POS0107 ACPA POSITIVITY DETERMINES REMISSION IN PATIENTS WITH RA TREATED WITH IV AND SC ABATACEPT: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE REAL-WORLD OBSERVATIONAL ACTION AND ASCORE STUDIES

Background

The goal of treatment for RA is achieving low disease activity and/or remission1,2; however, disease course and management can be complicated by additional factors that may be influenced by serostatus. Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and RF contribute to a more severe RA disease pattern3 and may be useful in predicting response to treatment.4 ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice; NCT02109666) and ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) were 2-year, international, observational, prospective, multicenter studies of IV and SC abatacept, respectively, for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.4,5 Previous analyses have shown that ACPA/RF double-positive serostatus was associated with better treatment outcomes compared with ACPA/RF double-negative serostatus.4–6

Objectives

To assess the independent effect of ACPA or RF single seropositivity among patients with RA on achieving remission after treatment with abatacept for 2 years, and to compare outcomes among patients with single versus double serostatus.

Methods

This post hoc analysis included patients from ACTION and ASCORE who initiated IV (body weight–adjusted dosing) or SC abatacept (125 mg once weekly), respectively. Patients were stratified by baseline ACPA/RF status: ACPA+/RF− (ACPA+ only), ACPA/RF double positive (+/+), ACPA−/RF+ (RF+ only), and ACPA/RF double negative (−/−). DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission rates (defined as < 2.6 and 0–2.8, respectively) at 2 years for patients who were ACPA+ or RF+ only at baseline were assessed and compared with those who were +/+ and −/−. Patients with missing baseline ACPA/RF status were excluded. Last observation carried forward efficacy analyses were used to impute missing values.

Results

This analysis included 1679 patients from ACTION (ACPA+ only, n = 98; +/+, n = 1028; RF+ only, n = 161; and −/−, n = 392) and 1748 patients from ASCORE (ACPA+ only, n = 184; +/+, n = 1079; RF+ only, n = 142; and −/−, n = 343). Across studies and serogroups, baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar (data not shown). In both ACTION and ASCORE, a higher proportion of patients who were only ACPA+ achieved DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years compared with patients who were only RF+ (Figure 1). Additionally, a similar proportion of patients who were only ACPA+ achieved DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years compared with patients who were +/+. In contrast, a lower proportion of patients who were only RF+ achieved DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years compared with patients who were +/+.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of real-world data from ACTION and ASCORE, ACPA positivity was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years. Patients who were ACPA+ only were as likely to achieve remission as +/+ patients, suggesting that RF serostatus had less influence than ACPA serostatus on remission status at 2 years. In line with this, patients who were RF+ only were less likely to achieve remission at 2 years. This is the first large, real-world study to show that ACPA positivity plays a more important role than RF positivity in achieving remission whilst on abatacept. These results highlight the importance of assessing baseline ACPA status when considering treatment options for patients with RA.

References

[1]Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–99.

[2]Fraenkel L, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021;73:924–39.

[3]Katchamart, W, et al. Rheumatol Int 2015;35:1693–9.

[4]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80(suppl 1):OP0180.

[5]Alten R, et al. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38:1413–24.

[6]Alten R, et al. RMD Open 2017;3:e000345.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rachel Rankin, PhD, of Caudex, and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Study management provided by Syneos (CRO).

Disclosure of Interests

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, UCB, Peter Peichl Speakers bureau: Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, Sanofi; IMIDomics (executive role), Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: Amgen, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Signifience, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

AB0627 Evaluation of internal consistency, feasibility, and reliability of the Italian version of ANCA-associated vasculitis patient-reported outcome (AAV-PRO_ita) questionnaire: preliminary results from a multicenter study on a large cohort of Italian patients

Background

The ANCA-associated vasculitis patient-reported outcome (AAV-PRO) questionnaire is a 29-item disease-specific PRO measure for AAV[1]. The Italian version of the AAV-PRO questionnaire (AAV-PRO_ita) was translated in collaboration with Oxford and Bristol University (UK) and was preliminarily tested on a single-center Italian cohort[2].

Objectives

The main objective of this multicentric study was to assess the internal consistency, feasibility, and reliability of the AAV-PRO_ita in a large cohort of Italian AAV patients. The secondary objective was to investigate the clinical characteristics of AAV patients associated with AAV-PRO_ita domains.

Methods

The AAV-PRO_ita is describes the following disease domains: (1) organ-specific and systemic symptoms and signs (SSS); (2) physical function (PF); (3) social and emotional impact (SEI). In this study, Italian-speaking AAV patients were recruited from Italian Centres (N=13) with a large experience in the diagnosis and treatment of systemic vasculitis, belonging to the Vasculitis Study Group of the Italian Society of Rheumatology. Inclusion criteria were: a confirmed diagnosis of GPA, MPA, or EGPA; ANCA positivity in at least once occasion or biopsy-proven AAV; and age ≥18 years old. Participants completed the AAV-PRO_ita at three different time-points: baseline, after 5-7 days, and at month 3.

Results

229 AAV-patients (56.3% women) with a median age of 61 (IQR 51-72) were recruited and completed the questionnaires. The subtype of AAV was mainly GPA (131, 57.2%), followed by EGPA (58, 25.3%), and MPA (40, 17.5%). Median BVASv3 at baseline was 0 (IQR 0-3), whereas the median BVASv3 at the onset of disease was 14 (IQR 9-20). Participants had a median duration of disease of 67 (IQR 24-126) months. Patients who experienced at least one relapse, one hospitalization, and one severe infection were 40.2%, 53.3%, and 24%, respectively. 83% of the patients were on immunosuppressant therapy and 71.6% were still receiving glucocorticoids (GC).

AAV-PRO_ita questionnaire had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha range 0.81-0.93) and good test-retest reliability (ICCs range 0.93-0.96). Item response rates were high overall (maximum 0.87% missing data), supporting the feasibility of the questionnaire.

Concerning the domains of the questionnaire, female AAV patients scored higher (i.e. worse) in all three domains, especially in the SEI domain (p-value<0.001). Older participants (≥65 years) scored higher in the PF domain (p-value<0.05) in all three times of self-completions of the questionnaire. The ongoing treatment also influenced the results. In fact, patients on GC showed higher scores in the PF domain (p-value=0.003) and SEI domain (p-value=0.021). The VDI value seemed to be related to AAV-PRO_ita scores more than disease duration or disease activity, especially in the SSS domain (ρ>0.3, p-value<0.001). Conversely, subtype of AAV did not influence the item scores.

Conclusion

The AAV-PRO_ita questionnaire is a new 29-item, disease-specific PRO measure for use in AAV in the Italian language. It is a self-administered Italian questionnaire with good internal consistency, feasibility, and reliability. AAV-PRO_ita proved to be a useful tool to explore the AAV patient’s perception of quality of life, and it could become an important way of measuring the unmet needs of AAV patients.

References

[1]Robson, J.C. et al. Validation of the ANCA-Associated Vasculitis Patient-Reported Outcomes (AAV-PRO) Questionnaire. Ann. Rheum. Dis.2018, 77, 1157–1164, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212713.

[2]Treppo, E.; Palese, A.; Vita, S.D.; Quartuccio, L. AB0392 PRELIMINARY VALIDATION OF THE ITALIAN VERSION OF ANCA-ASSOCIATED VASCULITIS PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME (AAV-PRO_ita) QUESTIONNAIRE: FATIGUE AND CHRONIC PAIN AS UNMET NEEDS BY CURRENT TREATMENTS. Ann. Rheum. Dis.2021, 80, 1224–1224, doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.2123.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Italian Study Group on Systemic Vasculitis.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1236 THE IMPACT OF ANTI-SARS-COV-2 VACCINES IN A MULTICENTER COHORT STUDY OF PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS

Background

Vulnerable subjects, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients have been prioritised to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Questions have been raised about the effect of vaccines on immunity and their potential role as trigger for flare. Few data about the safety of these vaccines in SLE are available

Objectives

To investigate the safety of different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in SLE

Methods

Data on SLE patients who have received anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (from 12/2020 to 10/2021) were collected. Patients referred to 7 SLE tertiary centres (Lupus Clinic, ASST Pini-CTO, Milan; Nephrology Unit of Ospedale Giovanni Bosco, Turin; IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital; Renal and Rheumatology Units, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza; ASST Spedali Civili Brescia; Lupus Clinic IRCCS Ospedale S. Raffaele, Milan, Italy; IRCCS Policlinico, Milan)

Results

452 SLE patients who had received anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were included (91% BNT162b2 mRNA, 8% mRNA-1273, 1% ChAdOx1-S). 12 (3%) were off therapy, 71% were on low-medium dose prednisone, 83% on anti-malarials, 50% were treated with an immunosuppressant. 9 patients transiently discontinued therapy. 119 (26%) reported adverse symptoms after the first/second shot (12% and 21%) The most frequent were fever, local reaction, fatigue and arthralgias. Nineteen (4%) patients flared up after immunisation with a 7 days median time to relapse. Baseline demographics, SLE characteristics and therapy stratified by adverse events and disease flare are reported in Table 1. Anti-dsDNA positivity, moderate/high DAS before vaccine and use of Belimumab were significantly more frequent in the group of patients flared. These patients displayed a significantly higher rate of adverse events after vaccination. Flares consisted mainly musculoskeletal and constitutional manifestations (32%), involvement of renal (21%), cardio-respiratory (16%), hematological (16%) or mucocutaneous domains (10%) was less frequent

