients, disease-modifying rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) use, and glucocorticoids (GC) use (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Overview of study

Results

We identified 5,574 DM patients with COVID-19, and 5,574 general population with COVID-19 (controls). DM with COVID-19 had a lower risk of mortality in comparison to controls [RR 0.76], hospitalisation [RR 0.8], severe COVID-19 [RR 0.76], AKI [RR 0.83], and sepsis [RR 0.73]. Males and African Americans were more likely to develop AKI [RR 1.35, 1.65], while African Americans had higher odds for severe COVID-19 [RR 1.62] and VTE [RR 1.54]. DM with ILD group also experienced higher odds for severe COVID-19 infection [RR 1.64], and VTE [RR 2.06] (Figure 1).

DM patients receiving DMARDs and glucocorticoids had higher odds for hospitalisation [RR 1.46, 2.12], and sepsis [RR 3.25] Subgroup analysis of neoplasms amongst DM patients with COVID-19 was inadequate for meaningful comparison (Figure 1).

Conclusion

DM patients are protected for certain aspects of COVID-19 disease, including severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality. The African American race, male gender, ILD, DMARDS and glucocorticoid users, are associated with poor outcomes.

Disclosure of Interests

Latika Gupta: None declared, Haig Pakhchanian: None declared, Hiba Khan: None declared, Rahul Raiker: None declared, Maryam Abbasi: None declared, Charles DeYoung: None declared, Sinan Kardes Grant/research support from: SK has received congress travel, accommodation, and participation fee support (12th Anatolian Rheumatology Days) from Abbvie, Sakir Ahmed Speakers bureau: SA has received honorarium as speaker for Pfizer, Chengappa Kavadichanda: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, and Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, and Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant.

POS0839 RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL TO EVALUATE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF SC ABATACEPT IN ADULTS WITH ACTIVE IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHY

Background

Limited therapies are available for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM), a heterogenous group of chronic, systemic, autoimmune inflammatory diseases characterized by progressive muscle weakness and/or distinct skin rashes.1 Abatacept, a selective co-stimulation modulator, may be a useful treatment option.2

Objectives

To evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of abatacept + standard of care (SOC) in patients with IIM compared with SOC alone (placebo).

Methods

A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of SC abatacept (125 mg weekly) + SOC (corticosteroids and immunosuppressants alone or combined; NCT02971683) in patients with active, treatment-refractory IIM (Manual Muscle Testing-8 [MMT-8] ≤ 135) was performed. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients meeting International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies definition of improvement (IMACS DOI) at week 24. Change from baseline in myositis Functional Index-2 (FI-2), HAQ-DI, Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Tool (MDAAT), and Myositis Response Criteria (MRC) were secondary endpoints with safety. Post hoc analyses by disease subtype were performed.

Results

Overall, 148 patients were randomized (75 abatacept; 73 placebo); IIM subtypes were dermatomyositis (DM; 53.3% vs 57.5%), polymyositis (PM; 25.3% vs 34.2%), and autoimmune necrotizing myopathy (ANM; 21.3% vs 8.2%). Mean baseline MMT-8 and HAQ-DI scores were 112.7 and 1.5, respectively. Approximately 90% of patients completed week 24. Week 24 IMACS DOI rates were abatacept 56.0% vs placebo 42.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8 [95% CI, 0.9–3.5]; P = 0.083). Pre-specified IMACS DOI analysis showed no differences for patients with DM but notable benefit for those with non-DM subtypes, PM and ANM (Table 1). Secondary endpoints showed similar differences (Table 1). MRC at day 169 by category is shown in Figure 1. Proportion of AEs (69.3% and 75.3%) and serious AEs (5.3% and 5.5%) were similar in the abatacept and placebo arms.

Table 1.

Primary and secondary (mean change from baseline at week 24) endpoints

OutcomeIIMAbataceptPlaceboNominal P value (abatacept vs placebo) or adjusted mean difference from placebo (95% CI)IMACS DOI,a n/N (%)All42/75 (56.0)31/73 (42.5)P = 0.083DM22/40 (55.0)21/42 (50.0)P = 0.679Non-DM20/35 (57.1)10/31 (32.3)P = 0.040FI-2All4.1 (1.3)1.2 (1.4)2.9 (0 to 5.8)DM2.3 (1.6)0.3 (1.4)1.9 (−2.3 to 6.2)Non-DM3.2 (1.4)−0.6 (1.5)3.7 (−0.3 to 7.8)HAQ-DIAll−0.31 (0.07)0.20 (0.07)−0.12 (−0.28 to 0.04)DM−0.31 (0.08)−0.19 (0.07)−0.11 (−0.32 to 0.10)Non-DM−0.25 (0.09)−0.07 (0.09)−0.18 (−0.44 to 0.07)MDAAT, Extramuscular Global Activity, (95% CI)bAll−1.56 (−1.96 to −1.16)−1.40 (−1.81 to −0.99)−0.16 (−0.63 to 0.30)DM−1.90 (−2.43 to −1.37)−1.85 (−2.35 to 1.36)−0.05 (−0.77 to 0.68)Non-DM−1.09 (−1.46 to −0.72)−0.85 (−1.27 to −0.43)−0.24 (−0.80 to 0.32)MMT-8All12.9 (1.9)11.0 (2.0)1.8 (−2.7 to 6.4)DM14.4 (2.2)14.0 (2.2)0.4 (−5.7 to 6.4)Non-DM12.1 (2.5)7.8 (2.7)4.3 (−3.0 to 11.7)Physician Global AssessmentbAll−2.89 (0.30)−2.69 (0.30)−0.20 (−0.92 to 0.52)DM−2.78 (0.29)−2.43 (0.28)−0.35 (−1.15 to 0.46)Non-DM−2.35 (0.43)−2.21 (0.48)−0.14 (−1.43 to 1.15)Patient Global AssessmentbAll−1.4 (0.31)−0.98 (0.32)−0.38 (−1.11 to 0.35)DM−1.4 (0.33)−1.4 (0.31)−0.00 (−0.91 to 0.90)Non-DM−1.2 (0.41)−0.3 (0.44)−0.93 (−2.14 to 0.29)

Data are adjusted mean change from baseline score (SE) unless stated.

aDefined as improvement of ≥ 20% in 3 IMACS core measures, worsening by ≥ 25% in ≤ 2 IMACS core measure scores, and a reduction of < 25% in MMT-8; b100 mm visual analog scale.

Conclusion

In this double-blind trial of SC abatacept vs placebo, abatacept failed to meet primary or secondary endpoints. Post hoc analyses suggest a treatment benefit in patients with PM and ANM (not DM) when treated with abatacept. Abatacept use was well tolerated.

References

[1]Dalakas MC, Hohlfeld R. Lancet 2003;362:971–82.

[2]Tjärnlund A, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:55–62.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Fiona Boswell, PhD, of Caudex and were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Study execution was by Sandra Overfield and Robin Scully.

Disclosure of Interests

Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: AbbVie, Alexion, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corbus, CSL Behring, EMD Serono, Janssen, Jubilant, Kezar, Kyverna, Mallinckrodt, Octapharma, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Q32, Roivant (personal fees), Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, Q32, Ingrid E. Lundberg Shareholder of: Novartis, Roche, Consultant of: Argenx, AstraZeneca, Corbus, EMD Serono, Janssen, Kezar, Octapharma, Orphazyme (personal fees), Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yeong Wook Song: None declared, Aziz Shaibani: None declared, Victoria P Werth Consultant of: AbbVie, Akari, Amgen, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beacon Bioscience, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corcept, Crisalis, CSL Behring, Cugene, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Idera, Incyte, Janssen, Kezar, Kwoya Kirin, Lilly, Medimmune, Medscape, Merck, Nektar, Octapharma, Pfizer, Principia, Regeneron, Resolve, Rome Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, UCB, Viela Bio, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, q32 Bio, Regeneron, Syntimmune, Ventus, Viela, Michael A Maldonado Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

POS1565-PARE ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY AND RELIABILITY OF YOUTUBE VIDEOS FOR PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN EDUCATION ON INFLAMMATORY MYOSITIS

Background

Nowadays 80% of internet users access health information online, with YouTube being the second most popular search website worldwide. This study was undertaken to assess the reliability and quality of videos pertaining to myositis on YouTube and identify lacunae in information material on the platform.

Objectives

This study aims to assess the quality and profile of myositis information videos on YouTube, and to compare and delineate attributes of useful and not useful videos using standard metrics.

Methods

A thorough search was carried out on YouTube using 9 search terms related to myositis. The inclusion criteria were primary English content related to myositis, acceptable audio-video quality, and multi-part videos to be considered as one, while duplicates and advertisements were excluded. The videos were classified as useful, not useful or misleading, and patient experiences (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flowchart of selection of YouTube videos for the study

Reliability of the videos was determined using the 5-point modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) criteria and quality by the 5-point Global Quality Scale (GQS) and 4-point JAMA scoring system. Score-based usefulness was defined as mDISCERN >4 or GQS >4 or JAMA >3. All values are in median and IQR.

Results

Of 453 analyzed videos 74% and 2% provided useful and not useful information respectively. 24% were patient experiences, and 324 (71%) were intended specifically for patients while 313 (69%) were for healthcare providers and students. Nearly one-thirds (n=143) reported information related to treatment of myositis.

Noteworthily, useful and not useful videos had similar views count. However, number of likes and daily viewership were higher for useful videos (p=0.024, p=0.046). Nearly half (47%) of useful videos were by professional medical societies/patient support groups while not useful ones were often by nonmedical media (38%).

Useful videos had higher mDISCERN reliability scores [4(3-4) vs 2(1-3), p<0.001] and better quality on GQS [4.5 (3.5-5) vs 1 (1-2.8), p<0.001] and JAMA [3 (3-4) vs 2.25 (2-3), p=0.004]. Physician predicted usefulness was discordant with score-based usefulness(κ=0.129). However, GQS score emerged significant (p=0.008) for predicting video usefulness in multivariate analysis (Table 1).

Table 1.

Factors predicting usefulness of video in binary logistic regression.