Table 1.

distribution of demographic and SLE characteristics according to sides effects and disease flares after vaccination

Side effects (n=119)No side effects (n=333)p-value (<0.05)Disease flare (n=19)No disease flare (n=430)p-value (<0.05)Age, years, median (IQR)46 (33.5-54)48 (35.7-57)0.1852 (39.5-56.0)48 (35.0-56.9)0.849Disease duration, months, median (IQR)138 (76-262)126 (73-193)0.30144 (122-242)127 (73-195)0.249MSK, %84.984.41.0078.984.80.514Mucocutaneus, %71.462.80.09457.964.50.624Renal, %42.052.30.06952.649.40.819NPSLE, %13.490.2155.310.40.708Cardiopulmonary %22.719.80.51026.320.30.562Hematological, %32.8331.0042.132.60.455Constitutional symptoms %48.7300.0003*26.335.30.473Gastrointestinal %4.23.30.7725.33.50.503Ophthalmic %0.83.30.19702.81.00Secondary APS %10.910.50.8645.310.90.708aPL positivity %26.233.60.13726.331.90.802Anti-dsDNA positivity %30.727.40.54555.627.10.0142*ESR, mm/h, median (IQR)14 (7-19)13 (7-22)0.73019 (10-24)13 (7-21)0.125CRP, mg/dL, median (IQR)0.5 (0.1-0.5)0.5 (0.3-0.6)0.3120.42 (0.13-0.50)0.50 (0.30-0.5)0.464Urinary abnormalities, %9.221.90.002321.118.50.764Moderate or high DAS before vaccine, %169.30.06026.310.40.0474*No therapy before vaccine, %03.60.0419*02.81.00At least 1 immunosuppressant, %6346.80.0027*73.750.10.059Mycophenolate, %31.923.10.06642.124.70.106Methotrexate, %5.96.61.005.36.51.00Belimumab, %21.813.50.0396*36.814.80.0184*Rituximab ever, %11.813.50.7515.313.40.490Prednisone, %74.8700.34778.970.90.607

Conclusion

our reassuring data confirm that anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is safe in SLE patients and should be recommended in this clinical setting, as potential benefits widely outweigh the risk of adverse events. Treatment adjustment might be considered with the aim of minimizing the risk of side effects and/or flare, while ensuring a satisfying protection against infection

References

[1]Tang W et al. The Use of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with SLE. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2021 12;23:79.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

AB0973 Long term efficacy of intra-articular viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid in hip osteoarthritis secondary to systemic rheumatic diseases: a preliminary evaluation

Background

Few studies have assessed response to intra-articular HA viscosupplementation in patients affected by hip osteoarthirtis secondary to systemic rheumatic diseases (SOA). From in vitro studies we know that the synovial environment in these diseases presents different molecular characteristics in comparison to primary osteoarthritis (POA) in terms of pro-inflammatory activity and therefore in degradation of hyaluronic acid.

Objectives

To evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of treatment with US-guided intra-articular HA viscosupplementation between a cohort affected by POA and one affected by SOA, with regard to pain assessment and time to arthroplasty.

Methods

We conducted this observational retrospective study on consecutive patients treated with US-guided hip intra-articular injections with Hylan G-F 20 2 ml at the Rheumatology Unit of ASST-Pini-CTO (Milan, Italy) from 2013 to 2021. Joints with active synovitis detected by US examination weren’t treated. VAS pain at baseline and at the end of October 2021 was registered as well as time to the event of hip arthroplasty and adverse reactions.

Patients treated had hip pain at least 6 months before treatment and radiological OA assessed by standard hip X-rays no more than 6 months before baseline. Patients included in the SOA group had a diagnosis of rheumatic systemic disease, POA patients had osteoarthritis and any further rheumatological condition was ruled out.

Additional clinical features recorded for the SOA patients were clinimetric assessment of disease activity according to SDAI for RA, clinical judgment for PMR, DAPSA for PsA, ASDAS for SpA and medical treatment at baseline.

Results

We included 55 primary OA patients and 16 systemic rheumatic diseases patients (5 JIA, 5 peripheral SpA, 2 PMR, 1 Axial-Spa, 1 PsA, 2 RA) who had received hip intra-articular HA injection with Hylan G-F 20 2 ml once a month for three consecutive months and then every six month. Mean duration of follow up was 51.1 (± 27.1) months.

We observed significant longer treatment survival and lower VAS pain in POA patients at follow up (in absence of significant difference of VAS pain at baseline).

In both cohorts we observed a reduction in VAS pain similar to that reported in literature: in the POA a mean reduction of 29.7 (95% CI 23.8-35.6), while in the SOA was noticed a mean reduction of 12.8 (95% CI 1.8-23.7) in absence of significant clinimetric variations over time.

We observed higher incidence of local adverse reactions in SOA group (2 cases of post-injection synovitis in the SOA cohort only (12.5%), p 0.04).

POA Hips (N=62)SOA Hips (N=16)p-valueTreatment duration, m46.8±30.222.4±22.40.0038HA injections, (N)9.9±5.15.3±3.20.00113 or more HA injections, % (N)85% (53)81% (13)0.70Adverse reactions, % (N)012.5% (2)0.040VAS Pain3.25±1.734.3±1.40.029Total Hip arthroplasty during follow up, % (N)11.2 (7)6.2 (1)1.00Time to arthroplasty, m46.8±30.2260.28

Conclusion

According to our results symptomatic hip SOA patients respond less and with a slightly higher degree of adverse reactions to intra-articular viscosupplementation when compared to POA patients, even if the incidence of these adverse events was similar to that observed in previous studies.

We can infere that synovial pro-inflammatory enviroment in rheumatic systemic diseases can reduce efficacy of intra-articular viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid.

References

[1]Migliore Alberto et al., «Intra-Articular Injection of Hyaluronic Acid (MW 1,500–2,000 KDa; HyalOne) in Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Hip: A Prospective Cohort Study», Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 131, n. 12 (December 2011): 1677–85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1353-y.

[2]Thierry Conrozier et al., «Clinical Response to Intra-Articular Injections of Hylan G-F 20 in Symptomatic Hip Osteoarthritis: The OMERACT-OARSI Criteria Applied to the Results of a Pilot Study», Joint Bone Spine 73, n. 6 (December 2006): 705–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.02.008.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

AB0394 CLINICAL OUTCOMES UP TO WEEK 48 OF ONGOING FILGOTINIB (FIL) RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA) LONG-TERM EXTENSION (LTE) TRIAL OF BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG (bDMARD) INADEQUATE RESPONDERS (IR) INITIALLY ON FIL OR PLACEBO IN A 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 patients (pts) with IR to bDMARDs in a LTE trial (NCT03025308) enrolled from a Phase 3 PS (NCT02873936).1

Methods

bDMARD-IR pts received FIL 200 mg (FIL200), FIL 100 mg (FIL100), or placebo (PBO), all with stable conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs up to 24 weeks (W). At W14 of the PS, pts with IR to FIL or PBO (<20% improvement in swollen [66] and tender [68] joint counts) switched to standard of care (SOC; investigator’s choice of treatment). Pts completing the PS on FIL, PBO, or SOC could enter the LTE. PS FIL pts were maintained, blinded, on their FIL dose; PS PBO and PS SOC pts were rerandomized, blinded, to FIL200 or FIL100. Efficacy data to LTE W48 and safety data to data cutoff (June 1, 2020) are reported.

Results

The PS included 147, 153, and 148 pts on FIL200, FIL100, and PBO. Pts continuing on LTE FIL200 and FIL100 at data cutoff: 80/121 (66%) and 76/110 (69%) from PS FIL200 and FIL100; 35/47 (75%) and 32/46 (70%) from PS PBO, and 13/23 (57%) and 13/22 (59%) from PS SOC. LTE baseline (BL) characteristics were similar in FIL200 and FIL100 pts. During LTE, PS FIL ACR20/50/70 response rates decreased modestly by W48 (Figure 1). Among PS PBO pts, response rates were lower at LTE BL, reaching similar levels to PS FIL pts by W48; rates increased to W48 in PS SOC pts on either FIL dose but not to levels of other groups. Percentages of pts attaining DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, DAS28(CRP) <2.6, CDAI ≤10, and CDAI ≤2.8 were maintained up to W48 for FIL/FIL pts. PBO/FIL and SOC/FIL pts showed similar patterns to ACR responses (Figure 1). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs)/100 pt-years of exposure for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), serious AEs, and serious infection were higher in SOC/FIL pts vs FIL/FIL or PBO/FIL pts, but samples were small and confidence intervals overlapped. There were 5 deaths (Table 1).

Table 1.