VariableB coefficientS.E.Exp (B) and 95% CIp valueIntended audience Anyone/General public-5.452.5860.004 (0.0-0.68)0.035Average GQS-2.861.0760.05 (0.007-0.47)0.008

GQS Global Quality Scale

. Exp (B) is odd’s ratio, p<0.05 is significant

Conclusion

Majority of English YouTube videos on myositis provide useful information for patients, largely related to treatment of myositis. However, the dynamic nature of YouTube could potentially change this equation in the future and physicians should correct any misinformation identified in face-to-face meetings or teleconsultations. High quality useful videos, often predicted by validated scores and produced by professional medical societies should be promoted as the first line of content consumed.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0201 COVID-19 SEVERITY AND VACCINE BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS IN IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES, OTHER SYSTEMIC AUTOIMMUNE AND INFLAMMATORY DISEASES, AND HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS: RESULTS FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINATION IN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (COVAD) STUDY

Background

Significant gaps are present in the evidence of the spectrum and severity of COVID-19 infection in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). IIM patients typically require immunosuppressive therapy, may have multiple disease sequelae, and frequent comorbidities, and thus may be more susceptible to severe COVID-19 infection and complications (1). The possibility of attenuated immunogenicity and reduced efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines due to concomitant immunosuppressive medication is a major concern in these patients, and there is little data available on COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections (BI) in IIM (2).

Objectives

This study aimed to compare disease spectrum and severity and COVID-19 BI in patients with IIM, other systemic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases (SAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs).

Methods

We developed an extensive self-reporting electronic-survey (COVAD survey) featuring 36 questions to collect respondent demographics, SAID details, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccination details, 7-day post vaccination adverse events and patient reported outcome measures using the PROMIS tool. After pilot testing, validation, translation into 18 languages on the online platform surveymonkey.com, and vetting by international experts, the COVAD survey was circulated in early 2021 by a multicenter study group of >110 collaborators in 94 countries. BI was defined as COVID-19 infection occurring more than 2 weeks after receiving 1st or 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We analyzed data from the baseline survey for descriptive and intergroup comparative statistics based on data distribution and variable type.

Results

10900 respondents [mean age 42 (30-55) years, 74% females and 45% Caucasians] were analyzed. 1,227 (11.2%) had IIM, 4,640 (42.6%) had other SAIDs, and 5,033 (46.2%) were HC. All respondents included in the final analysis had received a single dose of the vaccine and 69% had received 2 primary doses. Pfizer (39.8%) was the most common vaccine received, followed by Oxford/AstraZeneca (13.4%), and Covishield (10.9%). IIM patients were older, had a higher Caucasian representation and higher Pfizer uptake than other SAIDs, and HC. A higher proportion of IIM patients received immunosuppressants than other SAIDs.

IIMs were at a lower risk of symptomatic pre-vaccination COVID-19 infection compared to SAIDs [multivariate OR 0.6 (0.4-0.8)] and HCs [multivariate OR 0.39 (0.28-0.54)], yet at a higher risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to SAIDs [univariate OR 2.3 (1.2-3.5)] and HCs [multivariate OR 2.5 (1.1-5.8)]. BIs were very uncommon in IIM patients, with only 17 (1.4%) reporting BI. IIM patients were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 prior to vaccination than ≤2 weeks of vaccination [univariate OR 8 (4.1-15)] or BI [univariate OR 4.6 (2.7-8.0)]. BIs were equally severe compared to when they occurred prior to vaccination in IIMs, and were comparable between IIM, SAIDs, and HC (Figure 1), though BI disease duration was shorter in IIMs than SAIDs (7 vs 11 days, p 0.027). 13/17 IIM patients with BI were on immunosuppressants.

Conclusion

IIM patients experienced COVID-19 infection less frequently prior to vaccination but were at a higher risk of hospitalization and requirement for oxygen therapy compared with patients with HC. Breakthrough COVID-19 infections were rare (1.4%) in vaccinated IIM patients, and were similar to HC and SAIDs, except for shorter disease duration in IIM.

References

[1]Brito-Zerón P, Sisó-Almirall A, Flores-Chavez A, Retamozo S, Ramos-Casals M. SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2021 Jun;39(3):676–87.

[2]Wack S, Patton T, Ferris LK. COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease: Review of available evidence. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Nov;85(5):1274–84.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all members of the COVAD study group for their invaluable role in the collection of data. The authors thank all respondents for filling the questionnaire. The authors thank The Myositis Association, Myositis India, Myositis UK, the Myositis Global Network, Cure JM, Cure IBM, Sjögren’s India Foundation, EULAR PARE, and various other patient support groups and organizations for their invaluable contribution in the dissemination of this survey among patients which made the data collection possible. The authors also thank all members of the COVAD study group.

Disclosure of Interests

Latika Gupta: None declared, Leonardo Santos Hoff: None declared, Naveen R: None declared, Parikshit Sen: None declared, Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo: None declared, Jessica Day Grant/research support from: JD has received research funding from CSL Limited, James B. Lilleker: None declared, Vishwesh Agarwal: None declared, Sinan Kardes: None declared, Minchul Kim: None declared, Ashima Makol: None declared, Marcin Milchert: None declared, Tamer A Gheita: None declared, Babur Salim: None declared, Tsvetelina Velikova: None declared, Abraham Edgar Gracia-Ramos: None declared, Ioannis Parodis Speakers bureau: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Consultant of: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Grant/research support from: IP has received research funding and/or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Elli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG., Albert Selva-O’Callaghan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Consultant of: EN has received speaker honoraria/participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Lilly, Grant/research support from: EN holds research grants from Pfizer and Lilly., Tulika Chatterjee: None declared, Ai Lyn Tan Speakers bureau: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Consultant of: ALT has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaking for Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Arvind Nune: None declared, Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Miguel A Saavedra: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Consultant of: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Grant/research support from: NZ has received speaker fees, advisory board fees and research grants from Pfizer, Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, NewBridge, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Pierre Fabre; none is related to this manuscript, Johannes Knitza: None declared, Masataka Kuwana: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: OD has/had consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, GSK, Horizon (Curzion), Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera, Lupin, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Roche, Roivant, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Hector Chinoy Speakers bureau: HC has been a speaker for UCB, Biogen., Consultant of: HC has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Orphazyme, Astra Zeneca, Grant/research support from: HC has received grant support from Eli Lilly and UCB, Vikas Agarwal: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, and Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant., Grant/research support from: RA has/had a consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from the following companies-Bristol Myers-Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech, Octapharma, CSL Behring, Mallinckrodt, AstraZeneca, Corbus, Kezar, and Abbvie, Janssen, Alexion, Argenx, Q32, EMD-Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roivant.

AB1287 DESIGN OF A GLOBAL PHASE 2/3 RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL EVALUATING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RAVULIZUMAB IN ADULTS WITH DERMATOMYOSITIS

Background

Dermatomyositis (DM) is a rare and life-altering chronic immune-mediated disease characterized by distinct skin rash and/or progressive muscle weakness and other systemic manifestations. Many patients are refractory and/or experience serious adverse effects when treated with currently prescribed medications, including high-dose systemic steroids and immunosuppressive therapies1-3, which are often prescribed off-label. Therefore, there is a need for new DM treatment options that offer more favorable risk-benefit profiles.

The classical complement pathway is implicated in DM pathophysiology, including a close correlation between endothelial deposition of the C5b-9 membrane attack complex (MAC) and organ damage.4 Treatment with the long-acting anti-C5 monoclonal antibody ravulizumab is associated with immediate, complete, and sustained inhibition of the complement protein C5, which prevents its cleavage to form MAC, and it has proven to be a safe and effective therapeutic approach for multiple complement-mediated diseases.5

Objectives

Given the continued unmet need in DM and the evidence implicating the terminal complement pathway in the disease pathophysiology, a global, multi-center double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 (Part A)/Phase 3 (Part B) trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the C5 inhibitor ravulizumab compared with placebo in adults with DM (ALXN1210-DM-310; NCT04999020; EudraCT2021-001200-15).

Methods

A total of 180 adult patients with DM6 who have active disease with muscle weakness and inadequate responses or intolerances to two or more DM treatments including glucocorticoids will be randomized to receive either intravenous ravulizumab or placebo, delivered as loading dose followed by maintenance administration once every eight weeks. Different patients will be enrolled in Parts A and B, which each consist of a screening period, a randomized, controlled period (Part A; 26 weeks; Part B: 50 weeks), and an open-label extension period. The primary endpoints are the proportion of patients with a minimal improvement from baseline on the ACR/EULAR Myositis Response Criteria Total Improvement Score (TIS20) at 26 weeks (Part A) and 50 weeks (Part B). In addition, a wide range of key secondary and exploratory outcome measures will be evaluated, including the mean change from baseline in the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI) activity score and a novel participant-reported outcome measure, the Dermatomyositis-Disease Symptoms Questionnaire (DM-DSQ). Safety will be assessed by analyzing the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs), including those classified as serious and/or leading to intervention discontinuation.

Results

The ALXN1210-DM-310 trial is currently enrolling patients.

Conclusion

ALXN1210-DM-310 is the first global, multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 interventional trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a C5 inhibitor in adult patients with DM who continue to have active disease despite treatment with standard medications.

References

[1]Joffe MM, Love LA, Leff RL, et al. Am J Med.1993; 94:379.

[2]Zieglschmid-Adams ME, Pandya AG, Cohen SB, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995; 32:754.

[3]Kissel JT, Levy RJ, Mendell JR, Griggs RC. Neurology 1986; 36:35.

[4]Yang SH, Chang C, Lian Z-X. J Transl Autoimmun. 2019;2:100018.

[5]https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/761108s012lbl.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2022.

[6]Lundberg IE, Tjarnlund A, Bottai M, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(12):2271-2282.

Disclosure of Interests

Lorenzo Cavagna: None declared, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Alexion and AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Octapharma, Csl Behring, BMS, Argenx, Corbus, EMD, Janssen, Kezar, Kyverna, Roivant, and Mallinckrodt, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, BMS, Q32, EMD Serono, and Mallinckrodt, Noriko Iikuni Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanjay Rakhade Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Sanofi Genzyme

OP0162 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LENABASUM IN THE PHASE 3 DETERMINE TRIAL IN DERMATOMYOSITIS

Background

Safe and effective treatments are of significant unmet need in DM. Lenabasum, a CB2 agonist that activates resolution of inflammation, improved skin disease, patient-reported outcomes, and biomarkers in a Phase 2 study of DM patients with active skin disease.

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenabasum in a Phase 3 double-blind study in DM.

Methods

DM patients ≥ 18 years old with active skin with or without muscle involvement were enrolled in 55 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Stable doses of background immunosuppressants were allowed. Subjects were randomized 2:1:2 to lenabasum 20 mg BID, lenabasum 5 mg BID, or placebo BID for 52 weeks, with visits ≤ 8 weeks apart. The study was stopped after all subjects completed Week 28. Some subjects had completed Week 52 by then. The primary efficacy endpoint was Total Improvement Score (TIS) at Week 28 and a secondary efficacy endpoint was TIS at Week 52, for lenabasum 20 mg BID vs placebo.