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

EAIR (95% CI)FIL200+csD → FIL200+csD n=121PYE 228.4PBO+csD → FIL200+csD n=47PYE 98.1SOC+csD → FIL200+csD n=23PYE 42.1FIL100+csD → FIL100+csD n=110PYE 223.3PBO+csD → FIL100+csD n=46PYE 91.1SOC+csD → FIL100+csD n=22PYE 38.2TEAE46.9 (38.8, 56.6)38.7 (28.2, 53.2)52.2 (34.4, 79.3)40.3 (32.8, 49.5)40.6 (29.4, 56.1)49.8 (31.8, 78.0)TEAE Grade ≥310.5 (7.0, 15.7)10.2 (5.5, 18.9)19.0 (9.5, 38.0)10.3 (6.8, 15.5)13.2 (7.5, 23.2)18.3 (8.7, 38.5)TE serious AE12.3 (8.5, 17.8)12.2 (6.9, 21.5)21.4 (11.1, 41.1)8.1 (5.1, 12.8)13.2 (7.5, 23.2)21.0 (10.5, 41.9)Death1.3 (0.4, 4.1)1.0 (0, 5.7)0 (0, 8.8)0.4 (0.1, 3.2)0 (0, 4.0)0 (0, 9.7)TE infections34.2 (27.4, 42.6)22.4 (14.8, 34.1)35.6 (21.5, 59.1)22.4 (17.0, 29.5)26.3 (17.7, 39.3)39.3 (23.7, 65.2)TE serious infections3.5 (1.8, 7.0)2.0 (0.5, 8.2)7.1 (2.3, 22.1)0.9 (0.2, 3.6)2.2 (0.5, 8.8)7.9 (2.5, 24.4)Opportunistic infections0 (0, 1.6)0 (0, 3.8)0 (0, 8.8)0 (0, 1.7)0 (0, 4.0)0 (0, 9.7)TE herpes zoster2.2 (0.7, 5.1)1.0 (0.1, 7.2)0 (0, 8.8)0 (0, 1.7)2.2 (0.5, 8.8)2.6 (0.1, 14.6)TE MACE (adjudicated)1.3 (0.4, 4.1)1.0 (0.1, 7.2)0 (0, 8.8)0.9 (0.2, 3.6)1.1 (0.2, 7.8)0 (0, 9.7)TE DVT/PE (adjudicated)0.9 (0.2, 3.5)0 (0, 3.8)2.4 (0.1, 13.2)0.4 (0.1, 3.2)0 (0, 4.0)0 (0, 9.7)Malignancies (excluding NMSC)1.3 (0.4, 4.1)3.1 (1.0, 9.5)4.7 (0.6, 17.2)1.8 (0.7, 4.8)3.3 (1.1, 10.2)0 (0, 9.7)NMSC0 (0, 1.6)0 (0, 3.8)4.7 (0.6, 17.2)0 (0, 1.7)0 (0, 4.0)0 (0, 9.7)

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

Conclusion

Efficacy was mostly maintained in PS FIL pts up to W48. Response among PS PBO and SOC pts increased from BL to W48, but response in PS SOC pts continued to be lower than in other groups; these pts may represent a refractory population. FIL safety was largely consistent between PS and LTE.

References

[1]Genovese MC et al. JAMA 2019;322:315–25.

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

Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Gilead and Pfizer, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AYUMI, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead Sciences, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer Japan, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Astellas, Chugai, and Eli Lilly Japan, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Shionogi, Takeda, and UCB Japan, Vijay Rajendran Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Co., Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB, Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer, Alena Pechonkina Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., YingMeei Tan 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, Employee of: Galapagos, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Fresenius-Kabi, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB

POS0634 SAFETY PROFILE OF b/tsDMARD IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS WITH IMPAIRED GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE. AN ANALYSIS FROM THE GISEA REGISTRY

Background

In real-life setting, a greater number of elderly rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with impaired glomerular filtration rate (GFR) needs treatment with biologic or target synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) to achieve disease control and reduce NSAIDs intake. Long-term observational data from the real-life on the use of b/tsDMARD in these patients are scarce.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the retention rate of b/tsDMARD in RA patients with impaired GFR in real-life setting.

Methods

Data of RA patients treated with at least one b/tsDMARD were retrospectively analyzed form the national Italian GISEA registry from January 2016 to December 2021. Estimated-GFR (eGFR) was calculated with the Cockcroft-Gault equation at the time of any b/tsDMARD prescription. For the purpose of this study, patients were divided in two groups, patients with impaired GFR (eGFR ≤60) and patients with normal GFR (eGFR >60). The retention rate was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between these two groups by a log-rank test.

Results

The study population included 2443 treatment-line with b/tsDMARD from 1888 patients (female 80.4%, age 57±12 years, mean baseline CDAI 17±12, FR/ACPA+ 69.5%) who started a new b/tsDMARD. Disease characteristics are shown in Table 1. 288 treatments with b/tsDMARD were started in patients with impaired eGFR and 2155 in patients with normal eGFR. Compared to patients with eGFR >60, patients with eGFR ≤60 showed higher HAQ-DI (1.3±0.8 vs 1±0.8, p<0.001) at the start of b/tsDMARD treatment. Glucocorticoids were more prescribed in patients with impaired eGFR (80.2% vs 72.8%, p<0.01), while csDMARDs were more prescribed in association with b/tsDMARD in patients with normal eGFR (83.1% vs 76.4%, p<0.01). Of note, CTLA4-Ig treatment was more prescribed in patients with impaired eGFR (26% vs 17.1%, p<0.05), while no difference in b/tsDMARD prescription was observed for other mechanism of actions. Drug survival was similar between RA patients with impaired eGFR [58.2%, mean survival time 35 months (CI95% 31-39)]and RA patients with normal eGFR [55%, mean survival time 34.4 months (CI95% 33-36), log rank: 0.88] (Figure 1). Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex and b/tsDMARD showed no impact of eGFR on drug survival [HR: 0.9 (CI95%: 0.7-1.2).

Conclusion

Our data show that impaired eGFR seems to not influence the persistence of b/tsDMARD treatment in RA patients.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OP0061 TIGHT CONTROL IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH TARGETED THERAPIES ACROSS THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ERA

Background

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and subsequent waves still represent a healthcare issue. Their impact on the treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients has been seldom investigated. Difficult access to rheumatology outpatient clinic, laboratory and imaging investigations as well as nationwide containment measures could potentially affect disease activity and tight-control strategy. Recently, we reported how a telephone-based tight control strategy ensured satisfactory management of RA treated with targeted therapies during the first wave of the pandemic [1]. However, the performance of our different patterns of healthcare delivery across different pandemic waves has not been studied yet.

Objectives

To analyze the impact of different patterns of healthcare delivery on remission of RA patients treated with targeted therapies during the first wave (2020) and second/third waves (2021) of pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period (2019).

Methods

In this observational real-life study, data of our cohort of RA patients treated with biologic or targeted synthetic drugs were extracted from a longitudinal registry. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was analyzed in the same period from 22nd of February to 18th of May for three consecutive years: before the pandemic (2019), during the first wave (2020), and during the second/third waves (2021). During the first wave, patients could choose whether to receive home drug delivery or to maintain their face-to-face visits, in the other periods only in-person visits were delivered. A generalized linear model with the binomial error was fitted to evaluate the difference in the proportion of patients in CDAI remission. Quantile regression was used to compare the median of CDAI in difficult-to-treat (D2T) patients [2]. In both models, the correlation of different measurements on the same patient was considered.

Results

In the pre-pandemic period (2019), 407 RA patients were included in this study. During the first wave (2020) we analyzed 450 patients, of whom 359 patients chose in-person visits, while 91 patients home drug delivery and virtual visit. Finally, 540 patients were included in 2021 (second/third wave). The percentages of patients in CDAI remission were similar in the three periods (prevalence ratio 1.07, p-value 0.423 between 2020 and 2019, and 1.01, p-value 0.934 between 2021 and 2019). The CDAI remission rate was 40.55% (N=163), 43.18% (N=155) and 40.82% (N=220) in 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. The disease activity profile during the three periods is reported in detail in the Table 1 below. Among our cohort of D2T patients, the median value of CDAI before (2019), during the first wave (2020), and during the second/third wave (2021) changed significantly (p= 0.053 between 2020 and 2019 and p=0.006 between 2021 and 2019).

Table 1.RA patientsCDAI201920202021No. missingN (%)No. missingN (%)No. missingN (%)Remission0163 (40.55%)89155 (43.18%)6220 (40.82%)Low0151 (37.56%)89140 (39.00%)6227 (42.12%)Moderate/ high088 (21.89%)8964 (17.83%)692 (17.07%)

Conclusion

Although the pandemic has imposed changes in our healthcare delivery, these different strategies seem to be effective in ensuring satisfactory management of RA treated with targeted therapies. The approaches modulated in the context of the different periods have been a feasible compensation for ensuring disease control even in D2T patients.

References

[1]Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:1243-1245

[2]Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:31–5.

Disclosure of Interests

Angela Flavia Luppino: None declared, Gilberto Cincinelli: None declared, Francesca Ingegnoli: None declared, Annalisa Orenti: None declared, Ennio Giulio Favalli Speakers bureau: Galapagos, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Paid instructor for: Roche, MSD, Consultant of: AbbVie, Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Patrizia Boracchi: None declared, 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.

POS0701 LONG-TERM EFFICACY OF BARICITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WHO HAVE HAD INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO csDMARDs: RESULTS FROM RA-BEYOND UP TO 7 YEARS OF TREATMENT

Background

Baricitinib (BARI), an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for up to 3 years (yrs) in a long-term extension (LTE) study RA-BEYOND.1

Objectives

Disclose efficacy of BARI in csDMARD-IR pts in the completed LTE study (up to 7 yrs).