Results

175 subjects (69 lenabasum 20 mg BID, 35 lenabasum 5 mg BID, 71 placebo BID) received study drug; 167 completed Week 28, and 103 completed Week 52. The most common reasons for study discontinuation were study stopped by Sponsor (34.3%), withdrawal of consent (4.5%), and adverse events (AEs, 3.9%), with similar rates among groups. Baseline demographics and disease measurements were similar among groups and in total subjects were (mean or %): age 52.0 years; 81.1% female, 75.4% White; MMT-8 133.3; CDASI activity score 23.4; HAQ-DI 0.84, MDGA 5.55, EMGA 5.23; and PtGA 5.12. Corticosteroids were used by 48.1% and 38.0%, immunoglobulins by 5.8% and 7.0%, and other immunosuppressives by 51.0% and 54.9%, and monoclonal antibodies by 8.7% and 7.0% of lenabasum and placebo groups at baseline, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was not met - mean (SD) TIS score was 28.3 (19.75) vs 27.2 (19.23) at Week 28 for lenabasum 20 mg BID vs placebo, p = 0.3311, MMRM. Week 52 values were 40.6 (16.88) vs 34.8 (19.94), p = 0.2290. When analyses were restricted to subjects with muscle weakness at baseline (MMT8 < 142), TIS scores and treatment differences were greater and reached nominal statistical significance at Week 40, p = 0.0172. Mean (SD) improvements in CDASI activity score were numerically greater but not statistically different between lenabasum 20 mg BID group vs placebo at Week 28 [-7.1 (7.76) vs -5.8 (8.88) points, p = 0.2775] and Week 52 [-10.0 (9.45) vs -6.2 (12.8) points, p = 0.0932]. When restricting analysis of participants without muscle weakness (MMT-8 = 150), improvement in CDASI activity score was greater in the lenabasum 20 mg BID group vs placebo at Week 28, p = 0.0461, and Week 52 p = 0.0059.

Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) occurred in 87.0%, 85.7%, and 87.3% of lenabasum 20 mg BID, lenabasum 5 mg BID, and placebo groups, with no deaths. Related TEAEs leading to withdrawal of study product were infrequent, occurring in 1.4%, 0%, and 2.0% of subjects in the same groups. Serious TEAEs occurred in 11.6%, 8.6%, and 4.2% of subjects in the lenabasum 20 mg BID, lenabasum 5 mg BID, and placebo groups. No serious TEAE preferred term occurred in more than 1 subject in any group. TEAE occurring in ≥ 10% of lenabasum 20 mg BID subjects were (% lenabasum vs % placebo): dermatomyositis (flare) 27.5% vs 40.8%; diarrhea 14.5% vs 8.5%; dizziness 13.0% vs 4.2%; nausea 11.6% vs 4.2%; headache 10.1% vs 14.1%; and arthralgia 10.1% vs 2.8%.

Conclusion

Although, primary or secondary endpoints were not met in the study, subgroup analysis of patients with muscle weakness and without muscle weakness, showed improvement in muscle strength and rash, respectively in lenabasum 20 mg BID group vs placebo. Lenabasum was administered safely and was well-tolerated in this study.

Disclosure of Interests

Victoria Werth Speakers bureau: University of Pennsylvania, who own the copyright for the CLASI and SDASI, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chrysalis, CSL Behring, Cugene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Incyte, Idera, Janssen, Kirin, Medimmune, Medscape, Nektar, Octapharma, Pfizer, Principa, Regeneron, Resolve, and Viela Bio, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Celgene, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Syntimmune, and Viela Bio, Barbara White Shareholder of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Previous employee of Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Nancy Dgetluck Shareholder of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Kathleen Hally Shareholder of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Scott Constantine Shareholder of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: For Abbvie, Q32, Alexion, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Csl Behring, EMD Serono, Galapagos, Janssen, Kezar, Jubliant, Kyverna, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Pfizer, Octazyme, Roivant, Scipher., Grant/research support from: BMS, Mallinkrodt, EMD Serono, Q32, Pfizer, David Fiorentino Consultant of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Ingrid E. Lundberg Shareholder of: Roche and Novartis., Consultant of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals Inc, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myer´s Squibb, Corbus Pharmaceutical, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Argenx, Octapharma, Kezaar, Orphazyme, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Chester V Oddis Consultant of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals

OP0161 TREATMENT PATTERNS OF IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES: RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL COHORT OF OVER 1,400 PATIENTS

Background

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a group of heterogeneous autoimmune disorders with limited standardization of treatment protocols.

Objectives

To evaluate frequency and patterns of various treatments used for IIM based on disease subtype, world region, and organ involvement.

Methods

Cross-sectional data from the international CoVAD self-report e-survey1 was extracted on Sep 14th, 2021. Patient details included demographics, IIM subtypes (dermatomyositis (DM), polymyositis (PM), inclusion body myositis (IBM), antisynthetase syndrome (ASSD), necrotizing myositis (NM) and overlap myositis (OM)), clinical symptoms, disease duration and activity, and current treatments. Treatments were categorized in corticosteroids (CS), antimalarials, immunosuppressants (IS), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), biologics, and others. Typical clinical symptoms (dyspnea, dysphagia) were used as surrogate for organ involvement. Factors associated with IS were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for IIM subtype, demographics, world region, disease activity, and prevalent clinical symptoms (>10%).

Results

In 1418 patients with IIM, median age was 61 years [IQR 49-70], 62.5% were females, median disease duration was 6 years [IQR 3-11], most common subset was DM (32.4%).

The most used treatments were IS (49.4%, including Methotrexate 19.6%, Mycophenolate Mofetil 18.2%, Azathioprine 8.8%, Cyclosporine 2.7%, Tacrolimus 2%, Leflunomide 1.6%, Sulfasalazine 1%, and Cyclophosphamide 0.6%), followed by CS (40.8%), antimalarials (13.8%) and IVIG (9.4%). Biologics were used in 4.3% of patients.

Treatment patterns differed significantly by IIM subtypes with a higher frequency of IS (77.7%) and CS (63.4%) use in ASSD; antimalarials (28.6%) and biologics (9.8%) use in OM and IVIG use in NM (24.6%) (Table 1). Also, treatment patterns were different in regions of the world (Figure 1), with a higher frequency of CS use in Europe (60.5%) and IS use in South America (77.2%). Antimalarials were most used in Asia (19.4%), while IVIG use was most common in Oceania (16.9%). Dyspnea was associated with higher use of IS (69.9%) and CS (65.8%) (p<0.001), whereas dysphagia was negatively associated with IS (39.7%) and CS (32.7%) likely due to a higher proportion in IBM patients reporting dysphagia.

Table 1.

Current Treatments for IIM, Stratified by Disease Subtypes

DermatomyositisPolymyositisInclusion Body MyositisAnti-synthetase syndromeNecrotizing myositisOverlap syndromeAll IIMp-valueNumber of patients459182348148572241418Immunosuppressants*269 (58.6)107 (58.8)39 (11.2)115 (77.7)40 (70.2)130 (58.0)700 (49.4)<0.001Corticosteroids208 (48.0)81 (46.8)32 (9.7)90 (63.4)32 (59.3)103 (50.0)546 (40.8)<0.001Antimalarials99 (21.6)7 (3.8)0 (0.0)25 (16.9)1 (1.8)64 (28.6)196 (13.8)<0.001Intravenous Immunoglobulins54 (11.8)16 (8.8)19 (5.5)10 (6.8)14 (24.6)20 (8.9)133 (9.4)<0.001Biologics**17 (3.7)7 (3.8)0 (0.0)13 (8.8)2 (3.5)22 (9.8)61 (4.3)<0.001Others***6 (1.3)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)5 (2,2)12 (0.8)0.098

*Methotrexate (278), Mycophenolate Mofetil (258), Azathioprine (125), Cyclosporine (38), Tacrolimus (28), Leflunomide (23), Sulfasalazine (14), Cyclophosphamide (9)

. **Rituximab (44), Abatacept (5), TNF inhibitors (4), Tocilizumab (3), Belimumab (3), Secukinumab (1)

. ***JAK(10) and PDE4 inhibitors (2)

Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an association of IS with the IIM subtype (least used in IBM (OR 0.07 [95%CI 0.04-0.13] compared to DM), world region (most used in South America (OR 2.35 [1.12-4.91] compared to North America), active and worsening disease activity (OR 3.49 [1.76-6.91] compared to remission), and some clinical features (dyspnea, fatigue, and muscle weakness).

Conclusion

IIM treatment patterns differ significantly by disease subtypes, world regions and organ involvement, highlighting the need for unified international consensus-driven guidelines.

References

[1]Parikshit S. et al. Rheumatol Int. 2022 Jan;42(1):23–9.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0848 HEALTHCARE RESOURCE UTILIZATION AND COST BURDEN OF DERMATOMYOSITIS

Background

Dermatomyositis (DM) is a rare chronic systemic autoimmune disease characterized by muscle weakness and skin rashes. DM is also frequently associated with other clinical manifestations including interstitial lung disease, calcinosis, dysphagia, cardiac involvement, and malignancy. With few approved treatment options, DM has high morbidity and mortality. Limited information is available on the economic impact imposed by DM on the healthcare system.

Objectives

To estimate the economic burden associated with DM in a prevalence cohort, including healthcare resource utilization and costs from both the health insurance plan and patient perspectives.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large, integrated administrative database of employer-sponsored commercial and public health plans in the United States (PharMetrics Plus, Jan 2014 - June 2020). Patients (age ≥18 years) were selected if they were diagnosed with dermatomyositis (≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient claims ≥30 days apart with International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification: M33.0x, M33.1x, or M33.9x) and continuously enrolled in the health plan during the 6 months before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) a randomly selected DM diagnosis date (index date). Patients were matched 1:3 to a control group without DM or related myositis conditions based on birth year, gender, census region, insurance plan type, and index year. Healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs over the 1-year follow-up period were compared between patients with DM versus matched controls to assess the incremental economic burden of DM. Statistical comparisons were conducted using generalized estimating equation models with binomial, negative binomial, or Tweedie distributions for binary, count, and cost outcomes, respectively. The models used robustly clustered standard errors to account for correlation between the matched samples.