Methods

In RA-BUILD, csDMARD-IR pts were randomized 1:1:1 to BARI 4 mg, 2 mg, or placebo (PBO). Completers to week (wk) 24 could enter the LTE and received BARI 4 or 2 mg. In RA-BEAM, MTX-IR pts were randomized 1:1:1 to BARI 4 mg, adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg, or PBO. Completers to wk 52 received BARI 4 mg in the LTE. Pts with no response could be rescued after wk 16 in both studies. Data were analysed by treatment assigned at baseline in originating studies as observed up to time of stepdown (if applicable), study discontinuation or completion, whichever occurred earlier. Efficacy response rates (RR) were assessed as proportions of pts with observed data up to yr 7 (wk 364) for low-disease activity (LDA) (SDAI ≤ 11, DAS28-hsCRP ≤ 3.2, CDAI ≤ 10), remission (REM) (SDAI ≤ 3.3, DAS28-hsCRP < 2.6, CDAI ≤ 2.8, Boolean), and physical function (HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5). No formal statistical comparisons were conducted.

Results

Approximately 56%/25% of pts in BARI 4 mg, 80%/31% in BARI 2 mg, and 60%/25% in PBO from RA-BUILD remained active at yr 3/7; 59%/17% of pts in ADA, 54%/16% in BARI 4 mg, and 67%/14% in PBO from RA-BEAM remained active at year 3/7. SDAI and CDAI had comparable RR for LDA and REM (Table 1). DAS-28CRP LDA RR were similar to SDAI and CDAI, while REM RR were about twice those of SDAI and CDAI (Table 1). HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5 RR was achieved by 25-30% of BARI-treated pts from both trials and maintained to the end of LTE.

Table 1.

Efficacy outcomes in RA-BEYOND

TimeaN/n (%)LDAREMHAQ-DI ≤0.5SDAICDAIDAS-28 CRPSDAICDAIDAS-28 CRPBooleanRA-BEYOND entryBARI 2 mg (BUILD)197/109197/103200/108197/38 (19.3)197/35 (17.8)200/72 (36.0)200/29 (14.5)200/50 (25.0)(55.3)(52.3)(54.0)BARI 4 mg (BUILD)188/113191/116189/112188/33191/35 (18.3)189/75 (39.7)189/26 (13.8)193/44 (22.8)(60.1)(60.7)(59.3)(17.6)BARI 4 mg (BEAM)412/288414/290412/280412/112414/108412/199412/78 (18.9)414/133 (27.3)(69.9)(70.0)(68.0)(27.2)(26.1)(48.3)Yr 3BARI 2 mg (BUILD)156/120158/116156/112156/41 (26.3)158/44 (27.8)156/81 (51.9)156/34 (21.8)159/38 (23.9)(76.9)(73.4)(71.8)BARI 4 mg (BUILD)107/76107/76107/74107/24107/26 (24.3)107/56 (52.3)107/17 (15.9)108/26 (24.1)(71.0)(71.0)(69.2)(22.4)BARI 4 mg (BEAM)222/166224/166222/164222/72224/71 (31.7)222/119222/48224/54 (24.1)(74.8)(74.1)(73.9)(32.4)(53.6)(21.6)Yr 7BARI 2 mg (BUILD)61/5061/4961/5161/17 (27.9)61/18 (29.5)61/40 (65.6)61/12 (19.7)62/16 (25.8)(82.0)(80.3)(83.6)BARI 4 mg (BUILD)45/3748/3745/3445/13 (28.9)48/16 (33.3)45/25 (55.6)45/8 (17.8)48/14 (29.2)(82.2)(77.1)(75.6)BARI 4 mg (BEAM)60/5364/5760/53 (88.3)60/18 (30.0)64/22 (34.4)60/38 (63.3)60/13 (21.7)64/14 (21.9)(88.3)(89.1)

N: Number of pts with observed data; n: Number of pts with response. aTime from randomization in originating studies. Entry to RA-BEYOND=wk 24 and wk 52; Yr 3=wk 156 and wk 160; and Yr 7=wk 360 and wk 364 of RA-BUILD and RA-BEAM, respectively.

Conclusion

In observed data, BARI demonstrated maintained efficacy in treatment and maintenance of physical function of a csDMARDs-IR RA pt population up to 7 yrs.

References

[1]Smolen JS, et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021; 60(5):2256-66.

Disclosure of Interests

Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, MSD, UCB, Roche,Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Roche, SoBi, Sanofi, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly and Company, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly and Company, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK, Ayumi Pharmaceutical Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. Eisai Co., Ltd. Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Novartis Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Sanofi K.K.; UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Consultant of: AbbVie Japan GK, Astellas Pharma, Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Eisai Co., Ltd.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., Pfizer Japan Inc., Grant/research support from: AbbVie Japan GK, Asahikasei Pharma Corp., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., DNA Chip Research Inc.; Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Daojun Mo Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ewa Haladyj Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Liliana Zaremba-Pechmann: None declared, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Inc, Roche, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Celgene, and Galapagos

POS0943 EFFECT OF NERIDRONATE ON AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS WHEN bDMARDs ARE NOT AN OPTION: RESULTS FROM A RESTROSPECTIVE STUDY

Background

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as first-line treatment of axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective in the management of patients refractory to NSAIDs. However, in some cases the introduction of bDMARDs is limited by absolute contraindications or patient opposition. Beyond the well-known anti-osteoclastic properties, bisphosphonates (BPs) can exert their benefits through other mechanisms, including reduction of proinflammatory cytokines (such as IL6 and TNFα), and modulation of macrophage and osteoblast activity.

Objectives

To examine the potential therapeutic properties of a BP, IV neridronate (IVNer), in patients with axSpA refractory to NSAIDs and not eligible for a second-line therapy with bDMARDs.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data of patients affected by axSpA according to ASAS classification criteria, treated with IVNer, referred to a tertiary Rheumatology Centre between Sept 2015 and Dec 2021. Patients with active disease, as defined by a BASDAI score ≥4, with active sacroileitis (SI) on MRI (according to ASAS MRI definition of active SI), who had failed/were intolerant to NSAIDs and not eligible for bDMARDs, were recruited. IVNer (100 mg) was given intravenously on Days 1, 4, 7, and 10, over 3 h in 500 ml of 0.9% saline. Response to IVNer was evaluated after 60 days from the last infusion as the mean change from baseline of BASDAI and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, and the improvement of MRI imaging.

Results

We included 30 patients (77% females, mean age±SD 39.0±16.8 yrs, and mean disease duration of 24±14.4 months (range 1.0-298). Fourteen had ankylosing spondylitis (AS), six had undifferentiated SpA, two had enteropathic arthritis, one had non-radiographic axSpA, and seven had axial psoriatic arthritis. 50% had axial involvement, 30% axial and peripheral arthritis, and 20% had axial and enthesis involvement. Eleven were HLA-B27 positive. On MRI evaluation, 43% had monolateral SI, 57% bilateral SI and 7% had erosions. Among the reasons of ineligibility to bDMARDs, 6 patients have concurrent solid tumor, 11 had comorbidities contraindicating bDMARDs, and 12 preferred not to undergo to bDMARDs. Mean BASDAI significantly decrease after IVNer (5.86±1.98 vs 3.52±2.39, p=0.0002, Figure 1a), as well as VAS pain score (6.14±1.92 vs 3.18±2.62, p<0.05, Figure 1b). MRI showed a complete resolution of SI in 47%, partial resolution in 33%, and persistent active SI in 40% of patients, without correlation with the previous presence of erosions.

Figure 1.

Conclusion

IVNer was effective in reducing disease activity measured by BASDAI and VAS pain score in patients with axSpA refractory to NSAIDs and not eligible for bDMARDs. When recommended second-line treatments are contraindicated or according to patients’ preference, IVNer can be considered as a potential alternative therapeutic option. Further evaluations in controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

References

[1]Varenna M, Rheumatology 2014.

[2]Maksymowych WP et al, Ann Rheum Dis. 2019

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

AB0286 BENEFICIAL EFFECT OF OLIVES AND OLIVE OIL CONSUMPTION ON RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS DISEASE ACTIVITY

Background

The main goal for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is to control symptoms to reach clinical remission or low disease activity as the best possible alternative [1]. Although the number of available therapeutic options, a substantial proportion of patients remain symptomatic. Recent EULAR recommendations [2] shift focus to lifestyle interventions whose concurrent approach could help in controlling potential inflammatory triggers. In this context, olives and olive oil have beneficial properties on health mainly attributed to their high monounsaturated fatty acid content, and to the presence of phenolic compounds. To our knowledge, very few studies addressed the anti-inflammatory effects related to olives and olive oil consumption on RA disease activity.

Objectives

To study the attitude of consumption of olives and olive oil in RA patients from northern Italy, and to assess the effect on disease activity.

Methods

In this observational cross-sectional study, all consecutive adult RA with disease duration ≥ 3 months were enrolled. Disease Activity Score on 28 joints (DAS28-CRP), Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) were recorded. Dietary habits in the previous six months were collected with a with a 110-item food frequency questionnaire. In this analysis, we focus on olive oil consumption with original response categories ranging from “never” to “more than 2 times per day” (in spoon units). We created a food group composed by olive oil, black and green olives (frequencies/day). Olive oil consumption was entered as the independent variable into multiple regression models. When disease activity was entered in continuous in the regression models, we estimated the effect on a 1-point increment/decrease in RA disease activity. When disease activity was modeled as a dichotomous variable, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) of disease activity and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within unconditional multiple logistic regression models. We included in each model the potential confounding variables: age, sex, education, body mass index (BMI), cigarette smoking status, alcohol drinking intensity, disease duration, rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA), and therapies.

Results

365 RA patients (median age: 58.46 years, 78.63% females) were included. Most of the patients (60.55%) finished the high school and/or the university. The median BMI was 23.63 (IQR: 21.00-26.78) Kg/m2; never smokers or drinkers were 51.64% and 29.04%, respectively. The median disease duration was 12.81 (IQR: 8.08-20.72) years, with RF positivity being 53.70% and ACPA positivity 50.96%. Disease activity measures DAS28-CRP and SDAI showed medians of 2.21 (IQR: 1.613.02) and 6.30 (IQR: 3.01-11.81), with high disease activity present in 3.84% and 5.75% of the sample, respectively. Major comorbidities included arterial hypertension (33.42%), gastro-esophageal reflux (19.18%), and gastritis (8.77%). After adjustment for the mentioned confounding factors, the ORs (and the corresponding 95% confidence interval) of RA disease activity was equal to 0.78 (95% CI: 0.76-1.31) for DAS28-CRP and to 0.76 (95% CI: 0.75-1.34) for SDAI, suggesting significant protection of about ~20% for both outcomes. Similarly, robust regression models for estimating the increment in the mean outcome disease activity scores, DAS28-CRP and SDAI in continuous, provided beta coefficients equal to -0.17 (Standard Error, SE: 0.06) with a p-value equal to 0.06 for DAS28-CRP and a beta coefficient of -1.13 (SE: 0.37) with a p-value equal to 0.04.

Conclusion

Increasing frequency of consumption of a food group composed by olive oil, black and green olives is significantly associated to a lower risk of disease activity, as measured by both DAS28-CRP and SDAI, after adjustment for socio-demographic factors, therapy, disease duration and severity. Robust regression models allowed to quantify the mean reduction of DAS28-CRP in 0.17 points and that of SDAI in 1.13 points.

References

[1]Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–699.

[2]Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:1278-1285

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the RANDIE study group

Disclosure of Interests

Francesca Ingegnoli: None declared, Roberta De Vito: None declared, 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, Maria Parpinel: None declared, Giuseppe Grosso: None declared, Monica Ferraroni: None declared, Valeria Edefonti: None declared

POS0680 PHYSICIANS’ REASONS FOR PRESCRIBING JANUS KINASE INHIBITORS (JAKi) IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA), AND ASSOCIATED ALIGNMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND PATIENTS IN A REAL-WORLD CLINICAL SETTING

Background

Shared decision making, a cornerstone of RA management1, allows physicians and their patients to make informed decisions about their treatment goals and choice of care. As new treatments become available, it is important to understand rheumatologists’ reasons for choosing JAKi.

Objectives

This survey evaluated rheumatologists’ clinical and patient centric reasons for choosing JAKi, in addition to exploring alignment between rheumatologists and RA patients in terms of treatment choice and satisfaction.

Methods

The Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™2 is a large, multinational, point-in-time survey conducted amongst rheumatologists and their consulting patients with RA in Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) between January and October 2020. Physicians completed record forms for up to 10 consecutive RA patients, collecting demographic, clinical and treatment data, and reasons for current treatment choice. Patients were invited to complete a patient questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with ongoing treatment (5-point scale), and perceptions of shared decision making for the current treatment.

Results

316 rheumatologists provided data for 3121 patients, of whom 1130 (36.2%) completed patient reported questionnaires. Overall, 67% were female, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 23% had moderate-high disease activity score (DAS28: >3.2). 68% of patients were currently receiving either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD; defined here as advanced therapy, AT), 72% were on first line AT. Overall, physicians and their patients were aligned that a conversation took place about a treatment decision (n=855, 79% net alignment), and this was a shared treatment decision (n=814, 75% net alignment). 15% of patients not taking an AT were reported to have a clinical condition warranting one; reasons for not taking AT included patients’ concerns about infection (24%), conventional synthetic DMARDs were tolerable and safe in the patient (18%), and patient dislike of infusions/injections (17%). Of 2143 patients receiving AT, 19% were prescribed JAKi; 57% as monotherapy, 43% as combination therapy. For physician stated reasons for choice of JAKi, factors were driven by both perceptions of clinical efficacy and onset of action, as well as factors relating to patient acceptability such as method of delivery and ease of use (Table 1). With respect to JAKi treatment (n=135 patient-physician pairs), 62% of physicians and their patients were aligned on satisfaction, however 30% of patients reported less satisfaction than their consulting physician (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Physician stated clinical and patient centric reasons for prescribing a JAKi in their patients with RA (data are percentage of patients; n=397)

Reasons for prescribing JAKiPatients (%)Top 5 clinical reasonsStrong overall efficacy74Fast onset of action49Inhibition of disease progression42Strong efficacy as monotherapy39Achievement of clinical remission37Top 5 patient centric reasonsAcceptability of method of delivery for the patient39Enabling patient to perform everyday tasks/activities36Ease of product use (for the patient)33Improvement or maintenance of quality of life30Improving patient’s mood/state of mind14

Conclusion

Communicating the choice of pharmacological therapy to patients with RA has become increasingly complex for physicians with expansion of approved treatments. In this subgroup of patients on JAKi, the drug attributes considered as reasons for prescribing were driven by clinical factors as well as by patient centric attributes. Although communications between patients and physicians were largely aligned, better understanding of patient expectations might serve to improve messaging about treatment options and resulting satisfaction.

References

[1]Smolen JS et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76.

[2]Anderson P et al. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24(11):3063–72.

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium). We thank the physicians and patients who participated in this survey. Medical writing support was provided by Gary Sidgwick, PhD (Adelphi Real World, Bollington, UK) and publications management was provided by Aspire Scientific Ltd, (Bollington, UK), funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests

Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, Bruno Fautrel Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sobi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, and Pfizer, Yves Piette Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Grünenthal, Novartis, Janssen, and Sandoz, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Grunenthal, Janssen, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol, Biogen, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gebro, Janssen, and Lilly, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Jasper Broen Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, UCB, and Novartis, Martin Welcker Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Aescu, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Berlin Chemie, GSK, Hexal, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Medac, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Actelion, Boehringer, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, Novartis, and UCB, Elizabeth Holdsworth Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Monia Zignani Employee of: Galapagos NV, Katrien Van Beneden Shareholder of: Galapagos NV, Employee of: Galapagos NV, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, and MSD, Rieke Alten Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche

Subcutaneously-Administered Infliximab in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Short Narrative Review of Current Clinical Evidence

The first subcutaneous (SC) formulation of infliximab CT-P13 has been authorized for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Europe in 2019. Later, in 2020, approved indications were extended also to ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). The present review provides summary of the key features of SC infliximab, with particular focus on pharmacokinetic profile, clinical development program in comparison with the intravenous (IV) formulation, and the latest evidence in the literature. We conclude that SC infliximab represents a new and promising approach in the treatment of patients with RA, offering an optimized clinical profile and a more practical option in comparison to the IV formulation. Nevertheless, SC formulation can improve the use of national health systems resources (e.g., through the time of healthcare workers not having to supervise infusions) and facilitate social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the patient can self-inject the medicine at home without going to the hospital. The limitations of the SC infliximab are mainly due to the limited experience of use in clinical practice and the absence of long-term drug retention data.

POS0682 LONG-TERM EFFICACY OF BARICITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO bDMARDs: RESULTS FROM RA-BEYOND FOLLOWING 6.9 YEARS OF TREATMENT

Background

Baricitinib (BARI), an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, is approved for treatment of adults with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). BARI demonstrated efficacy in patients (pts) with RA who have inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) in a 24-week (wk) phase 3 study, RA-BEACON.1 BARI efficacy was evaluated up to 3 years (yrs) of treatment in a long-term extension (LTE) study, RA-BEYOND.2

Objectives

Disclose long-term efficacy of BARI 4 mg and 2 mg in bDMARD-IR pts in the completed study RA-BEYOND.

Methods

In RA-BEACON, pts were randomized 1:1:1 to BARI 4 mg, 2 mg, or PBO; pts with no response could be rescued after wk 16. Completers to wk 24 could enter with BARI 4 or 2mg RA-BEYOND for up to 360 wks (6.9 yrs). LTE data were analysed by treatment assigned at baseline in RA-BEACON as observed up to time of stepdown (if applicable), study discontinuation, or study completion, whichever occurred earlier. Efficacy response rates (RR) were assessed as proportions of pts with observed data up to wk 360 for low-disease activity (LDA) (SDAI ≤ 11, DAS28-hsCRP ≤ 3.2, CDAI ≤ 10), remission (REM) (SDAI ≤ 3.3, DAS28-hsCRP < 2.6, CDAI ≤ 2.8, Boolean), and physical functioning (HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5). No formal statistical comparisons were conducted.

Results

156, 152, and 140 pts entered the LTE (4 mg, 2 mg, and PBO, respectively). Pts in BARI 4 and 2 mg arms had higher LDA and REM RR vs PBO at LTE entry (wk 24) (Table 1). PBO-treated pts achieved comparable RR to pts in the BARI 4 mg arm by wk 48 (24 wks after switch to BARI 4 mg) and up to wk 360. Of pts enrolled to RA-BEYOND, approx. 50% in BARI 4 mg, 65% in 2 mg and 61% in PBO remained active at wk 156; 17%, 26% and 26% at wk 360, respectively. SDAI LDA RR were 47%/70% and 61%/74% for pts treated with BARI 4 mg and 2 mg, at wk 156 (yr 3)/ 360 (yr 6.9), respectively; SDAI REM RR were 15%/26% and 26%/26% for BARI 4 mg and 2 mg, at wk 156/360, respectively (Table 1). SDAI and CDAI had comparable RR. DAS-28CRP LDA RR were similar to SDAI and CDAI, while REM RR were about twice those of SDAI and CDAI. HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5 RR was 15%/26% (BARI 4 mg), 21%/15% (BARI 2mg), and 9%/3% (PBO) at 3/6.9 yrs.

Table 1.

Efficacy outcomes in RA-BEYOND

TimeaN/n (%)LDAREMSDAICDAIDAS-28 CRPSDAICDAIDAS-28 CRPBooleanHAQ-DI ≤0.5Wk 24PBOb135/31 (23.0)138/32 (23.2)135/31 (23.0)135/6 (4.4)138/8 (5.8)135/14 (10.4)135/3139/6 (4.3)(2.2)BARI 2 mg148/42 (28.4)152/43 (28.3)148/38 (25.7)148/10 (6.8)152/10 (6.6)148/22 (14.9)148/9152/17 (11.2)(6.1)BARI 4 mg150/57 (38.0)156/60 (38.5)150/60 (40.0)150/14 (9.3)156/17 (10.9)150/37 (24.7)150/11 (7.3)156/17 (10.9)Wk 48PBO128/59 (46.1)129/58 (45.0)128/58 (45.3)128/14 (10.9)129/15 (11.6)128/31 (24.2)128/5130/6 (4.6)(3.9)BARI 2 mg139/54 (38.8)140/56 (40.0)139/53 (38.1)139/13 (9.4)140/14 (10.0)139/30 (21.6)139/11 (7.9)140/16 (11.4)BARI 4 mg147/70 (47.6)149/71 (47.7)147/68 (46.3)147/22 (15.0)149/19 (12.8)147/49 (33.3)147/14 (9.5)149/19 (12.8)Wk 156PBO84/47 (56.0)85/47 (55.3)84/45 (53.6)84/15 (17.9)85/14 (16.5)84/33 (39.3)84/985/8 (9.4)(10.7)BARI 2 mg98/60 (61.2)99/60 (60.6)98/58 (59.2)98/25 (25.5)99/27 (27.3)98/43 (43.9)98/13 (13.3)99/21 (21.2)BARI 4 mg76/36 (47.4)78/35 (44.9)76/37 (48.7)76/11 (14.5)78/13 (16.7)76/25 (32.9)76/978/12 (15.4)(11.8)Wk 360PBO33/26 (78.8)35/25 (71.4)34/27 (79.4)33/8 (24.2)35/9 (25.7)34/17 (50.0)34/636/1 (2.8)(17.6)BARI 2 mg38/28 (73.7)38/28 (73.7)38/27 (71.1)38/10 (26.3)38/8 (21.1)38/20 (52.6)38/539/6 (15.4)(13.2)BARI 4 mg27/19 (70.4)27/20 (74.1)27/20 (74.1)27/7 (25.9)27/7 (25.9)27/15 (55.6)27/427/7 (25.9)(14.8)

N: Number of pts with observed data; n: Number of pts with response. aNumber of wks from randomisation. bTreatment groups as assigned at randomisation.

Conclusion

In observed data, BARI maintained efficacy and normative physical function bDMARD-IR population up to 6.9 yrs (360 wks).

References

[1]Genovese MC et al. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374:1243-52

[2]Wells AF et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021; 8:987–1001

Disclosure of Interests

Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, MSD, UCB, Roche,Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, Sandoz, Daniel Aletaha Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Roche, SoBi, Sanofi, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly and Company, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly and Company, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK, Ayumi Pharmaceutical Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. Eisai Co., Ltd. Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Novartis Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Sanofi K.K.; UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Consultant of: AbbVie Japan GK, Astellas Pharma, Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Eisai Co., Ltd.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., Pfizer Japan Inc., Grant/research support from: AbbVie Japan GK, Asahikasei Pharma Corp., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., DNA Chip Research Inc.; Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Daojun Mo Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ewa Haladyj Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Liliana Zaremba-Pechmann: None declared, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Inc, Roche, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Celgene and Galapagos

OP0089 RNAseq PROFILING OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS TO PREDICT RESPONSE TO TOFACITINIB

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by chronic inflammatory synovitis and progressive disability. Nowadays the natural history and the prognosis of the disease has deeply changed thanks to the availability of conventional and targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Nevertheless, clinical response to treatment is highly variable and a considerable proportion of patients do not - or only partially - respond to the treatment. The stratification of patients through the identification of biological predictors of good clinical response to treatment could allow the selection of the best therapeutic strategy for each patient. Recently, precision medicine in rheumatology could rely on the development of new transcriptomics techniques, such as RNA sequencing (RNAseq), that permit to explore complex cellular and molecular networks associated with pathophysiological aspects.

Objectives

To characterize the transcriptomic profiles (RNAseq) of whole-blood samples of moderate to severe RA patients to predict the clinical response to tofacitinib.

Methods

We selected patients with active RA, candidate to receive tofacitinib after failure of a previous therapy with conventional or biologic DMARDs. RNAseq profiling on whole-blood samples (PAX gene tubes) was performed at baseline and after 24 weeks of treatment with tofacitinib. Treatment response was evaluated at week 24 by CDAI EULAR response criteria as drug responder (major or moderate response) or non-responder (minor or no response). Differential expression of gene ontology (GO) biological processes (BP) pathways was analyzed to identify the response-associated pathways. Machine learning models were built by different data mining algorithm to predict response to tofacitinib.

Results

The study population included 33 patients, of whom 7 discontinued prematurely the treatment (5 because of adverse events and 2 because of inefficacy) and 2 were lost to follow-up. At week 24, 10 patients (38.5%) had major, 4 (15.4%) moderate, 6 (23.1%) minor, and 6 (23.1%) no clinical response to tofacitinib. No significant difference was observed between responders and non-responders in terms of baseline characteristics (age, sex, rheumatoid factor and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide [ACPA] positivity, DMARDs and prednisone exposure, Table 1). Overall, 307 out of 2137 coding transcripts and 85 GO BP pathways were differentially expressed after treatment in responders vs non-responders (Figure 1). In detail, an up-regulation of JAK-dependent pathways, including cation transport, metabolism of membrane lipids, calcium-mediated signaling, and osteoblast proliferation was observed in responders. Conversely, in non-responders, processes related to B cell activation, proliferation, and signaling along with mRNA epigenetic modifications were increased. After extensive internal validation (50 runs of 80:20 hold-out sampling) with univariate selection of GO terms, the accuracy of Support vector Machine (SVM) learning models to predict the correct clinical response was equal to 88.3% (AUROC = 0.940).

Table 1.

Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of the study population*

Non responders(n = 12)Responders(n = 14)Female, n (%)11 (91.7%)11 (78.6%)Age, years (±SD)52.6±11.254.3±10.5Rheumatoid factor, n (%)7 (58.3%)7 (50%)ACPA, n (%)9 (75%)8 (57.1%)Concomitant csDMARDs, n (%)5 (41.7%)8 (57.1%)bsDMARDs naïve, n (%)12 (100%)11 (78.6%)Prednisone ≥ 5mg/day, n (%)4 (33.3%)6 (42.8%)

* There were no significant differences, determined by Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables

Figure 1.

Heatmap representation of selected GO BP pathways in responders/non-responders.

Conclusion

Machine learning models based on transcriptomic functional pathways can accurately predict response to tofacitinib. Our study could contribute to improve the treatment customization and the optimization of RA treatment strategy toward a personalized approach. Furthermore, these findings may help to understand the mechanisms underlying the clinical response to JAK inhibitors.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared.

OP0125 THE MANAGEMENT OF PREGNANCY IN AUTOIMMUNE RHEUMATIC DISEASES: ANALYSIS OF 758 PREGNANCIES FROM THE PROSPECTIVE NATIONWIDE P-RHEUM.IT STUDY (THE ITALIAN REGISTRY OF PREGNANCY IN THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES)

Background

Pregnancy is a topic of fundamental importance for women living with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). Efforts at national and international levels have been put in the collection and harmonization of data in order to implement an evidence-based management of pregnant patients.

Objectives

The P-RHEUM.it study was designed as a nationwide, web-based longitudinal observational cohort study to collect data about pregnancy in ARD in 26 centers in Italy. The study started in May 2018 and has been supported by the Italian Society for Rheumatology.

Methods

Pregnant patients with a definite rheumatic disease according international criteria were enrolled up to gestational week (GW) 20. The course of maternal disease activity, the use of medications, fetal and maternal complications, and the quality of life (EuroQoL questionnaire) were collected for each trimester, as well as pregnancy outcome, mode of delivery, neonatal complications, and maternal and children’s follow-up to 6 months after delivery, including the screening for post-partum depression by means of EPDS (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale).

Results

As of December 2021, 758 pregnancies had been enrolled, 205 (27%) ongoing and 553 (73%) with outcome. Pregnancy loss occurred in 54 (9.8%) cases (40 spontaneous miscarriages; 6 voluntary terminations). Live births were 495 (89.5%), perinatal death occurred in 4 (0.7%) cases. Table 1 reports on the group of 495 live births, along with subgroups of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), the two most represented diseases. Regarding treatments, 166 (30%) pregnancies were exposed to corticosteroids, 239 (43%) to hydroxychloroquine, 59 (10.7%) to csDMARDs, 84 (15.2%) to TNF inhibitors, 1 (0.2%) to non-TNFi bDMARDs, 299 (54%) to low dose acetylsalicylic acid, and 126 (22.8%) to heparin.

Table 1.PREGNANCIES WITH LIVE BIRTHS, EXCLUDING PERINATAL DEATHSTotal pregnancies (n=495)RA pregnancies (n=69)SLE pregnancies (n=93)Age at conception (years)34 (31 - 37)34.5 (32 - 38)34 (31 - 36)Disease duration (years)6.1 (2.2 - 11.1)7.1 (4.3 - 11.6)9.3 (5.9 - 15.9)Caucasian431 (87.8%)53 (79.1%)75 (80.6%)Never smokers358 (73.8%)53 (80.3%)66 (71.7%)Body Mass Index >3045 (9.5%)7 (10.3%)5 (5.6%)Arterial Hypertension6 (1.2%)0 (0%)2 (2.2%)Time to pregnancy (months)3 (1 - 6)3 (1 - 6)3 (0 - 10)Physician-reported flares in the 12 months prior to conception107 (23%)22 (34.4%)13 (14.8%)Physician global assessment at enrolment (VAS 0-100)5 (0 - 17)5 (0 - 20)4 (0 - 10)Patient global health at enrolment (VAS 0-100)18 (7 - 30)10 (5 - 29)10 (5 - 25)EuroQoL at enrolment (-1.6 – 1)1 (0.8 - 1)1 (0.8 - 1)1 (0.8 - 1)Flares during pregnancy35 (7.1%)6 (8.7%)7 (7.5%)Hypertensive disturbances*8 (1.7%)1 (1.6%)6 (6.6%)Delivery at term (≥37 GW)410 (85.1%)53 (77.9%)74 (80.4%)Spontaneous vaginal delivery173 (35.9%)23 (33.8%)23 (25.3%)Congenital malformations11 (2.4%)2 (3.1%)1 (1.1%)Small for gestational age (SGA) neonate24 (4.9%)1 (1.4%)9 (9.9%)Breastfeeding in the first 4 weeks after delivery341 (79.7%)45 (77.6%)59 (76.6%)EPDS score at risk for post-partum depression22 (14.1%)0 (0%)3 (10.3%)

Continuous variables are expressed as median (interquartile range); *gestational hypertension/preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome/eclampsia.

Conclusion

Multiple factors may have contributed to the high rate of live births, including good disease control before and during pregnancy thanks to the use of anti-rheumatic drugs and low frequency of general risk factors. SLE pregnancy was affected by a higher frequency of complications (hypertensive disturbances, SGA babies) as compared to RA pregnancy. Nearly 80% of patients breastfed in the first month after delivery. For the first time, data about the screening questionnaire for post-partum depression were collected, showing at least 1 out 10 patients can be at risk.

References

[1]Meissner Y et al. Arthritis Res Ther;21(1):241; Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(1):49-56.

Acknowledgements

P-RHEUM.it study is supported by the Italian Society for Rheumatology (SIR). All the Investigators are acknowledged for their contribution.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

Caffeine and rheumatoid arthritis: A complicated relationship

The current ideal goal of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management is to resolve joint and systemic inflammation by using pharmacological interventions, assuming this will correspondingly lead to overall well-being. Nonetheless, it has emerged that a substantial number of RA patients do not reach optimal disease control. Thus suggesting the holistic management of subjective symptoms might be overlooked. This poses significant medical challenges; hence the proposal of incorporating lifestyle interventions as part of a multidimensional approach. Among these aspects, both patients and physicians perceive the important role of nutrition. This review shall examine how caffeine, one of the most studied bioactive components of the most widely consumed beverages, may potentially interfere with RA management. In particular, the mechanism by which caffeine affects RA pathogenesis, as a trigger for RA onset or flare, including its influence on rheumatic drug metabolism and the most common RA comorbidities and constitutional symptoms are outlined, highlighting important knowledge gaps and unmet research needs.

Retention of subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-world results from the ASCORE study: an international 2-year observational study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept over 2 years in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in the Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine clinical practicE (ASCORE) study.

METHODS

Patients with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were enrolled in the international, observational, prospective multicentre ASCORE study into biologic-naïve or ≥ 1 prior biologic failure cohorts.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response rates based on DAS28 (ESR), low disease activity and/or remission according to DAS28 (ESR; ≤ 3.2/ < 2.6), SDAI (≤ 11/ ≤ 3.3), CDAI (≤ 10/ ≤ 2.8), and Boolean criteria. Retention rate by baseline serostatus was evaluated post hoc.

RESULTS

Overall, 47% of patients remained on abatacept for 2 years, irrespective of treatment line. Higher abatacept retention rates were associated with lower prior biologic exposure. Generally, clinical outcomes showed that the proportion of patients with low disease activity/remission was higher in biologic-naïve patients (vs biologic-failure) and similar in those with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures. In patients on treatment at 2 years, good/moderate EULAR response rates of ~ 80% were consistently noted irrespective of prior biologic exposure. Across treatment lines, retention was greater in patients with seropositive (vs seronegative) RA. Patients with rheumatoid factor/anti-citrullinated protein antibody single-positive RA who were bio-naïve had higher retention than patients who were bio-experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ASCORE study, SC abatacept retention was 47% at 2 years with good clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting. Abatacept retention and clinical response rates were higher in patients who received abatacept as an earlier- versus later-line biologic drug treatment and in those with seropositive RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02090556.

P199 Clinical outcomes up to week 48 of ongoing filgotinib rheumatoid arthritis long-term extension trial of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs inadequate responders initially on filgotinib or placebo in a Phase 3 trial

Background/Aims

The preferential Janus kinase-1 inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) is approved to treat RA in Europe. We assessed FIL efficacy/safety in patients (pts) with inadequate response (IR) to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in a long-term extension trial (LTE; NCT03025308) enrolled from a Phase 3 parent study (PS; NCT02873936).

Methods

bDMARD-IR pts received FIL 200mg (FIL200), 100mg (FIL100), or placebo (PBO) and stable conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs up to 24 weeks (W). At W14 of the PS, pts with IR to FIL or PBO (&lt;20% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts) switched to standard of care (SOC). Pts completing PS on FIL, PBO, or SOC could enter LTE. PS FIL pts were maintained, blinded, on their FIL dose; PS PBO and SOC pts were rerandomized, blinded, to FIL200 or FIL100. We report efficacy up to LTE W48 for ACR20/50/70 improvement, DAS28[CRP] ≤3.2 and &lt;2.6, and CDAI ≤10 and ≤2.8. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR)/100 pt-years of exposure of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and AEs of special interest (AESIs) are summarized up to data cutoff of June 1, 2020.

Results

The PS included 147, 153, and 148 pts on FIL200, FIL100, and PBO. Of the FIL200 pts who entered LTE, 80/121 continued study drug at June 1, 2020, as did 76/110 FIL100 pts. Pts still on LTE FIL from PBO were 35/47 FIL200 and 32/46 FIL100 pts; from SOC: 13/23 FIL200 and 13/22 FIL100 pts. LTE baseline (BL) characteristics were similar in FIL200 and FIL100 pts (mean RA duration: 13.2 and 12.8 years, DAS28[CRP]: 3.5 and 3.7). During LTE, PS FIL ACR20/50/70 response rates decreased modestly by W48. Among PS PBO pts, response rates were lower at LTE BL but reached similar levels as PS FIL pts by W48; rates increased up to W48 in SOC/FIL pts (either dose) but not to levels of other groups. Percentages of pts attaining DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6, CDAI ≤10, and CDAI ≤2.8 were maintained up to W48 for FIL/FIL pts, while PBO/FIL and SOC/FIL pts showed similar patterns as for ACR responses. TEAE, serious AE, and serious infection EAIRs were higher in SOC/FIL pts vs FIL/FIL or PBO/FIL pts but samples were small, and confidence intervals overlapped. Five pts died: FIL200/FIL200, n = 3; PBO/FIL200, n = 1; FIL100/FIL100, n = 1. There were no opportunistic infections. EAIRs of MACE were low DVT/PE occurred in two FIL200/FIL200, one FIL100/FIL100, and one SOC/FIL200 pts.

Conclusion

Efficacy was mostly maintained in PS FIL pts up to W48. Response among PS PBO and SOC pts increased from BL to W48, but response in PS SOC pts continued to be lower than in other groups; these pts may represent a refractory population. FIL safety was largely consistent between PS and LTE.

Disclosure

M. Buch: Honoraria; reports research support, consulting, speaker or personal fees from AbbVie; Eli Lilly and Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Merck-Serono; Pfizer; Roche; Sanofi; and UCB. Grants/research support; received funding (paid to her host institution) for research from Gilead Gilead Sciences, Inc. T. Takeuchi: Consultancies; serving as a consultant for Astellas, Chugai, and Eli Lilly Japan. Member of speakers’ bureau; Speaker’s bureau AbbVie, AYUMI, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead Sciences, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer Japan, Sanofi, and Dainippon Sumitomo. Grants/research support; reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Shionogi, Takeda, and UCB Japan. V. Rajendran: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos NV. J. Gottenberg: Consultancies; serving as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; serving on a speaker’s bureau for Gilead Sciences, Inc., Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Co., Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. Grants/research support; reports receiving grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. A. Pechonkina: Other; employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and may own stock in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Y. Tan: Other; employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and may own stock in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Q. Gong: Other; employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and may own stock in Gilead Sciences, Inc. K. Van Beneden: Other; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos NV. R. Caporali: Honoraria; reports receiving speaker’s fees and consultation grants from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Gilead-Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung-Bioepis, Sanofi and UCB.

The Impact of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Multicentre Cohort Study

Vulnerable subjects, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, have been prioritised to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Few data about the safety of these vaccines in SLE are available. The aim of our study is to investigate the safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in SLE. We included 452 SLE patients, referring to seven tertiary centres, who were immunised. A total of 119 (26%) reported side effects (SE) after the first and/or the second shot (the most frequent SE were fever, local reaction, fatigue, and arthralgia). Patients with constitutional symptoms and those on an immunosuppressive regimen (especially belimumab) showed more SE. In addition, 19 (4%) had a flare after the immunisation (flares classified by organ involvement: six musculoskeletal with constitutional symptoms, four renal, three cardio-respiratory, three haematological, two mucocutaneous). None of the patients needed hospitalisation and none died. Moreover, 15 required a transient increase in corticosteroids and four were treated with steroid pulses. One patient required an additional rituximab course. Anti-dsDNA, moderate/high DAS before vaccine, and belimumab were found more frequently in patients with disease flare. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are safe in SLE patients, and they should be recommended in these patients, as the potential benefits widely outweigh the risk of SE. Treatment adjustment might be considered with the aim of minimising SE risk and flare.

Controversies in rheumatology: Ultrasound for monitoring of RA - do we need it?

Clinical joint examination is the cornerstone for evaluation of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, since large discrepancies have been shown even between experienced rheumatologists in evaluation of joint inflammation, and tender joints may have limited value in reflecting inflammation, ultrasound has in the last decennials been introduced in the clinical assessments of RA patients. Ultrasound has high accordance with other imaging modalities and enables detection of clinically difficult pathologies and contributes to assessments of joints difficult to evaluate clinically. However, there is no general agreement on the optimal use of ultrasound in rheumatology and the prevalence of machines as well as the level of experience is highly different across the countries. In addition, standardized use of ultrasound in treat-to-target follow-up of RA patients was found not to have any added value. Thus, how to use ultrasound in monitoring of RA patients is open for debate. The present article will discuss the pros and cons for using ultrasound in the clinical setting.

The Impact of Anti-rheumatic Drugs on the Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis: The MAINSTREAM Study

Objectives

Given the high occurrence of asymptomatic subsets, the true prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in rheumatic patients is still underestimated. This study aims to evaluate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) patients receiving immunomodulatory drugs.

Methods

All consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) evaluated between 4th May and 16th June 2020 were included. All participants were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA) by ELISA and were questioned about previous COVID-19 symptoms and clinical course. Results were compared with healthy population from the same region and with a control group of healthy subjects diagnosed with confirmed COVID-19.

Results

The study population includes 358 patients. The overall prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (18.4%) was higher than prevalence rate based on swab-positivity (1.12%) or clinically suspected cases (10.6%), but consistent with seroprevalence observed in the healthy population. Among seropositive patients 58% were asymptomatic. Mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 titer was comparable with the control group. No differences in seroprevalence were observed according to age, sex, rheumatic disease and treatment with conventional, biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs, whereas glucocorticoids and comorbidities resulted in higher seroprevalence rate.

Conclusions

The results of this study are reassuring about the low impact of RMDs and immunomodulatory therapies on the risk and clinical course of COVID-19 and on humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Beyond Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Anti-Phospholipid Syndrome: The Relevance of Complement From Pathogenesis to Pregnancy Outcome in Other Systemic Rheumatologic Diseases

Evidence about the relevance of the complement system, a highly conserved constituent of the innate immunity response that orchestrates the elimination of pathogens and the inflammatory processes, has been recently accumulated in many different rheumatologic conditions. In rheumatoid arthritis, complement, mainly the classical pathway, contributes to tissue damage especially in seropositive subjects, with complement activation occurring in the joint. Data about complement pathways in psoriatic arthritis are dated and poorly consistent; among patients with Sjögren syndrome, hypocomplementemia exerts a prognostic role, identifying patients at risk of extra-glandular manifestations. Hints about complement involvement in systemic sclerosis have been recently raised, following the evidence of complement deposition in affected skin and in renal samples from patients with scleroderma renal crisis. In vasculitides, complement plays a dual role: on one hand, stimulation of neutrophils with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) results in the activation of the alternative pathway, on the other, C5a induces translocation of ANCA antigens, favouring the detrimental role of antibodies. Complement deposition in the kidneys identifies patients with more aggressive renal disease; patients with active disease display low serum levels of C3 and C4. Even though in dermatomyositis sC5b-9 deposits are invariably present in affected muscles, data on C3 and C4 fluctuation during disease course are scarce. C3 and C1q serum levels have been explored as potential markers of disease activity in Takayasu arteritis, whereas data in Behçet disease are limited to in vitro observations. Pregnancies in women with rheumatologic conditions are still burdened by a higher rate of pregnancy complications, thus the early identification of women at risk would be invaluable. A fine-tuning of complement activation is required from a physiological progression of pregnancy, from pre-implantation stages, through placentation to labour. Complement deregulation has been implicated in several pregnancy complications, such as recurrent abortion, eclampsia and premature birth; low complement levels have been shown to reliably identify women at risk of complications. Given its physiologic role in orchestrating pregnancy progression and its involvement as pathogenic effector in several rheumatologic conditions, complement system is an attractive candidate biomarker to stratify the obstetric risk among women with rheumatologic conditions.

Pregnancy in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: maternal and foetal outcome, and impact on disease activity

Objective:

This retrospective cohort study describes the modulation of disease activity during gestation and in the year following delivery as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes in a monocentric cohort of women with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Methods:

Disease activity was assessed using DAS28-CRP before conception and every 3 months during pregnancy and in the first year postpartum. The risk of complicated pregnancies was measured applying a generalized estimating equation model. Changes in disease activity during gestation and in the first year postpartum were assessed in a linear mixed model for repeated measures.

Results:

Thirty-one women (49 pregnancies) with persisting JIA and at least one conception were enrolled. Adjusted DAS28-CRP levels remained stable from preconception through the first trimester, but increased significantly in the second and decreased not significantly in the third. In the postpartum, adjusted disease activity peaked at 3 months after delivery, stabilized at 6 months to decrease at 1 year, although not significantly. Preconceptional DAS28-CRP and number of biological drugs predicted disease activity fluctuation during gestation. The number of biological drugs and the length of gestational exposure to biologics significantly predicted pregnancy morbidity. In particular, JIA women had a higher probability of preterm delivery compared with healthy and disease controls. Adjusted for breastfeeding and DAS28-CRP score in the third trimester, postconceptional exposure to biologics was inversely related with disease activity in the postpartum: the longer the patient continued treatment, the lower the probability of experiencing an adverse pregnancy outcome.

Conclusion:

These data offer novel insights on how treatment affects disease activity during pregnancy and postpartum as well as obstetric outcomes in women with JIA.

Hyaluronic Acid Therapy in Hip OA Does Not Perform Equally in Osteoarthritis Secondary to Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis When Compared to Primary Osteoarthritis: A 2-Year Preliminary Evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Hip involvement in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is one of most important causes of pain and disability. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered the standard when medical approaches fail to relieve pain. However, THA is problematic for many reasons. As current literature lacks studies valuating medical management of osteoarthritis (OA) secondary to JIA, we assessed the long-term pain relief effect of US-guided intra-articular viscosupplementation in hip osteoarthritis secondary to JIA versus primary OA under different etiological conditions.

METHODS

Patients in both groups received intra-articular Hylan G-F 20 2 ml once a month for 3 consecutive months and every 6 months for 2 years as maintenance. Effectiveness (VAS and WOMAC), NSAID/analgesic consumption, tolerability, withdrawals and reason for discontinuation were collected at each time point. An inverse probability weighting was used to balance the two groups.

RESULTS

We retrospectively retrieved data of 14 JIA patients and 26 primary OA. Weighting successfully accounted for differences between the disease groups supporting the results. Viscosupplementation led to an early and significant improvement of pain and function and concomitant decrease in NSAIDs consumption, while the response diverged over 1 year with loss of benefits in JIA. The worst outcome was observed in active JIA.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of symptom relief after intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid depends on the nature of arthritis. Multiple courses of viscosupplementation are required to maintain low-dose NSAIDs consumption in patients responsive to treatment while shortening the time between consecutive injections might provide persistent positive results in patients suffering from JIA.