Results

Patients with DM (N=3,207) and matched controls (N=9,621) were 49.4 years old on average and 76.8% were female. HCRU was significantly higher among patients with DM than controls in terms of outpatient, inpatient, emergency room, and other medical visits (all p<0.001; Table 1). Medical service and pharmacy costs to the plan were also significantly higher for patients with DM (p<0.001 vs. controls for all cost categories; Figure 1). Total annual costs to the healthcare plan were 5.4-fold higher among patients with DM (mean ± standard deviation: $39,508 ± 83,093) relative to controls without DM ($7,349 ± 32,816) (Δ=$32,159; p<0.001). Outpatient visit costs ($28,131) comprised 71.2% of the total for patients with DM; costs of outpatient-administered DM-related treatments ($15,855) accounted for the majority of outpatient visit costs. Patients with DM incurred 2-fold higher out-of-pocket costs (coinsurance, copayments, or deductibles) than controls ($4,803 ± 13,181 vs. $2,456 ± 10,708; Δ=$2,346; p<0.001).

Table 1.

Annual resource use in patients with DM vs. controls

Patients with DM N = 3,207Controls N = 9,621IRR or OR95% confidence intervalP-valueInpatient admissions, mean ± SD0.2 ± 0.70.1 ± 0.43.1(2.6 - 3.7)< 0.001Any inpatient admission, %12.1%4.9%2.7(2.3 - 3.1)< 0.001Outpatient visits, mean ± SD27.7 ± 31.710.8 ± 18.92.6(2.4 - 2.7)< 0.001Emergency room visits, mean ± SD0.7 ± 1.60.4 ± 1.21.8(1.6 - 2.0)< 0.001Any emergency room visit, %30.4%20.7%1.7(1.5 - 1.8)< 0.001Other visits, mean ± SD0.3 ± 0.80.2 ± 0.71.8(1.6 - 2.1)< 0.001Any other visit, %20.0%11.2%2.0(1.8 - 2.2)< 0.001

IRR: incidence rate ratio; OP, outpatient; OR: odds ratio, SD: standard deviation.

Notes: IRRs are reported for count outcomes; ORs are reported for binary outcomes. Other visits include durable medical equipment and dental or vision care.

Conclusion

DM is associated with substantial HCRU and costs per patient, with average incremental costs of $32,159 to the health plan and $2,346 to the patient annually as compared to controls. This study is among the first to document the clinical burden leading to high economic impacts of DM.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided by Pfizer Inc.

Disclosure of Interests

Arielle Bensimon Consultant of: Pfizer, as an employee of Analysis Group, Kristina Chen Employee of: Pfizer, Ahmed Noman Consultant of: Pfizer, as an employee of Analysis Group, Riley Taiji Consultant of: Pfizer, as an employee of Analysis Group at the time that this study was conducted, Erica Yim Consultant of: Pfizer, as an employee of Analysis Group, Vanja Sikirica Shareholder of: Pfizer, which manufactures medications approved for use in Rheumatology., Employee of: Pfizer at the time of this work and a current employee of Moderna., Rohit Aggarwal Consultant of: Abbvie, Alexion, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Octapharma, Csl Behring, BMS, Argenx, Corbus, EMD, Janssen, Kezar, Kyverna, Roivant, Q32, Corbus, EMD Serono, Jubliant, Scipher, Boehringer Ingelheim and Mallinckrodt, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, BMS, Q32, EMD Serono, Mallinckrodt, Genentech, and Boehringer Ingelheim

Is it a challenging task to work with personal protective equipment in a COVID-19 ICU: Findings from a hospital-based cross-sectional study from north India

Introduction

Amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is mandatory for healthcare workers to remain protected against infection. The present study was undertaken to evaluate challenges faced by the healthcare workers while using level 3 PPE.

Methods

This hospital-based study was conducted among resident doctors selected by convenience sampling method using a pretested, semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire after getting informed consent from the participants to collect data on the somatic, psychological, and technical problems faced while working in PPE. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was done between outcome variables and other independent variables to check for the association.

Results

Of the total, 252 resident doctors completed the survey, their age ranged from 22 to 36 years with 140 (55.6%) males and 112 (44.4%) females. One-twenty-nine (51.2%) residents were trained to work in ICU, 73 (29%) participants used PPE ≤10 times and the rest 179 (71%) used PPE more than 10 times. The difficulties faced were as follows: visual impairment (n = 244, 96.8%), headache (n = 226, 89.6%), breathing difficulty (n = 216, 85.7%), hearing impairment (n = 201, 79.8%), sweating (n = 242, 96%), and fear of being infected (n = 156,61.9%). Two-thirty-six (93.6%) participants felt that overall work quality reduced due to PPE. Headache, hunger, urge to micturate, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and need to change the timing of medication or diet were higher with increased duration of work with PPE.

Conclusion

A longer duration of work is associated with headache, hunger, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. More research has to be done to improve the PPE to reduce problems like visual impairment, skin irritation, sweating, and breathing difficulty.

Alveolar Arterial Gradient and Respiratory Index in Predicting the Outcome of COVID-19 Patients; a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Alveolar arterial (A-a) oxygen gradient and respiratory index can be of immense help for the critical care physician in clinical decision making. This study aimed to evaluate the potential application of A-a oxygen gradient and respiratory index in predicting the survival of COVID-19 patients in intensive care unit (ICU).

Method

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study involving 215 adult patients with COVID-19 disease, admitted to the ICU between 1^st April 2020 and 30 June 2021. Details regarding demographic variables, comorbidities, laboratory and arterial blood gas (ABG) findings were recorded. Alveolar-arterial gradient and respiratory index were calculated and tested as predictors of survival.

Result

The mean age of the patients was 51.92 years (65.6 % male). Hypertension was the most common comorbidity and oxygen via non-rebreathing mask was the most common modality used at the time of ICU admission. Mortality was 28.37% and average length of stay was 12.84 days. Patients who died were older (p=0.02), mostly male (p=0.017), had at least one comorbidity (p<0.001), and higher heart rate and respiratory rate (<0.001 and p=0.03, respectively), lower pH on arterial blood gas (ABG) (p=0.002), higher FiO2 requirement (p<0.001), and increased A-a oxygen gradient on admission compared to survivors. According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, A-a oxygen gradient and respiratory index were not sensitive or specific in predicting mortality in the studied patient subset.

Conclusion

A-a oxygen gradient and respiratory index calculated at time of admission to ICU in patients with COVID-19 were poor predictors of survival.

Simple but Significant Modifications of High-Flow Nasal Cannula

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is one of the most commonly used devices for oxygen therapy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in different hospital settings. Multiple alternative options include non-invasive and invasive ventilation. But non-invasive ventilation is very uncomfortable for patients, and weaning from invasive ventilation in a patient with lung pathology is challenging. Hence, HFNC has come up as a safe alternative that averts invasive ventilation. However, its widespread application is difficult in patients with nasal deformities. We discuss two patients, one with caudal dislocation of the nasal septum with a crooked nose and the other patient with septal hypertrophy. In both cases, invasive ventilation was deferred, and target oxygen saturation was achieved after a simple dispositive modification.

SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection in Respiratory and Nonrespiratory Specimens in COVID-19 Patients

Rapid antigen testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) available at present provides immediate results at low cost with less expertise and without any need of sophisticated infrastructure. Most of these test kits available are for nasopharyngeal samples. This is a novel study to detect the presence of COVID antigen in samples other than throat and oropharyngeal. Various samples received from patients admitted in the COVID-19 dedicated center were tested for the presence of antigen. Same procedure was followed as done for the nasopharyngeal sample. A total of 150 samples were tested, which included ascitic fluid, pleural fluid, drain fluid, bile, bronchoalveolar lavage, cerebrospinal fluid, endotracheal tube aspirate, sputum, tissue, and urine. Out of 150, 11 (7.33%) were positive and 138 (92.66%) were negative for the antigen test. The COVID-19 antigen test kit, though designed for nasopharyngeal samples, was able to detect the presence of antigen in other clinical samples.

Clinical Course and Outcome of Critically Ill Obese Patients with COVID-19 Admitted in Intensive Care Unit of a Single Center: Our Experience and Review

Introduction

Obesity has been considered as one of the independent risk factors for a severe form of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and relationship between obesity, critical illness, and infection is still poorly understood. We herein discuss clinical course and outcome of critically ill obese patients with COVID-19 admitted to critical care unit.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed data of critically ill obese patients hospitalized with COVID-19 over a span of 6 months. Management was guided according to the institutional protocol. Collected data included demographic parameters (age, sex, comorbidities, and body mass index (BMI)), complications, inflammatory markers (interleukin (IL)-6, Ferritin), length of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and inhospital death.

Results

There was no appreciable difference in terms of demographics, inflammatory markers, predictors of mortality scores, and comorbidity indices between the survivors and nonsurvivors. Among outcome analysis, there was a statistically significant difference between ventilator days between survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.003^**).

Conclusion

Obesity itself is a significant risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection; however, if efficiently managed and in a protocol-determined manner, it can have a favorable outcome.

How to cite this article

Kaur M, Aggarwal R, Ganesh V, Kumar R, Patel N, Ayub A, et al. Clinical Course and Outcome of Critically Ill Obese Patients with COVID-19 Admitted in Intensive Care Unit of a Single Center: Our Experience and Review. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(12):1382–1386.

Outcomes of Trauma Victims with Cardiac Arrest Who Survived to Intensive Care Unit Admission in a Level 1 Apex Indian Trauma Centre: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The prognosis of patients with cardiac arrest following trauma is poor. Our objectives were: (1) to determine outcomes of patients following in-hospital cardiac arrest posttrauma and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and (2) to identify characteristics associated with in-hospital mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis of patients admitted to ICU after resuscitation following in-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2017 and July 2018. Patients with isolated head injuries and multiple cardiac arrests were excluded. Bivariate analysis was done to determine a significant association between baseline characteristics and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients were included. About 35.1% of trauma subjects survived hospital discharge. Bivariate analysis showed positive association between admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores with in-hospital mortality. Other characteristics, such as age, duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and serum lactate levels on admission, were not associated with in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Despite being at lower survival following a cardiac arrest after trauma, approximately one-third of the patients survived hospital discharge. This implies that aggressive support of this population is not necessarily futile. Optimization of postresuscitation physiological factors and their impacts on outcomes for these patients need further studies.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Soni KD, Rai N, Aggarwal R, Trikha A. Outcomes of Trauma Victims with Cardiac Arrest Who Survived to Intensive Care Unit Admission in a Level 1 Apex Indian Trauma Centre: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(12):1408-1412.

Comparison of disease profiles and three-month outcomes of patients with neurological disorders with and without COVID-19: An ambispective cohort study

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion: